385 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

Oh yeah, those revolutionaries really love to keep the status quo.

There is no worse society for that than the capitalist and consumerist society in which we live now. Got to have a BMW, the latest Nike trainers!! Otherwise you'll be a right old fool, won't you?

I reserve the right to want these things if I choose. And will not be told I can only have "vanilla"

[Comrade Kal]

On the contrary, there would be more independent products because you end corporations establishing haegemony over everything. Nobody's forcing you to all wear the same shoes.

Also, MSpencer, I am adopting the more anarchist model, which has worked in the past in places such as Grenada and Spain. The dissolution of power meant that there could never be a Stalin or Pol Pot.

Hostile, really, you don't understand this at all.

Edited by Kal, 05 March 2006 - 01:26 AM.

[MSpencer]

1. Spain lost.
2. Grenada lost.

[Ash]

i don't believe that communism/anarchism makes everyone identical. but i heavily believe that its something that anyone with faith in a proper communistic/anarchistic society would try to keep, for the sake of status quo.

thats basically what the jante law is all about, the upheaval of the status quo. and communism/anarchism will not work unless the system is extremely rigid after what i have seen. or else people will just go back to their preferred ways of society.

People will generally do what's in their best interest. Why go back to living like a serf when, in the system I've been trying to push throughout this entire thread (and so has Kal, albeit under some rather negatively-stereotyped names), one can live much more luxuriously, along with everyone else.

but the thing is, if someone does something else than the others do, they will be looked upon as a threat. thats the basics of the jante law. once the basics of roles are fulfilled in a society, people quite often doesnt want people to create new roles because it changes the status quo.

I don't disagree that this could be an issue...but under the system I've been preaching, where exactly IS the status quo? There's the community, and everyone has their own (freely chosen) role to play in it. And all work collectively for the good of the community and, by consequence, for themselves. Technically, this is no different from Capitalism except in the way goods are distributed. Which is more equally. If a new idea comes along which equates to a new job role, then people will simply fill that job role just as they would today, because people will flow to fill the space, just like water will.

If the new job role results in the obsolescence of another, the now-obsoletes can go retrain elsewhere. It's not like today, where redundancy means you practically go bankrupt while you hurriedly search for another job...

it doesnt matter if they make the same as you, all that matters is that they are different and don't do the same that "they" do. know that the jante law is not a law, but a philosophy that can get so heavy that "outsiders" might feel that its a unwritten law.

Indeed, the other is doing what you do not. Does the liver complain that it is not doing the thinking, or the blood that it is not making your fingers move to post your reply? No, of course not. They all work symbiotically, just as everyone would under a true communism. Note, I said TRUE.

I really only have one question for you Kal:
What makes your system better?
What I mean by that is why did Russia and Eastern Europe fail, and why will you succeed? What makes you so arrogant to think that your system would be able to unite human beings who kill each other over such trivial matters as religion into a single union without murdering people along the way? And when this comes about, what makes you think that the people in power will not keep power and tell everyone to go screw themselves and work in the gulags? I have found that the principal issue with communism is that in each instance of its unfortunate existence, the right and wrong people have been chosen, and even the right people have shown the dark side of human nature and have siezed ultimate power. This issue is the fundamental underlying cause of all issues with democracy and autocracy, and is the one thing which constantly finds a way to keep us from achieving world peace, a stable government, or an end to violent crime. When we are trying to perfect the world, our biggest opponent is our own nature as destructive beings.

Uhm, have you read anything on this thread? Russia was NOT COMMUNISM. It was one guy leeching everything from everybody and then enslaving them.

What we always proposed was to NOT do that. And anything's got to be better than corporatism, where the top 3% of the world earn more than the combined remainder. Ever worked in a shop? In one night you can take more than you earn in a whole year...which shows just how much the corporation gives a fuck about your wellbeing. You, Duke and Hostile seem to be perfectly ok with the idea that people should be made to work long hours for peanuts.

I reserve the right to want these things if I choose. And will not be told I can only have "vanilla"

Sorry, but I'm agreeing with Kal on this point. That argument's been proven wrong time and time and time again, yet you continue to use it. Please, Hostile, do read our posts, and at least try to absorb them...by all means don't agree, but at least read and try to understand. I've even translated the whole thing to Capitalist language and you STILL said it was wrong.

That goes for all of you, though. Please read what we say before throwing in your stereotypical McCarthyism.

[xjjohnno]

Lets face it, modern day capitalism for the majority of the folk on this planet does not work,whether we believe it does or don't.
Environmental vandalism whether it's in logging operations or the malpractices of petro chem companies,our obsession with locomoting ourselves via gas guzzling beasties that burn fossil fuel or our need to buy a lot of pointless and useless consumer items that are packaged in non biodegradable plastics all play their part,all because corporations need to show annually improved profits.
Social vandalism in the way of free trade agreements where manufacturing industries migrate to the third world because first world country consumers decide they want their bog rolls cheaper or restrictions on unsafe work practices at the expense of the quality of life of those who produce the goods they use and once again corporate greed take their toll.
A society needs to base it's values on some useful basic principles,they begin with simple things like universal access to accomadation,health care,education and food,and if that means that those with an excess of surplus value contribute more,then fair enough.
So what do you call that system,the closest definitions I can find are either communism or socialism.Forget the the post McCarthyist rants regarding either philosophy or the malpractices done in their name and look at the basic principles.A system based on responsibility is pretty much in order and that is lacking in capitalism,do we lose freedoms,that depends on how much you value the freedom to starve and that's the only guarantee capitalism offers people.
Anyway my day job is union shop steward and safety representative for the workers,so I concede a personal bias from my day to day experiences dealing with greedy and ruthless bosses who'd rather turn over a quick profit versus human cost.

[Comrade Kal]

Spain and Grenada lost fighting civil wars in which the opposing force was helped by other fascist superpowers. I don't see it as much of a surprise that Grenada lost to the USA, really, and you can't possibly blame the governmental system for that.

"Of course, under capitalism, a mod of rebels outnumbered 5 to 1 with inferior technology and few resources could have easily prevailed!"

[MSpencer]

You ignore the fact that the Republicans received aid from an arguably more powerful power than Germany in 1936, the Soviet Union. In 1936, the Soviet Union had real power, a powerful military and competent officer corps before the purges. The Germans however, were still trying to put together their military and make it into a fighting force as opposed to the Weimar Republic's pseudo-police force.

[Comrade Kal]

But they had no answer to tactics like the bombing of Guernica and most of the army was fighting on the fascist side.

Also, i'll say it again - it doesn't matter, because it's not a flaw with the political system.

[Mastermind]

it doesnt matter if they make the same as you, all that matters is that they are different and don't do the same that "they" do. know that the jante law is not a law, but a philosophy that can get so heavy that "outsiders" might feel that its a unwritten law.

Indeed, the other is doing what you do not. Does the liver complain that it is not doing the thinking, or the blood that it is not making your fingers move to post your reply? No, of course not. They all work symbiotically, just as everyone would under a true communism. Note, I said TRUE.

I think that's particularly apt. THe liver and blood don't complain because they don't think, don't have a brain, don't have ambition. So, apparently if everyone were brainless non-thinking automatons we might make communism work?

[Comrade Kal]

Human ambition stretches beyond a fast car and a big house.

[i z 3 r]

You are right.

By the way, where did you take that test on your signature Kal?

[Comrade Kal]

www.politicalcompass.org

Great site. And did you mean I was right?

[i z 3 r]

Right as in correct about Human ambition stretching beyond a fast car and a big house.

[Ash]

it doesnt matter if they make the same as you, all that matters is that they are different and don't do the same that "they" do. know that the jante law is not a law, but a philosophy that can get so heavy that "outsiders" might feel that its a unwritten law.

Indeed, the other is doing what you do not. Does the liver complain that it is not doing the thinking, or the blood that it is not making your fingers move to post your reply? No, of course not. They all work symbiotically, just as everyone would under a true communism. Note, I said TRUE.

I think that's particularly apt. THe liver and blood don't complain because they don't think, don't have a brain, don't have ambition. So, apparently if everyone were brainless non-thinking automatons we might make communism work?

Oh, I do adore when fools and bigots take words completely out of context. Especially when I went out of my way to try to dispel the notion, as it is, quite frankly, a complete load of bollocks.

Edited by Comrade Jerkov, 05 March 2006 - 08:58 PM.

[Mastermind]

it doesnt matter if they make the same as you, all that matters is that they are different and don't do the same that "they" do. know that the jante law is not a law, but a philosophy that can get so heavy that "outsiders" might feel that its a unwritten law.

Indeed, the other is doing what you do not. Does the liver complain that it is not doing the thinking, or the blood that it is not making your fingers move to post your reply? No, of course not. They all work symbiotically, just as everyone would under a true communism. Note, I said TRUE.

I think that's particularly apt. THe liver and blood don't complain because they don't think, don't have a brain, don't have ambition. So, apparently if everyone were brainless non-thinking automatons we might make communism work?

Oh, I do adore when fools and bigots take words completely out of context. Especially when I went out of my way to try to dispel the notion, as it is, quite frankly, a complete load of bollocks.

That's out of context? I wasn't attempting that, I was extending your analogy, and found it to be quite fitting for the only way I see communism working. It requires a group of, if not mindless, then like minded people working together in a society that would fail if attempted on a diverse group of people with ambitions and self-interest. Altruism is indeed a trait of humanity, but it is one that is usually guided by an underlying self interest. It can be the best path for me to sacrifice some bit of myself for someone when they will be then indebted to me, which I can use to my advantage later. Ultimately, self-interest would doom any communist society, as it's normal for a person to want more than they have, and to want to live better, and be better.

[Hostile]

Human ambition stretches beyond a fast car and a big house.

Maybe your's does, mine does not. And I choose to defend that right. I don't want communism, don't care for it, and will choose to stop it wherever I see it.

I will not accept your idealogy of communism. I simply won't. There is an experession in the US that if you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself. So you hung yourself by putting forth a motion to condone communisim as a viable option.

Seems we choose not to....

[duke_Qa]

it doesnt matter if they make the same as you, all that matters is that they are different and don't do the same that "they" do. know that the jante law is not a law, but a philosophy that can get so heavy that "outsiders" might feel that its a unwritten law.

Indeed, the other is doing what you do not. Does the liver complain that it is not doing the thinking, or the blood that it is not making your fingers move to post your reply? No, of course not. They all work symbiotically, just as everyone would under a true communism. Note, I said TRUE.

I think that's particularly apt. THe liver and blood don't complain because they don't think, don't have a brain, don't have ambition. So, apparently if everyone were brainless non-thinking automatons we might make communism work?

Oh, I do adore when fools and bigots take words completely out of context. Especially when I went out of my way to try to dispel the notion, as it is, quite frankly, a complete load of bollocks.

That's out of context? I wasn't attempting that, I was extending your analogy, and found it to be quite fitting for the only way I see communism working. It requires a group of, if not mindless, then like minded people working together in a society that would fail if attempted on a diverse group of people with ambitions and self-interest. Altruism is indeed a trait of humanity, but it is one that is usually guided by an underlying self interest. It can be the best path for me to sacrifice some bit of myself for someone when they will be then indebted to me, which I can use to my advantage later. Ultimately, self-interest would doom any communist society, as it's normal for a person to want more than they have, and to want to live better, and be better.

indeed. one could even say that cancer is what happens in a anarchistic/communistic society where someone are more worried about their self interest than about the rest of the people in it. basically would kill off the body if it was allowed to spread.

[Ash]

That's out of context? I wasn't attempting that, I was extending your analogy, and found it to be quite fitting for the only way I see communism working. It requires a group of, if not mindless, then like minded people working together in a society that would fail if attempted on a diverse group of people with ambitions and self-interest. Altruism is indeed a trait of humanity, but it is one that is usually guided by an underlying self interest. It can be the best path for me to sacrifice some bit of myself for someone when they will be then indebted to me, which I can use to my advantage later. Ultimately, self-interest would doom any communist society, as it's normal for a person to want more than they have, and to want to live better, and be better.

Not really. The society I've been proposing would be in people's self-interest. Especially from the current.
And yes, it was out of context. Sorry my analogy wasn't fantastic, but you nevertheless took it out and turned it around.

And Hostile, that is a very McCarthyist view. I'm imagining you declaring war on a communist state that you're not even part of now... I don't see how we hung ourselves. So what if we have a different ideal from you. You're perfectly happy with people being shit on all over the world. You're as self-obsessed as any corporate, in a world and a society that has never had your standard of living at heart.


But whatever. Guess there's no helping some folk

[Comrade Kal]

Maybe your's does, mine does not.

Then you are indeed a sad individual. I don't see it as immoral to force people to help those less fortunate than themselves. Rather, I see it as immoral to allow people to hold all their wealth to themselves while people starve.

[Ash]

I don't see why allowing all people to be prosperous instead of just a few is actually such a bad thing, and what Hostile or MM have against it so.


Which means I'll have to explain my analogy for fear of it being taken out of context again.


Organs work for the good of the whole organism. There is no jack-of-all-trades organism...even bacteria have organelles to allow them to function as individual cells. No one part of the bacterium or any other organism performs every single function.

There's a reason for this, in the same way a corporation isn't entirely made up of managers, corporate directors or factory-floor workers.

Yet no one group of people can successfully survive and operate without complete symbiosis with each other group.

Just as the carpenter is fucked without the lumberjack, the blacksmith fucked without the miner, the manager fucked without his factory-floor workers.

So why should any one of these people be better off than any other? They all need eachother. It's basic societal roles. The only difference is that our way levels the playing field, allows people to choose their own way, get educated to become better at it than they currently are, and all reap the rewards of each individual's labour.

That last clause technically also doesn't change. The difference is the amount of reward each person gets. Currently, the richest 3-5% reap most of the rewards, while the rest are forced to share what remains. How's that fair?

Don't you think people will be more productive if they realise that by doing so, they're benefiting themselves? In current society, I get paid the same wage whether I do the work of one person or the work of five. It's based on an hourly rate, so I could basically sit in the back doing fuck all, or I could be out slogging my bollocks off through my entire shift.

Under my way, the benefit is a little bit indirect, but it is there. If everyone works at their chosen vocation well (and let's face it, if you like your job, you'll work harder at it), it's more productive. And everyone benefits.

Savvy?