Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You keep asking for other people to prove their statements but you just throw out these without any backup. Prove that mediocrity will not creep in and that it's just anticommunists making this up.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK

here is an quote from wikipedia which shows that not only have humans successfully lived in egalitarian, communistic conditions, but that they were well off as well.

[ QUOTE ]
At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore suggested that egalitarianism was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requires minimization of material possessions throughout a population; therefore, there was no surplus of resources to be accumulated by any single member. Other characteristics Lee and DeVore proposed were flux in territorial boundaries as well as in demographic composition. At the same conference, Marshall Sahlins presented a paper entitled, "Notes on the Original Affluent Society," in which he challenged the popular view of hunter-gatherers living lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes had put it in 1651. According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Mediocrity will not come up as it is counter productive and thus harmful to society.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You keep asking for other people to prove their statements but you just throw out these without any backup. Prove that mediocrity will not creep in and that it's just anticommunists making this up.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK

here is an quote from wikipedia which shows that not only have humans successfully lived in egalitarian, communistic conditions, but that they were well off as well.

[ QUOTE ]
At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore suggested that egalitarianism was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requires minimization of material possessions throughout a population; therefore, there was no surplus of resources to be accumulated by any single member. Other characteristics Lee and DeVore proposed were flux in territorial boundaries as well as in demographic composition. At the same conference, Marshall Sahlins presented a paper entitled, "Notes on the Original Affluent Society," in which he challenged the popular view of hunter-gatherers living lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes had put it in 1651. According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Mediocrity will not come up as it is counter productive and thus harmful to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a bunch of guys foraging berries and killing an animal here and constitutes your proof that egalitarianism works? This egalitarianism limited us to the hunter-gatherer niche.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So a bunch of guys foraging berries and killing an animal here and constitutes your proof that egalitarianism works? This egalitarianism limited us to the hunter-gatherer niche.

[/ QUOTE ]

how and why? because it fits with your argument? there is no reason to beleive that this type of egalitarianism could not be a feature of a modern, industrialized economy.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Slackers would only be hurting themselves and their society

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez, who else could they possibly hurt?

In a free market who do they hurt?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You keep asking for other people to prove their statements but you just throw out these without any backup. Prove that mediocrity will not creep in and that it's just anticommunists making this up.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK

here is an quote from wikipedia which shows that not only have humans successfully lived in egalitarian, communistic conditions, but that they were well off as well.

[ QUOTE ]
At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore suggested that egalitarianism was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requires minimization of material possessions throughout a population; therefore, there was no surplus of resources to be accumulated by any single member. Other characteristics Lee and DeVore proposed were flux in territorial boundaries as well as in demographic composition. At the same conference, Marshall Sahlins presented a paper entitled, "Notes on the Original Affluent Society," in which he challenged the popular view of hunter-gatherers living lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes had put it in 1651. According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Mediocrity will not come up as it is counter productive and thus harmful to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your point. If someone decides not to produce in one of these hunter-gatherer societies then they can do one of two things:

1) Let him mooch... although this isn't optimal because everyone else would start doing it.
2) Kick him out and let him starve

In capitalism, if someone decides not to produce, he will be "kicked out" automatically and starve. Same thing.

The difference is that in capitalism, people have the OPPORTUNITY to produce more than others, thus reaping the benefits. Such is the difference between 'free' and 'not free'.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get your point. If someone decides not to produce in one of these hunter-gatherer societies then they can do one of two things:

1) Let him mooch... although this isn't optimal because everyone else would start doing it.
2) Kick him out and let him starve

In capitalism, if someone decides not to produce, he will be "kicked out" automatically and starve. Same thing.

The difference is that in capitalism, people have the OPPORTUNITY to produce more than others, thus reaping the benefits. Such is the difference between 'free' and 'not free'.


[/ QUOTE ]

bah, arguing 1 vs all is taxing. . .

I am notthat well versed in the communist ethos, so I am not sure what recourse society has to deal with potential slackers. The only thing I can think of is that there wont be any slackers, since the work load would be very light and the people will be matched to jobs of their aptitude. this is a sticky issue, and its one of the reaosns im not a communist.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one would be robbed under a true communist system, the society would be producing at a maximum capacity and thus there is nothing more for anyone to have that they would be robbed of.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? That doesn't even make sense. First of all, it's far from a given that "society is producing at maximum capacity". Second of all, that has nothing to do with whether someone may be robbed or not.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The worker has to work or else he will starve, this is a pretty unfair situation for the worker to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's unfair about this? Why should he be able to survive with no effort? Whose production should he be entitled to so that he won't starve?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
First off they have control over the fruits of their labor, there is no government to tell them what to do.

Secondly just because there is a collectivist system in place does notmean life will regress to a mediocre standard. that is a made up point by anti communists (as i have already stated)

[/ QUOTE ]

If they have control over the fruits of their labor (ie. they don't have to share them) then that isn't communism. Do you understand basic math? If everyone shares equally then everyone has an average life.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The worker has to work or else he will starve, this is a pretty unfair situation for the worker to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's unfair about this? Why should he be able to survive with no effort? Whose production should he be entitled to so that he won't starve?

[/ QUOTE ]

The immediatness of the worker's situation makes forces him to an unfair contract. Wage slaves have no room to negotiate since they will run out of money in a week or so

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First off they have control over the fruits of their labor, there is no government to tell them what to do.

Secondly just because there is a collectivist system in place does notmean life will regress to a mediocre standard. that is a made up point by anti communists (as i have already stated)

[/ QUOTE ]

If they have control over the fruits of their labor (ie. they don't have to share them) then that isn't communism. Do you understand basic math? If everyone shares equally then everyone has an average life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantically you are correct, the term used for the communist lifestyle wouldbe average. This average does not need to be a low standard of living, it could very be what the upper class lives as now.

EDIT: this is unlikely since the only reason the upper class are able to live as they do is beacause there are others who live a squalid lifestyle, theplanet cannot support extravagance for all.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the work load would be very light and the people will be matched to jobs of their aptitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that either of these would be true.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Modern Liberalism is Communism light. All of the core philosophies are the same. The only difference is the power to implement the full plan.

[/ QUOTE ]


I never doubted this. It was the open support for communism that surprised (and frieghtened?) me.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

jobs based on aptitude

"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

please dont make me repaet myself anymore

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here people are born into a situation where they have limited employment and almost no chance to escape to a larger market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like communism?

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, communism is an economic ideal, not a situation involving people being stuck in limited markets. Your sloganering makes you look stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Duuuuuuhhhh. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd like to discuss this topic in a legitimate way, im all for it. However, if you are going to be a [censored] then I'm finished and I'll just put you on the ignore list.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your problem? I never insulted you and I responded to your insult in a lighthearted way. And then I made a post with content after I posted the Duh one.
If you can't debate something when you and the person disagree over major points maybe you should put everyone on the ignore list and talk to yourself.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

jobs based on aptitude

"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

please dont make me repaet myself anymore

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat myself again, we're not debating the ideal, only the impossibility.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]

umm, i was referring to humans in my post, im not sure what species you are talking about, nor there various ways of catching "cheaters"

[/ QUOTE ]

You referred to my example of evolution, which included other species.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here people are born into a situation where they have limited employment and almost no chance to escape to a larger market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like communism?

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, communism is an economic ideal, not a situation involving people being stuck in limited markets. Your sloganering makes you look stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Duuuuuuhhhh. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd like to discuss this topic in a legitimate way, im all for it. However, if you are going to be a [censored] then I'm finished and I'll just put you on the ignore list.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your problem? I never insulted you and I responded to your insult in a lighthearted way. And then I made a post with content after I posted the Duh one.
If you can't debate something when you and the person disagree over major points maybe you should put everyone on the ignore list and talk to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted that a while ago, before you redemmed yourself with a creditable post.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

jobs based on aptitude

"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

please dont make me repaet myself anymore

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat myself again, we're not debating the ideal, only the impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is what i posted impossible?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

jobs based on aptitude

"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

please dont make me repaet myself anymore

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat myself again, we're not debating the ideal, only the impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is what i posted impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

The selfishness, etc. we were talking about earlier. And the sheer number of people (that hasn't been brought up yet).

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

jobs based on aptitude

"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

please dont make me repaet myself anymore

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat myself again, we're not debating the ideal, only the impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is what i posted impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

The selfishness, etc. we were talking about earlier. And the sheer number of people (that hasn't been brought up yet).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, for the last time, humans have not been proven to be inately selfish, if anything i have presetned evidence to the contrary. Untill you can prove that humans are born with a bulit in drive to gbe as selfish as possibleplease do not use that as a reason to debunk a communist society.

Scale is a good point, however, as I mentioned earlier I am no communist and there fore do not have all the answers (only most [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) I am unsure how to acomidate the massive scaleof a worldwide communist system, although Im sure there are some who are able to
.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

This is a good post. In a "truly" capitlast system, the worker would be able to hold his work out if he was not being compensated properly (this is how Adam Smith envisioned the system working). Unfortuantely, capitalism in practice holds workers (especially those working the most menial taks) as wage slaves, and therefore prevents them from fighting for apporpriate compensation for their labor.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main difference between Adam Smith and Karl Marx...

Smith's primary intellectual tool: Logic

Marx's primary intellectual tool: Rhetoric


I could make up a word, we'll call it 'utterfailure'. The definition of this word is "any individual with a net worth under $10 million." Of course, the definition has nothing to do with what people will assume given the name. I, like Marx, chose this "arbitrarily."

This is the way Marx uses the word 'exploitation'. His definition has little to do with the one people are used to. It simply represents the clever manner in which Marx influences people through rhetoric.

Marx believes that the worker is not appropriately compensated for his labor, placing no weight on the value of capital in society. He does not give credit to the capitalist for using his mind (the most powerful tool to any individual in a capitalist system) to pool the resources necessary to provide employment for the worker. Instead, he believes that the worker is "exploited," regardless of the fact that the capitalist and worker enter an agreement in which both parties consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The agreement to which you refer is a dubious concept. The worker has to work or else he will starve, this is a pretty unfair situation for the worker to be in. To many it seems like borderline extortion, work or die. This is especially evident in smaller fields of work, ie mining towns in West Virgina. Here people are born into a situation where they have limited employment and almost no chance to escape to a larger market.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a significant difference between meeting basic needs and creating an egalitarian society. Given basic needs, the labor aggrement would not be coercive.

As I noted below, even F.A. Hayek agreed that our society should be able to provide a basic survival to everyone. (I think he may have even noted that without this, labor contracts would be coercive.)

I was quite surprised when I read this, and I asked (in this thread) how libertarians on this board felt about his assertion. I am still interested in any responses. I am still not sure how I feel about this.

Ah, I found the quote:

"These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenence for all; and second, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person of group enjoys compared with others.
...
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which our has obtained the first kind of security should not be garunteed to all without endangering general freedom."
F.A.Hayek, The Road to Surfdom, Ch 9.

This is from one of the leading libertarians of our time. Can anyone draw an economic picture that makes this make sense, or one that makes it seem ludacris?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

The general misconception with communism exists becuase no true communist has ebver attempted to gain power anywhere. Lenin was not a communist nor a marxist. neither was Mao, neither was Castro. They are all fascists using Marx's words to garner pupular support.

Interestingly, there are no nations today that are capitlaist int eh spirirt of Adam Smith either. Both "The Wealth of Nations" and "Das Kapital" are theoretical and philosophical. It seems that both of the systems are equally flawed in the present state of the world. It is my opinion that communism does hold a possiblity of being prevalent in the future, while theoretical cpaitlaism is impossible.

The dominant (usually referred to as capitlaist) system of the world today is looselyy based on real capitalism, but is far less fair.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The worker has to work or else he will starve, this is a pretty unfair situation for the worker to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's unfair about this? Why should he be able to survive with no effort? Whose production should he be entitled to so that he won't starve?

[/ QUOTE ]

The immediatness of the worker's situation makes forces him to an unfair contract. Wage slaves have no room to negotiate since they will run out of money in a week or so

[/ QUOTE ]

What's unfair? He's offering his labor for a price. He agrees or not. His particular situation is not the labor buyer's fault.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

Out of curiosity, do you think you're ahead in this debate?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

Indeed. Two excellent arguments for the failure of fascism.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the life expectancy of a hunter-gatherer?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the life expectancy of a hunter-gatherer?

[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of the quote is not to suggest a return to a hunter gatherer society but to show that people who claim that mankind is inherrently selfish are flat out wrong. Humans can live and thrive in an egalitarian setting with no leader, owner or boss.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

This is incorrect. Life expectancy has increased due to medical and technological advances. real wages in the US have gone up becuase the capitalists have cleverly hidden the awful exploitation of the lowest class of workers overseas. Union power is at an all time low, thanks largely in part to the federal government preempting their power. Crime contineus to grow to absurd levels among the lower classes, and the divide between the haves and have nots between the upper and lower classes expands every day.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, do you think you're ahead in this debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I've seen there are about seven different posters all spouting the same nonsensical arguement. Most of which have failed to present a good counter arguement to the plausibility of a communist state.

To answer your question I think your side has to form a legitimate response in order for this to really be considered a debate.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, do you think you're ahead in this debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I've seen there are about seven different posters all spouting the same nonsensical arguement. Most of which have failed to present a good counter arguement to the plausibility of a communist state.

To answer your question I think your side has to form a legitimate response in order for this to really be considered a debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well clearly there is no point in debating this further because you're not bright enough to understand a good argument from a bad one. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, do you think you're ahead in this debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I've seen there are about seven different posters all spouting the same nonsensical arguement. Most of which have failed to present a good counter arguement to the plausibility of a communist state.

To answer your question I think your side has to form a legitimate response in order for this to really be considered a debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well clearly there is no point in debating this further because you're not bright enough to understand a good argument from a bad one. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, please condense your argurment against communism in to one consise post, then when i counter your arguments we can see that I am ahead.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well"

less work with same gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the life expectancy of a hunter-gatherer?

[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of the quote is not to suggest a return to a hunter gatherer society but to show that people who claim that mankind is inherrently selfish are flat out wrong. Humans can live and thrive in an egalitarian setting with no leader, owner or boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand coorectly many hunter-gatherers lived in relative plenty and were able to get by on a 20 hour work week. But this plenty stemmed from relative domanance a few humans achieved over their environment, an environment that produced everything they needed. When population became a problem, wars were the solution. Today we have an amazing world population made possible by technological advances and economic efficiencies. Significant human production is neccesary to sustain the world's population, and this production must be properly motivated and rewarded or it will not happen.

Some people may buy into communism, and thus overcome the incentive problem, but the entire world will not. (not at present)

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I understand coorectly many hunter-gatherers lived in relative plenty and were able to get by on a 20 hour work week. But this plenty stemmed from relative domanance a few humans achieved over their environment, an environment that produced everything they needed. When population became a problem, wars were the solution. Today we have an amazing world population made possible by technological advances and economic efficiencies. Significant human production is neccesary to sustain the world's population, and this production must be properly motivated and rewarded or it will not happen.

Some people may buy into communism, and thus overcome the incentive problem, but the entire world will not. (not at present)

[/ QUOTE ]

The world is not that far off from being ready for communism. A quick switch to a communist state (read as revolution) would improve the lives of literally billions. These are powerful numbers it takes more and more effort from the ruling classes to keep these lower classes in line, soon they will not be able to control them.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good post. In a "truly" capitlast system, the worker would be able to hold his work out if he was not being compensated properly (this is how Adam Smith envisioned the system working). Unfortuantely, capitalism in practice holds workers (especially those working the most menial taks) as wage slaves, and therefore prevents them from fighting for apporpriate compensation for their labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is their compensation not appropriate?

These people are doing something that anyone else can do, therefore their labor is inherently less valuable. This makes their compensation, which is determined by the market, quite appropriate.

There is no point in fighting for something that they don't deserve. These people certainly have enough to live on, even if they are "wage slaves." By making good economic decisions, they will eventually have the ability to acquire new skills and advance their position.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people may buy into communism, and thus overcome the incentive problem, but the entire world will not. (not at present)

[/ QUOTE ]

Would not owning the means of production be an incentive? The more you make the more you have?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I understand coorectly many hunter-gatherers lived in relative plenty and were able to get by on a 20 hour work week. But this plenty stemmed from relative domanance a few humans achieved over their environment, an environment that produced everything they needed. When population became a problem, wars were the solution. Today we have an amazing world population made possible by technological advances and economic efficiencies. Significant human production is neccesary to sustain the world's population, and this production must be properly motivated and rewarded or it will not happen.

Some people may buy into communism, and thus overcome the incentive problem, but the entire world will not. (not at present)

[/ QUOTE ]

The world is not that far off from being ready for communism. A quick switch to a communist state (read as revolution) would improve the lives of literally billions. These are powerful numbers it takes more and more effort from the ruling classes to keep these lower classes in line, soon they will not be able to control them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe this discussion has carried on so long. The evidence against communism is so strong that anyone who is a proponent of it in this day and age should be looked upon as someone who wishes to spread bubonic plague.

You underestimate how easy it is to keep "The underclass" in line if you are willing to be brutal enough. Especially with modern weapons. As evidenced by the Soviet thwacking of a few uppity Hungarians in the 50's. Or the fun stroll in the countryside that was Year Zero. Or Tiannanmen Square. Or this little nugget....(watch the video)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapc...a.hiddenvideo/

Certainly there are losers in a capitalist society. And occasionally the dispossesed get pissed and engage in a little mayhem. But I don't recall the Watts riots being put down by the marines, even though a rapid deployment with shoot to kill orders could have ended the riots in an afternoon. A few snipers on Paris rooftops could have ended the recent rabble rousing in no time. Why the restraint if TPTB in capitalist countries don't give a damn about the underclass?

Answer for me, please: Has every single man involved in communist leadership since it's conception been an evil man by nature? Or did something turn them that way? Did Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, & Kim corrupt a noble idea or is the idea itself inherently flawed? Why does the proletariat risk all to flee a worker's paradise to enter a capitalist society out to exploit them?

Look at the modern comforts enjoyed by the common man today, from the telephone to air conditioning to the toaster. Please name one thing that the world of communism has provided in the way of material comfort for the common man in over 80 years of practical exisitence.

No offense, but your picture should be next to the definition of "useful idiot" in the encyclopedia. You do realize that when communists take power they usually thank loyal intellectuals like you with a bullet to the head?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some people may buy into communism, and thus overcome the incentive problem, but the entire world will not. (not at present)

[/ QUOTE ]

Would not owning the means of production be an incentive? The more you make the more you have?

[/ QUOTE ]

But do you own anything in a communist society. I guess you could say you own everything, but then you have no personal control, so it doesn't really seem like ownership in the way I view ownership.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

If you pressed a pure leftist enough he would have to admit he's a communist. Most just avoid getting that far in an arguement. It's not hard, the philosophy itself is fundamentally irrational and thus it's easy to get lost trying to defend it.