Modern arguments for communism?

[theweatherman]

[ 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 ]
[ 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]

[theweatherman]

[ 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.

[Khern]

[ 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)

[theweatherman]

[ 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.

[The Don]

[ 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.

[The once and future king]

[ 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?

[jcx]

[ 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?

[Khern]

[ 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.

[lehighguy]

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.