385 replies to this topic

[Blodo]

Well, yes I agree with Kal - capitalism is wrong. But to even try and adopt his anarchist ideas in the whole world simultaneously (and it would only work that way, so that there are no "greener heights" that would kill the effort) would require a few centuries and a few mortal cataclysms probably. Maybe there is a better plan to this that I don't know of and there is a way to do it faster, if so please explain how.

I'm thinking what could be done realistically. To be frank it wouldn't be all that hard to introduce the changes I'm proposing, so that's why I'm sharing them.

[Comrade Kal]

Why is it wrong?

[Allied General]

We just need a nuclear war or two.

A time where 100% of our lifes must be spent basically surviving like tribes people do.

We've been living in the excesses of wealth and its time a cleansing firestorm came along.

Quickest route I can think off

Edited by Allied General, 08 July 2006 - 08:35 PM.

[Comrade Kal]

A) Answer the question.
B) That wasn't what I said.

[Blodo]

It is wrong because it endorses the power of the rich. The corporations are lead by the most rich people in the world, and money is used as an indicator of status. If you're poor - you lose. You get worse health care, worse standards of living - sometimes you don't even get food and shelter which is outrageous. If you're rich - you win. You get everything.

It's all about the social policies. What exactly makes a fat-ass ceo better from a construction worker? I'd even argue the construction worker does much more work than him. And yet the construction worker gets treated worse.

That's only the tip of the iceberg though. I could go on through every policy that makes capitalism, and point out how it's so much wrong. How it is the biggest fraud, designed to make people believe that it provides freedom, when it's exactly the opposite. I would do that, but no one here reads long posts anywhere, so I'll just say that in an ideal world a community should be class-less and property-less. But it's too distant at the moment, and preparations are needed instead of looking how to bring it on right now - where it would fail, and the effort would be useless.

[Allied General]

nuclear war solve the time lag though

its a valid arguement.

also how do you argue a invalid and a construction worker? ...

everything you talked about blodo is simply a twisted version of survival of the fittest. (capitalism)

Edited by Allied General, 08 July 2006 - 08:48 PM.

[Comrade Kal]

Apart from the deaths of billions of people. Socialism is all about preserving life.

[Tom]

A full free market with no restrictions will always lead to exploitation. I will not deny that humans are corrupt, we wallow in our own corruption and illusions, then we call these illusions truth. Wealth and power are merely illusions, they mean nothing when your dead yet we still choose to persue such desires. With a full free market you will get exploitation because people will do what they can to gain more power. Corporations will buy corporations and become supercorporations thus centralising power economically. Once the state buys these corporations or the corporations become the state you have full control over the economic market and you can create "subsocieties" like today in which you have full power and manipulation over yet with the illusion that these "sub societies" are also free. These happened long ago and this is why the world is being manipulated by the hidden hand.

Either way it comes down to human corruption, to overcome corruption or the illusions/ignorance that causes corrupt you need either faith or discipline. I do have an open view and i agree with much of what AG says but i also agree with Kals ideas, however Kals ideas could not happen now, not yet, not until man stands up and recognises its illusions and then dismisses them to become one again. This is what i believe the "second coming" symbolises in christianity, us returning to where we should be. This doesn't mean their will be anarchy or will not be corruption, there will still be the fallen minority, but hopefully the "average" people will begin to take more responsibility rather than pass it off in ignorance to the ruling elites and the hidden hand.

[Silent_Killa]

@Blodo: You have to understand though, you still have someone in control of production. All governments eventually become corrupt. When you have the government controling production, nothings to stop them from going Stalin on you and starving a few million to death. However, if a company can't produce goods, they go out of bussiness to be replaced by another company that can.

In all eventuality I believe that increase in education will lead to a workers revolution of sorts in which the workers figure out that instead of being simple unions, by pooling their money and influence they could buy the company or even start their own. Hence the corporations would be owned by the people.

[Tom]

@Blodo: You have to understand though, you still have someone in control of production. All governments eventually become corrupt. When you have the government controling production, nothings to stop them from going Stalin on you and starving a few million to death. However, if a company can't produce goods, they go out of bussiness to be replaced by another company that can.

True but then again john, thats why the people should take responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen, as we should do. The lack of responsibility and the ignorance is what is allowing it to happen today.

In all eventuality I believe that increase in education will lead to a workers revolution of sorts in which the workers figure out that instead of being simple unions, by pooling their money and influence they could buy the company or even start their own. Hence the corporations would be owned by the people.

100% agreed, education is where it starts. Hostile talks of this idea all the time and i totally agree with him. If people were educated economically, politically and philosphically then i'm quite sure capitalism would naturally balance out, but this is unlikely to happen if people don't take the responsibility to make it happen. They would rather live in ignorance and leave such things to the ruling elite. When this happens the elite gather more and more power and eventually become corrupt. Power corrupts.

[MSpencer]

And when the people buy corporations, they become the corporations themselves. The leaders of corporations have mainly been those who were not born into higher classes, but worked hard and got to where they are.

[Blodo]

@Blodo: You have to understand though, you still have someone in control of production. All governments eventually become corrupt. When you have the government controling production, nothings to stop them from going Stalin on you and starving a few million to death. However, if a company can't produce goods, they go out of bussiness to be replaced by another company that can.

Thats why I support Electronic Direct Democracy.

But that aside, you have to know that companies also tend to try and establish monopolies. They can then control the price for everything.
There's is also the fact that all goods are always tried to be produced at a lower price than the competitor. This allows things that barely work into the market, which are sold out before people actually take a grasp of how shit it is, the company that makes better goods for more money goes out of business and people are stuck with the lower quality product. And then it happens again. It's perpetual, and it's one of the biggest downfalls of capitalism. The ever deteriorating product quality. The best example is food, and how the mad cow disease spread. Because it's cheaper to feed animals the remains of other animals. In return we get a product that is not even natural anymore. And we are forced to use it because nobody makes it quality, or they cost a fortune to buy.

[Tom]

They might have worked hard but it doesn't give them the right to begin buying the government. The people should know this yet they are too brainwashed by the media to care or even know, then they seek to blame others for their ignorance.

[Comrade Kal]

And when the people buy corporations, they become the corporations themselves. The leaders of corporations have mainly been those who were not born into higher classes, but worked hard and got to where they are.

!!!!BOLLOCKS!!!!


Straight from Monbiot...

"A survey published in April by the economist Tom Hertz showed that the United States has one of the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility in the rich world{3). A child born into a poor family has a 1% chance of growing up to become one of the richest 5%, while a child born into a wealthy family has a 22% chance. Another study, published by Business Week, found that in 1978 23% of adult men whose fathers were in the bottom quartile made it into the top quartile. In 2004 the figure was 10%(4). But reality and public perceptions are travelling in opposite directions. A poll for the New York Times published in 2005 showed that 80% of respondents thought it was possible for poor people to become wealthy by working hard. In 1983 the figure was only 60%(5).

Hertz noted that “among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States”. In April the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study showing that UK citizens in their 30s today are twice as likely to be stuck in the same economic class as their parents than people born 10 years earlier(6)."

Edited by Comrade Kal, 08 July 2006 - 11:07 PM.

[narcismo316]

I am a communist.

I see it as the only way of creating a completely fair society, and the only way to creating a near-perfect society.

But people disagree with me. I've heard several arguments against it, lots of people disagree with the principles, don't think it can be done, whatever. Not everyone is a communist.

But why are people scared of communism? Many people seem to have an irrational fear of communism, even more than the fear of fascism. Is this more than simply cold-war propaganda? To the Hostiles of this forum - what's to fear with communism? You have your right to disagree, but why fear it? Why do communist countries deserve to be attacked? They're generally quite peaceful once they've been established, and America was by far the biggest aggressor in the cold war.

Quite simply - why are you so terrified of it?

not scared or terrified, just seems like only the form of gov. only poor people would want.

I am a communist.

I see it as the only way of creating a completely fair society, and the only way to creating a near-perfect society.

But people disagree with me. I've heard several arguments against it, lots of people disagree with the principles, don't think it can be done, whatever. Not everyone is a communist.

But why are people scared of communism? Many people seem to have an irrational fear of communism, even more than the fear of fascism. Is this more than simply cold-war propaganda? To the Hostiles of this forum - what's to fear with communism? You have your right to disagree, but why fear it? Why do communist countries deserve to be attacked? They're generally quite peaceful once they've been established, and America was by far the biggest aggressor in the cold war.

Quite simply - why are you so terrified of it?

not scared or terrified, just seems like only the form of gov. only poor people would want.

move to a different country! and shut up! fair enough?

Edited by narcismo316, 10 July 2006 - 05:38 AM.

[Silent_Killa]

Thats why I support Electronic Direct Democracy.

Which has it's own set of problems... primarily that it's inefficient to have people vote on every single little issue. Not to mention that most people have no idea what it takes to run a country, when you go down that path you end up with low taxes and lots of social programs, which really don't work well together.

But that aside, you have to know that companies also tend to try and establish monopolies. They can then control the price for everything.
There's is also the fact that all goods are always tried to be produced at a lower price than the competitor. This allows things that barely work into the market, which are sold out before people actually take a grasp of how shit it is, the company that makes better goods for more money goes out of business and people are stuck with the lower quality product. And then it happens again. It's perpetual, and it's one of the biggest downfalls of capitalism. The ever deteriorating product quality. The best example is food, and how the mad cow disease spread. Because it's cheaper to feed animals the remains of other animals. In return we get a product that is not even natural anymore. And we are forced to use it because nobody makes it quality, or they cost a fortune to buy.

I'd say that example serves my point more than yours, you see, such practices are either outlawed or simply not done in the beef industry because nobody will buy beef that could have mad cow disease. However, in socialism the government has absolute control, things like this could be covered up quite easily with them controling the media as well as the company.

"A survey published in April by the economist Tom Hertz showed that the United States has one of the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility in the rich world{3). A child born into a poor family has a 1% chance of growing up to become one of the richest 5%, while a child born into a wealthy family has a 22% chance. Another study, published by Business Week, found that in 1978 23% of adult men whose fathers were in the bottom quartile made it into the top quartile. In 2004 the figure was 10%(4). But reality and public perceptions are travelling in opposite directions. A poll for the New York Times published in 2005 showed that 80% of respondents thought it was possible for poor people to become wealthy by working hard. In 1983 the figure was only 60%(5).

Hertz noted that “among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States”. In April the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study showing that UK citizens in their 30s today are twice as likely to be stuck in the same economic class as their parents than people born 10 years earlier(6)."

No, a poor person most likely won't make it into the top 5%... I mean, come on, lets be realistic here. However, it is very possible for them to make their way up to at least middle class and live comfortably.

[MSpencer]

If you have direct democracy, you're just begging for people to start running propaganda machines. Already, political commercials flood the airwaves with false promises near election day, but if you had direct democracy, special interest groups, lobbyists, and political parties would all put up differing ads to try and get you to vote their way, and they'd probably offer incentives, so the richest company would win automatically every time.

[Comrade Kal]

I was disproving MSpencer, who seems to think that the top 5% was made up entirely of former poor people.

[Blodo]

Thats why I support Electronic Direct Democracy.

Which has it's own set of problems... primarily that it's inefficient to have people vote on every single little issue. Not to mention that most people have no idea what it takes to run a country, when you go down that path you end up with low taxes and lots of social programs, which really don't work well together.

I suppose this opinion is due to your lackluster understanding of the subject. I'll just point out - the people do not have to decide on everything. A referendum is only formed when a change that will impact the state is considered, they don't hold one when they want to vote over whether we build 10 more tractors or not - they hold one when things such as a health program reformme are on the table. That is why its called EDD not collectivism or anarchism. The government still does it's job.

I'd say that example serves my point more than yours, you see, such practices are either outlawed or simply not done in the beef industry because nobody will buy beef that could have mad cow disease. However, in socialism the government has absolute control, things like this could be covered up quite easily with them controling the media as well as the company.

Before however the fact that this company produces rotten meat is uncovered, hundreds will die as was the case in Europe recently. Does that stop anyone from halting the so called "meat factories" which are producing shit quality food all this time, and still their CEOs are thinking on cutting expenses? Of course we can buy natural food, if we are loaded with money that is. Is it just me or does that seem outrageous?

If you have direct democracy, you're just begging for people to start running propaganda machines. Already, political commercials flood the airwaves with false promises near election day, but if you had direct democracy, special interest groups, lobbyists, and political parties would all put up differing ads to try and get you to vote their way, and they'd probably offer incentives, so the richest company would win automatically every time.

That is why I said a couple of posts ago, this is the first thing that should be targetted. The elimination of the mass media from the political wheel. They are only serving for propaganda and brainwashing because of the extreme appeal tactics they are using. It's too easy to buy yourself 100% effective publicity, since everyone has a TV set nowadays. I hope I don't have to say how easily people get duped by things they see on TV.

[Cossack]

I agree with Blodo. Big business should be run by the government. The government would gain the profits (rather than a few billionaires), and would in turn give it back to the people through services. I am not a communist, only a socialist. I don't think everybody should make the same amount of money, and I am not against complete private ownership. I simply think that the corperations where the largest amount of money is made (oil and natural ressource production for example) should be state run.