Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[AmateurEmale]

@xyzde69: If you think that government should have the right to ban junk food (including the Pringles Loud Queso that I just ate about 20-30 crisps' worth of...) do you similarly think that government should ban drugs and alcohol? The Soviet Union had an anti-alcohol campaign and its own "war on drugs" versus narcotics and the opium/heroin that originated in their part of the world. But I guess Cuban communism was different, because it allowed the leaders to smoke cigars... )

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

A couple of things

1. Competitions are better when they have rules
2. Competition always end
3. The ultimate competition is for your money

Capitalists will always sing the virtues of competition in the marketplace, and yes it is a good thing, the thing that never gets addressed is what happens when the competition ends as all of them do. They never talk how the good times for the consumers and labor end when the competition does. You can look at industries like media, health insurers, or airlines and see how service falls and prices rise as the competitors either merge or disappear thus trapping consumers and labor. Yeah capitalism competition is good on the front end you just wish people would discuss what happens on the backend.

Our "competitions" DO have rules. We have anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books, you know.

And technological innovation is always stirring the pot. Who would have imagined 100 years ago that there would be a company worth tens of billions of dollars due to something called "software" that is just tiny little 1s and 0s inscribed onto a magnetic disk? Or that it would be possible to generate massive amounts of electricity from the fires of creation itself through the artful use of an element called uranium?

Not that there isn't truth in what you say. Big capital has the upper hand at the moment, and more political access then they should. The pendulum is swinging back towards the "Gilded Age", but someday it will begin swinging back the other way.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by AmateurEmale

@xyzde69: If you think that government should have the right to ban junk food (including the Pringles Loud Queso that I just ate about 20-30 crisps' worth of...) do you similarly think that government should ban drugs and alcohol? The Soviet Union had an anti-alcohol campaign and its own "war on drugs" versus narcotics and the opium/heroin that originated in their part of the world. But I guess Cuban communism was different, because it allowed the leaders to smoke cigars... )

I'd refer to the final decision of the ethics commitee runned by selected scientists of very high intellectual level, who would take care of the best for the human mankind.

I'm not the despot that bowlinggreen and Brian249x are trying to paint to discredit an improved Communism that will take care of the widow and the orphan.

The number of 46 millions people living under the line of poverty in your country is a number that clearly demonstrates that Liberalism is crap and unfair.
I don't hope that anybody of you will one day increase the number of these people. But in your Liberalism, you could be one day let on the sidewalk.

Look at your Lehman's Brothers and subprimes catastrophy in 2008. Never it would have happened in a real Communism.

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Our "competitions" DO have rules. We have anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books, you know.

Come on.
Look at your subprimes stories in 2008.
Houses sold 400 $ in Detroit because of the avidity of bankers.
Working people threw out of "their" rented houses.

You defend Liberalism because you are lucky to be born on the nice way of the line.

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

I'm just annoyed at xyz's fanatical promotion of a system which has never worked out for mankind on a long term basis.

You tell that I'm a fanatical...
But if I was fanatical, I'd not propose an improved option of the Communism with an ethics commitee and an exam to select each candidate who would be members of the commitees I proposed.

Now look at the "predigree" of your actual President.
1) He had several cases that proved he employed and badly treated "illegal" immigrants.
2) He get 3 millions less voters
3) He never published his tax declaration to the population.

Are Americans so blind to believe in this kind of clown who is the real symbol of Liberalism?
Do you really live in a real Democracy managed by fair people?

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Our "competitions" DO have rules. We have anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books, you know.

Yes the laws are there, but since the 80 the teeth have been taken out.

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

And technological innovation is always stirring the pot. Who would have imagined 100 years ago that there would be a company worth tens of billions of dollars due to something called "software" that is just tiny little 1s and 0s inscribed onto a magnetic disk? Or that it would be possible to generate massive amounts of electricity from the fires of creation itself through the artful use of an element called uranium?

The way education is being defended will we still be at the forefront of inovation or have we ceded that title to realize more profits in the coming quarter?

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Not that there isn't truth in what you say. Big capital has the upper hand at the moment, and more political access then they should. The pendulum is swinging back towards the "Gilded Age", but someday it will begin swinging back the other way.

The question becomes what event will we have to go through for that pendulum to swing and how catastrophic will it be?

[Roubignol]

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

Yes the laws are there, but since the 80 the teeth have been taken out.

The way education is being defended will we still be at the forefront of inovation or have we ceded that title to realize more profits in the coming quarter?

The question becomes what event will we have to go through for that pendulum to swing and how catastrophic will it be?

All very good points.

I'm not sure what sort of event it will take for the pendulum to swing back the other way, but I expect it will be catastrophic. Maybe a huge economic meltdown, greater then the Great Depression. It took a Roosevelt and the will of a mass of disenfranchised people to start back on the road to recovery from that disaster.

And before you say, "well, let's do something about it now, before its too late!", I'll just point out that the great mass of voters in our democracy don't think that way. As long as they are relatively comfy, they aren't going to do anything. Thus, the need for disaster. It would be nice if the common man was an intelligent and rational political animal, and capable of choosing wisely when it comes to government, but he is not.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'm not the despot that bowlinggreen and Brian249x are trying to paint to discredit an improved Communism that will take care of the widow and the orphan.
Do you really live in a real Democracy managed by fair people?

Now, now, just because I pointed out a few problems with your arguments does not mean I believe in the fairness of the current political system or approve of the buffoon selected to lead the United States by what is a hideously flawed electoral system.

I am currently reevaluating my political philosophy, but agree with you on many points. It makes much sense have a limited number of informed and intelligent voters select political leaders. For one thing, we find that a great number of eligible voters refuse to participate in the process. A second problem is that modern advertising techniques have been used to lure unsophisticated voters into supporting irrational measures. Most problematic is the fact that many countries are not run for the maximum benefit of the country as a whole, but rather to increase the wealth of a small cadre to the detriment of the vast majority.

It may surprise you to learn that the writings of Karl Marx influenced my politics for a long time. Unfortunately, Stalin, Mao, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, et al have cast Marx in a bad light. Donald Trump is doing the same for Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc. As previously noted, human beings struggle in governing larger groups in a humane and just manner. More importantly, human beings seem to have drastically failed in matching the size of their population to available resources and are rapidly discovering that the planet itself has mechanisms to deal with species that fail that test.

As the saying goes, "Communism is like Christianity. We don't know if either one can work because nobody has really tried them yet."

[george anson]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Our "competitions" DO have rules. We have anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books, you know.

And technological innovation is always stirring the pot. Who would have imagined 100 years ago that there would be a company worth tens of billions of dollars due to something called "software" that is just tiny little 1s and 0s inscribed onto a magnetic disk? Or that it would be possible to generate massive amounts of electricity from the fires of creation itself through the artful use of an element called uranium?

Not that there isn't truth in what you say. Big capital has the upper hand at the moment, and more political access then they should. The pendulum is swinging back towards the "Gilded Age", but someday it will begin swinging back the other way.

It would not have to swing any way if fair minded people who held all people in their care, treated everyone fairly. Something as simple as taxation for example and enforcing competition rules not to mention genuinely punish those miscreants who end up creating economic bubbles and then run away leaving others to clear the mess up.

Mass consumerism and rabid capitalism are completely unsustainable and they have had a nasty and pernicious effect on society in large skewing it's moral and humanitarian compass.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by george anson

It would not have to swing any way if fair minded people who held all people in their care, treated everyone fairly. Something as simple as taxation for example and enforcing competition rules not to mention genuinely punish those miscreants who end up creating economic bubbles and then run away leaving others to clear the mess up.

Mass consumerism and rabid capitalism are completely unsustainable and they have had a nasty and pernicious effect on society in large skewing it's moral and humanitarian compass.

All well and good, but given the way humans act and organize themselves, how are you going to bring that about?

Don't get me wrong, I am not some sort of pro-capitalist, and I understand very well how the system is and has been gradually going wrong. But what exactly do you propose to do about it?

You can't really do ANYTHING about it.

xyz thinks you can, but every time somebody has articulated his sort of ideological system and enforced its tenets upon a given society with the inevitable violence, it has in the end failed.

This incarnation of civilization may well fall too, given that it is unsustainable, as you say. What will replace it, well, who knows? Maybe this time, nothing will.

[haroldeye]

I'd refer to the final decision of the ethics commitee runned by selected scientists of very high intellectual level, who would take care of the best for the human mankind.


Of course, and who would select these people and more important ensure that they take care of the best for mankind?