385 replies to this topic

[Comrade Kal]

What do you mean? The guy who studies gets the same as the guy who doesn't. It's perfectly simple. Everyone WILL be of the same status in a communist society.

And people WILL study. We can see that in Britain - I could quit school now and become a plumber in a couple of months and earn £80,000 a year. I could stay on and become a doctor after 6 years of study and earn £40,000 a year. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I, AND COUNTLESS OTHERS, ARE DOING?

Edited by Kal, 04 January 2006 - 02:10 AM.

[MSpencer]

So are we going to hold guns to people's heads to force them to go to college, or are we just going to shoot those who aren't communists? You can't forcefully motivate someone by putting them at the other end of a pistol and telling them they'll be thankful they accepted your political system before letting them know they're going to be a quack doctor of biochemistry. Communism leaves no room for free will.

[Comrade Kal]

We're not shooting anyone. PEOPLE WILL STUDY. I have just proved that with an example more extreme than communism as now the unskilled labourer earns MORE. I've just proved that. Why are you disregarding it?

[Hostile]

It does not appear I'd like to live in the world Kal described. Appears a make believe world where we are all equal, though we know we are not.

Appears to create a power vacuum at the top. So who is supposed to run this machine you call socilaism? And what country am I supposed to avoid to make sure I live in, to avoid "your world vision"

I don't want to live in a socialist country. You can't make me....

[MSpencer]

Because plumbers are a percentage roughly equal to that of doctors. Factory workers don't make as much. And it depends on where you work as a doctor also.

[Comrade Kal]

But i'm giving you an example where people are aware of a much shorter option to earn much more money. It doesn't depend where you work as a doctor here because we have the NHS. Doctors wages are relatively low here. The fact is, people will not want to 'waste themselves' plumbing when they could be a doctor, even if it means LESS money, let alone the same wage.

Hostile, when communism is achieved, it's autonamous. Nobody is in control, it runs itself.

[Hostile]

Hostile, when communism is achieved, it's autonamous. Nobody is in control, it runs itself.

When we see that day, it's welcome back to the middle ages. Is this what you really want. A return to middle ages where the so caled "equals" run things.

This ideaology seriously makes me sad. Use soclisim is to pretend humanity, well be better off. sigh..... ok you all win.

but while I was here I stated my case...

[Kazyumi]

Offtopic: Whats so bad about a new middle-ages then Hostile? Apart from the lack of luxurity, apart from all the shit we really dont need?
Heh, if you'd ask me I wouldn't mind having to live like the cavemen lived, with the knowledge I have today..

[Blodo]

An industrialised society is the way to go i always said. In todays world a perfect representation would be possible, we have the technology to allow the elimination of politicians, instead allowing everyone to vote on things. Every citizen could be able to lets say: vote from his computer. And that would make representation, because we wouldn't rely on others to transmit our ideas where they may get twisted. We would apply the ideology ourselves. Thus the people would have power, and an ultimate democracy would be formed. An institution on proposing new laws could be formed, while the whole government could be dissolved. There, another socialist idea proves doable.

It's amazing how people don't see that the human race - we are the gods. You are all gods because you can do anything you want and nothing can stop you excluding another human being. If we all accept an idea, this idea will be integrated into the society, no matter how ridiculous it may seem on first sight.

Hostile: you know what's the difference between the middle ages and the modern world? Information. People are informed enough thru mass media that all they need is the means to participate and a one party society is possible where everyone would be the party. Everyone would represent himself, it would be the perfect democracy as i said above.

[Mr.Graffitti]

Im just 13, and I dont think Im prepared enough to fully understand these types of conversations, however I would like to post my opinion.

I think that the human society will always fall, not becuase it's organization, but about the people whose have been educated in an incorrect way or people that will disagree.
In the democracy, people whose have been prepared for years and have the needed knowledge to assume control of a group of individuals can be the future leader of a community. However, knowledge isnt enough, you need wisdom and vocation to know how to use that knowledge, but that's what most people don't see, and that's why most democratic communities don't reach what they seek, a peaceful and free world.
An efficient leader would be able to eradicate the crime and drive the community to a common goal. Unless you find the right leader, the democratic society will always collapse.

In the ancient greece, the communism was linked to the ''golden age of humans'', in which all humanity would live in peace, harmony and equality.
Such society will never be reached, the industrialization corrupts the people's mind, it spreads subliminal messages that affect's the person's believings.
The internet is full with millions of other people's ideas, which can help you create your own personality or destroy your ideologies.

In fact, a perfect society will never be reached. The actual human mind dont allow it.

Edited by Mr.Graffitti, 04 January 2006 - 04:02 PM.

[Ash]

I'm amazed this piece of working flew right over everyones head with no response. So how does a society conduct itself with no currency? Will I get a rice voucher? And if I do what makes that any differant than currency? What if I don't like your rice or want to buy rice in another country, my voucher won't do anything.

Hostile, as well as being seemingly unable to grasp what Kal has been trying to tell you, you don't seem to understand the concept of communism. Perhaps that comes with being capitalist to the core. Perhaps I can make it clearer.

Communism DOES NOT HAVE A CURRENCY OF ANY TYPE. Be it a rice token, the Rouble, the Dinar or the dollar. You work for all your community. The job you do fulfils a role the community requires. Everyone else does likewise in their own particular trades or job roles. And all reap the benefits of their own, and each other's work.

Currency is a medium of exchange. This is common knowledge and impossible to elminate without waking up in the bronze age. How can everyone be expected to work the same for the same pay. Do you expect your leader of state to work 10 hours in the field?

Can't run a country that way...

Currency is a medium of exchange. It doesn't do or mean anything. It's a piece of paper which the current society has given a 'value'. In reality, if you look at it, it has equal value to the christmas card you just threw away. We have attributed some warped value to it.

What you don't seem to get into your head, is that Communism, true Communism, operates without a medium of exchange at all. If you absolutely must attribute one, the community itself is the medium of exchange. You work for it, and it pays you with everything you need, just as it does everyone.

Everyone can be expected to work in their own vocation and trade, because for one thing, it is in their interest to do so. One has only to bring the people around to the idea that they are working not for some token, but instead they are working for the good of their community. In essence, they are working for each other as much as for themselves. Selfish (Capitalist) becomes Selfless. As a result, all people become loving and giving. And in giving a bit of work, they receive a share of the benefits of everyone else's work. And everyone else does likewise, and gets likewise.

Seems fair enough to me.

If everything is for free, than what about those who produce less in thier work due to less proficient work ability.

Due to the changed mindset, everyone will work to the best of their ability. Whether one is more proficient or not is irrelevant. Were I a capitalist business owner, I would take on the guy who works harder but is less good a tthe job than the guy who is better but does fuck all. I think that's the general consensus. The point is, as long as one works a fair day's work in his or her chosen vocation (whatever that may be, and it can change, but we'll get onto that), he or she reaps the benefits. If you are a deliberately weak link in the chain, society will view you much as it does now; as a freeloader, and you will be scorned and probably will go without.

So you see, not much actually changes. The only difference is, in Communism there's no reason not to work. Everyone gets to do more or less what it is they want to do, and in return for their 'payment to society' in the form of their work, they receive a much greater return.

If you must look at it in a capitalistic fashion, EVERYBODY PROFITS. So you see, it's not so bad.

And how does one get rewarded for doing more work than what is expected of them? Going back to the bold words in your post, than this has to be done with currency, or some form resembling it.

If I work two more hours do I get another bag of rice? But what if I do more in two hours than another person. Will my bag of rice be the same size?

And how many bags of rice do I have to pay for broadband internet access? All these questions are answered through currency, a standardized medium of exchange. Not to be horded but to be exchanged for services and goods.

You're still operating on the logic of working FOR something. You're totally missing the point altogether here. Everyone gets broadband, or whatever the fuck it is they need. If you work two more hours than someone, or do more than someone else in the same time, you don't just get a bag of rice. Just like the other guy, you reap the rewards of everyone else's work. Having your mindset, you've gained nothing. But from a Communist point of view, the society is more productive due to your extra work. In a Communist society, that is reward enough. If you are more productive, and everyone else is, the rewards and benefits become greater. As a result, EVERYBODY BENEFITS. EVERYBODY PROFITS.
That's incentive enough to work more in my book.

Or used to buy assets that produce positive cash flow. Positive cash flow of what? Simply more coming in than going out. So we can buy bigger houses to accommidate the larger families as our life moves on.

I can't be expected to live in the same size house as I used to if I have more babies, I also can't be rewarded more living space based on me having more babies. What If me and my wife can't have babies, than we are forced into smaller accommidations despite our ability to reproduce? I just don't see how it could work.

No, but since the builders are operating under the same system, their building you a bigger house or an extention will be benefiting the community. If you look at it in terms of a bank account that's gaining interest, while a Communist community might start out a little basic and having a bit of a struggle on, everyone working to its benefit will only make it better for everyone. Everyone will become 'rich' and lavish, and everyone will have things of wonderful quality. Everyone gets a house as big as they need because the builders will build them. These lavishly housed people will, to benefit their society, be working in whatever trades they do. Farming, manufacturing, whatever. So the builder gets back what he put in, plus interest. As does the whole community.

It's all about mindset, Hostile. You can't do Communism thinking like a Capitalist. However, I can make Communism appear like Capitalism quite easily. My above paragraphs have surely made the idea seem more palatable to you.

As Kal said, every system with welfare is subject to the same issues with people having lots of kids to leech off the system. Communism actually would have the best solution. Instead of the parent freeloading, the builder will probably do better out of the deal. As will the community. The children will grow up, join their chosen vocation or trade (probably whatever their mum or dad did, but hey, there are always people who want to do something else). They will apprentice under those already skilled in the trades, and will go on themselves to be productive members of the society.

You see, that's the beauty of it. Education would be infinitely better. All lessons except English and Maths, and would be eliminated, and even they would only be taught until about the age of ten. Due to the massive focus on them, the 10-year-olds would be way more proficient at both than the 10-year-olds of today. Throw them in various life skills which will serve them whatever they do (Computer skills, cooking, domestics, etc), and we have budding little productive people ready to go. From the age of ten, they would go into an apprenticeship if they wanted to be something in particular. There, they study that profession from those who are already proficient, and become proficient themselves. If they find that it is not really for them, they can switch at any time and study something new. Just as any member of the society can.
For those who are unsure, there's always what one would today describe as 'unskilled labour'.

The beauty is, everyone's encouraged to fulfil whatever potential they set for themselves, and all would be eager to go out there and do it. Even if they are creatives at heart, a writer or actor need never 'work' a day in their lives. Their entertainment of the society is their contribution to the society. And since everyone is free to reap the benefits of their entertainment (the work is theirs, but is distributed as 'freeware', if you will), creativity is not stunted. Not everyone is inclined in that way, nor gifted in it, and so they have ample work opportunities. And nobody would be out of work, nor forced to sit a trillion exams.

But I don't want to be told how much food I can buy. :( or told how much space I can live in. Maybe I don't want to be told how to live my life. Maybe I want it measured based on what my capabilites are and what i can produce.

You aren't buying food, though. Nor is anyone telling you how you can live your life. You can do whatever the fuck you want, so long as you're working. Your work benefits the community and so the community benefits you in accordance. You think too capitalist, and so nothing Kal or I say will ever sink in to you. You, my friend, are the reason Communism can't work.

Sorry, but your system is scarey. It forces me to live a way I don't want to...
Like a robot. All equal when I know that all are not equal because each has thier own strengths and weakneses.

You're scared of being able to be free to choose your job as much as you choose your hairstyle. Now, if you're seen as unqualified, you can't do it. In my system, if you're unqualified, you simply apprentice with someone who is and learn it. You get to play to your own strengths.
What's scary about that?

While not special, definately some are more qualified or equal than others. Should MM get more rice based on his job. Of course.

Blodo, you and I are not equal, as there are many things you can do that I cannot. Yet there are things I have done that you cannot.

In order to make all things equal there must be a medium of exchange. IMO. We can choose to not agree. That is fine also. I can except that.

If there is a medium of exchange, it will ALWAYS put someone above someone else. Money = power. My system means that there is no money, and ergo is no power. Nobody is 'above' anyone else. While there are things you can't do that I can, and vice versa, that renders us more or less equal.

Just as the fact that we both breathe the same air, still feel the same thing if we dunk our hand in scalding water, still hate getting kicked in the bollocks. Your shit doesn't come out a different colour from mine, so why the hell should you be any better off? You're human, as am I. Under Communism, your profession benefits me just as much as it does you. And vice versa.

I do see the reality that not are all created equal.

Only because the current situation and society dictates so.

Where does one draw the line on who's in control? In an equal society, who exactly makes these decisions for us? These equal decisions. And who decides who these people are? Are they democraticlly elected?

Nobody decides them, because there is nobody to decide them. The society is autonomous. Once it's going, it stays going indefinitely. Everyone becomes better and better off until perhaps it reaches a peak and stabilises, since there is always a limiting factor.

It does not appear I'd like to live in the world Kal described. Appears a make believe world where we are all equal, though we know we are not.

Appears to create a power vacuum at the top. So who is supposed to run this machine you call socilaism? And what country am I supposed to avoid to make sure I live in, to avoid "your world vision"

I don't want to live in a socialist country. You can't make me....

Read above. And I refuse to dignify this attitude with a response. I do hope my quotation monologue has made things infinitely clearer. I don't see how it returns us to the middle ages. Infact, it'd probably advance the human race, as it's finally got out of the 'Every man for himself' situation it currently is, and has advanced to what Tom would call the next level. People would have finally learned the valuable lesson. How to fucking get along.

[duke_Qa]

its all a bit too utopian for me the "true communism", and that comes from a guy who lives in a country which is more socialistic than any other in the west.

but then again im a liberal and i get annoyed when i see stuff which would reduce the rights of the individual. As far as im concerned, you can't be a individual in such a system.
making everyone equal in how much they get, but not how much they work and what demands that kind of work needs to be done.
it's not gonna work as long as we have Envy, Gluttony, Greed, Lust, Pride, Sloth, and Wrath to worry about. naturally those definitions are heavily theological, but they are good examples of stuff that would mess up for such a society within a generation.

In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should take a merely defensive role by protecting the liberty of each individual to act as he wishes as long he does not infringe on the same liberty of another. This contrasts with collectivist political theories where, rather than leaving the individual to pursue his own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the interests of society when taken as a whole. It also contrasts with fascism, where the individual is required to serve the interests of the state.

hmm, interesting, i went to wikipedia and looked up individualism, and basically i found out that your kind of rule would have more resemblances with fascism than any other to this day. not that im putting it against you as persons, but its something to worry about.

besides, i've never really heard that communists wanted to abolish currency. they wanted equal opportunities for every man and equal worth for every man who makes money(although the man with more talent makes more money i would believe), but that doesnt mean that money should be removed, does it?

[Comrade Kal]

Communism can be described as Marx's theory and absolutely nothing else. If you don't understand what that is then you don't understand what communism is.

[Ash]

Sure it does. Money = Power. If people have more money than others, then surely logic runs that they use this to get one over.

I don't see how the society I described, which is, if you like, true Communism (nothing like it has ever been done, and I feel my idea is probably easier to stomach than Marx's stuff)...I don't see how it stops you being individual. I already said you're perfectly free to pursue whatever career path you choose. The difference is the way you go about it. If you're not happy with being a dentist, hell, quit that job and go apprentice under an electrician, and become a master electrician, instead.

I see that as free. I'd rather that than have the likes of Ronnie O' Sullivan, who, and hats off to the guy for being so skilled at what he does, has never worked a day in his life. He gets paid millions for playing snooker. I don't see any particular hazard in that line of work.
I feel bad for using this brilliant guy as an example, but not everybody DOES get paid according to their merit.

Besides, if people WANT to be something, and have a true VOCATION, the point is that it wouldn't MATTER how much they got paid. The fact that matters to them is the burning desire to fulfil that ambition.

Greed, Gluttony and Envy are the three that really count in this world. They're instantly obliterated as soon as Communism sets in.

Lust...what the fuck is wrong with lust? Besides, I don't think it's going to hurt a communist society, if somebody sleeps around.

Sloth would be solved by the society changing the mindset completely. By NOT working, you are to the detriment of the society, whose membership will immediately look upon you with ill favour. And in such a tight-knit society, nobody wants that.

Pride is a good thing. You would be proud of the community you'd worked to be a part of. Again, the selfishness has become selflessness.

[Comrade Kal]

Quite. Lust is only a moral sin, it doesn't really harm anyone. Communism definately makes people more individual and free than in any other society because it is a social system as well as a political one. It destroys the ties that capitalist society keeps you enslaved with.

[Hostile]

Hostile, as well as being seemingly unable to grasp what Kal has been trying to tell you, you don't seem to understand the concept of communism. Perhaps that comes with being capitalist to the core. Perhaps I can make it clearer.

To be honest, I was playing abit stupid on purpose. I understand what you are saying. It just seems as plausible as Adam and Eve starting humanity as a race.

Communism DOES NOT HAVE A CURRENCY OF ANY TYPE. Be it a rice token, the Rouble, the Dinar or the dollar. You work for all your community. The job you do fulfils a role the community requires. Everyone else does likewise in their own particular trades or job roles. And all reap the benefits of their own, and each other's work.

Than I would be a Thinker, that would be my job. Sit and think and get my free meal. The system is too easily abused. If I was in this world and found my co-worker being a lazy tard, than simply kill him. Who would miss him? They'll just bring another warm body. Than people would work harder in fear of such action. Wait? Naw that's soviet/chinese communism. MY bad.

Currency is a medium of exchange. It doesn't do or mean anything. It's a piece of paper which the current society has given a 'value'. In reality, if you look at it, it has equal value to the christmas card you just threw away. We have attributed some warped value to it.

Over statement of the obvious...

What you don't seem to get into your head, is that Communism, true Communism, operates without a medium of exchange at all. If you absolutely must attribute one, the community itself is the medium of exchange. You work for it, and it pays you with everything you need, just as it does everyone.

What you don't take into account is the while method works great for bees and other insects, it simply isn't the way humans are designed. Human beings are more unique as an animal because of our strong sense and understanding of the concept of "self."

You are trully the only person in "your" conscious world. You only get a glimpse of the presence of other people through sight, sound, touch, and speech. To be honest though, you trully are only real person in your closed world of self consciousness, unless you're a split personality I suppose.

By nature AND instincts, people are driven by personal needs more despite our also lesser natural social instinct. We are only partially social and mostly in self thought.

Everyone can be expected to work in their own vocation and trade, because for one thing, it is in their interest to do so. One has only to bring the people around to the idea that they are working not for some token, but instead they are working for the good of their community. In essence, they are working for each other as much as for themselves. Selfish (Capitalist) becomes Selfless. As a result, all people become loving and giving. And in giving a bit of work, they receive a share of the benefits of everyone else's work. And everyone else does likewise, and gets likewise.

While you'd think you could expect someone to work. You also have to realise, there are some seriously lazy people out there. If you deny food to the obviously lazy, than essentially it's slavery. "Work or die mofo!"

But what if one chooses to be a hermit and not ask "the system" for anything, they just choose to live as a hermit? Are they still obligated to giving thier meager self grown food to the food police when they raid?

If not, than what is stopping this hermit from taking his extra food and give it to the lazy people so they can eat? If he did this would he be breakinbg the law?

Due to the changed mindset, everyone will work to the best of their ability. Whether one is more proficient or not is irrelevant. Were I a capitalist business owner, I would take on the guy who works harder but is less good a tthe job than the guy who is better but does fuck all. I think that's the general consensus. The point is, as long as one works a fair day's work in his or her chosen vocation (whatever that may be, and it can change, but we'll get onto that), he or she reaps the benefits. If you are a deliberately weak link in the chain, society will view you much as it does now; as a freeloader, and you will be scorned and probably will go without.

Do they go without, or probably go with out? The answer to that is very important... If they do go without, than one has to ask "What if they are only half lazy?" Do they only get half rations? And who decies who is lazy or not. The lazy police? I hope you're beginning to see where I am going here.

So you see, not much actually changes. The only difference is, in Communism there's no reason not to work. Everyone gets to do more or less what it is they want to do, and in return for their 'payment to society' in the form of their work, they receive a much greater return.

I agree nothing will change, people will be people whether they are born in a communist country or not. Only physical brutality will "force" a human to go against instincts.

If you must look at it in a capitalistic fashion, EVERYBODY PROFITS. So you see, it's not so bad.

We definately are not reading from the same page. That makes no sense.

You're still operating on the logic of working FOR something. You're totally missing the point altogether here. Everyone gets broadband, or whatever the fuck it is they need. If you work two more hours than someone, or do more than someone else in the same time, you don't just get a bag of rice. Just like the other guy, you reap the rewards of everyone else's work. Having your mindset, you've gained nothing. But from a Communist point of view, the society is more productive due to your extra work. In a Communist society, that is reward enough. If you are more productive, and everyone else is, the rewards and benefits become greater. As a result, EVERYBODY BENEFITS. EVERYBODY PROFITS.
That's incentive enough to work more in my book.

You quoted this from Mother Goose didn't you? While it's very honourable, unfortunately real life people don't instinctively behave this way. Unless you MAKE them.

No, but since the builders are operating under the same system, their building you a bigger house or an extention will be benefiting the community. If you look at it in terms of a bank account that's gaining interest, while a Communist community might start out a little basic and having a bit of a struggle on, everyone working to its benefit will only make it better for everyone. Everyone will become 'rich' and lavish, and everyone will have things of wonderful quality. Everyone gets a house as big as they need because the builders will build them. These lavishly housed people will, to benefit their society, be working in whatever trades they do. Farming, manufacturing, whatever. So the builder gets back what he put in, plus interest. As does the whole community.

I officially give you Venus to do that on. I here the realestate there is just "HOT". I'd also reduce your intake of ecstacy abit. Because that last rant was just bananas off the scale.

It's all about mindset, Hostile. You can't do Communism thinking like a Capitalist. However, I can make Communism appear like Capitalism quite easily. My above paragraphs have surely made the idea seem more palatable to you.

You can't do Communism thinking like a unbrainwashed human. It's appearing you can make anything you want appear, whether anyone else can see that is questionable. You don't also have invisible friends do you?

As Kal said, every system with welfare is subject to the same issues with people having lots of kids to leech off the system. Communism actually would have the best solution. Instead of the parent freeloading, the builder will probably do better out of the deal. As will the community. The children will grow up, join their chosen vocation or trade (probably whatever their mum or dad did, but hey, there are always people who want to do something else). They will apprentice under those already skilled in the trades, and will go on themselves to be productive members of the society.

Lazy parents raise lazy children, how do you solve that? Through National child raising! We certainly don't want lazy parents to be allowed to raise lazy childern. Now do we? Not good for "The Party."

You see, that's the beauty of it. Education would be infinitely better. All lessons except English and Maths, and would be eliminated, and even they would only be taught until about the age of ten. Due to the massive focus on them, the 10-year-olds would be way more proficient at both than the 10-year-olds of today. Throw them in various life skills which will serve them whatever they do (Computer skills, cooking, domestics, etc), and we have budding little productive people ready to go. From the age of ten, they would go into an apprenticeship if they wanted to be something in particular. There, they study that profession from those who are already proficient, and become proficient themselves. If they find that it is not really for them, they can switch at any time and study something new. Just as any member of the society can.
For those who are unsure, there's always what one would today describe as 'unskilled labour'.

How does a 10 year old know what they want to be when they grow up unless they are programed to be a "good worker bee"

The beauty is, everyone's encouraged to fulfil whatever potential they set for themselves, and all would be eager to go out there and do it. Even if they are creatives at heart, a writer or actor need never 'work' a day in their lives. Their entertainment of the society is their contribution to the society. And since everyone is free to reap the benefits of their entertainment (the work is theirs, but is distributed as 'freeware', if you will), creativity is not stunted. Not everyone is inclined in that way, nor gifted in it, and so they have ample work opportunities. And nobody would be out of work, nor forced to sit a trillion exams.

But if I'm a writer in this world of yours, do I have a quota? Or can I spend my whole life writing an autobiography book and not have to work? And who decides if I met my quota as a writer before I'm called "lazy."

Read above. And I refuse to dignify this attitude with a response. I do hope my quotation monologue has made things infinitely clearer. I don't see how it returns us to the middle ages. Infact, it'd probably advance the human race, as it's finally got out of the 'Every man for himself' situation it currently is, and has advanced to what Tom would call the next level. People would have finally learned the valuable lesson. How to fucking get along.

...
..
.

[Comrade Kal]

Whilst i'm a firm believer that being a writer or artist is as good a job as any other, most artwork would be done in the spare time. People wouldn't be working for 8 hours a day as they are now. 4 would be enough.

We've answered all these questions before Hostile. You're just not reading us.

[Hostile]

Why not tackle specifically those in the last post, if you please. I seem to be not be getting the details of the answers, just generalizations.

How would those circumstances be defined. I'm not here to criticize as much as learn how the other half thinks. You know the specifics how a society like that would deal with those obvious issues in your transformation of our society?

If you're right you're right? Or shall I better clarify as "correct" and not right.

[Comrade Kal]

You say people won't behave like this in real life, we have real-life examples toprove it. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. Just because you're greedy and selfish doesn't mean everybody is.

We are prepared to accept the fact that some people will not work.. But there will be work for all those that want it, we won't need to work nearly as much as we do now because there won't be robbing bastards at the top stealing from everybody else. And as Bertrand Russel stated, in such a society, at least one percent would spend their time doing something of public importance.

[Hostile]

You say people won't behave like this in real life, we have real-life examples toprove it. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. Just because you're greedy and selfish doesn't mean everybody is.

We are prepared to accept the fact that some people will not work.. But there will be work for all those that want it, we won't need to work nearly as much as we do now because there won't be robbing bastards at the top stealing from everybody else. And as Bertrand Russel stated, in such a society, at least one percent would spend their time doing something of public importance.

http://dictionary.re...=philanthropist

But who said just cause I'm rich means I'm greedy and selfish. Maybe I just don't brag about how much I give. And maybe because I've made myself wealthy doesn't mean I've not given back more than my share.

You have to take the time to think that not all rich people need to be treated as criminals. Many people create wealth for themselves while making jobs where there were none, and also give substantial amounts of money back into the community.

Look at Oprah Winfrey, rose from poverty and returns more to the community that most can dream of. But she is rich and not evil or greedy. It's ok to be rich, as long as you make the world a better place with your "excess"

I think in summary what I see is money is associated with exploitation/guilt/crime/selfishness/and greed. Maybe you should also understand that by a few people who rise from poverty and make wealth are the first to give it back.

Maybe not all rich people are evil. Maybe only a small percent. Maybe also you'll think about the fact rich people give back more than poor give. Not because the poor can't it's by sheer volume of success that rich people can give more. Many do it anonymously...