Modern arguments for communism?

[theweatherman]

[ 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.

[vulturesrow]

[ 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.

[theweatherman]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?

[The Don]

[ 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'.

[theweatherman]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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 ]
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.

[theweatherman]

[ 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