prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck

[Harovan]

Neither of you has seen communism. You have seen the eastern European form of socialism, which is at most a stalinistical distorted preliminary stage and has not much (if anything at all!) to do with communism.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Tiberius
How many of you did actually see where communism leads?

In theory it may sound good, but it becomes in time something like this:

....

Yes, that´s the big difference.
In the Reality Communism in Russia just replaced one ruling Class (te Nobles) with another (high Ranking Members of the Communist Party).

And of course, the 4 years Plans led to an economy, which was strictly regulated, didn´t allow for sudden changes and of course also didn´t reward those, who were excellent at their jobs.

But hey, in Theory Communism is a very good thing

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It can be very simple, by being born into it. This illustrates one of the immoral aspects of Capitalism.

Maybe a good Idea would be to limit the amount of Property and Money which Parents can leave for their Offspring.
For example maybe, the Parents may leave just 1 Million Dollars in money (and maybe a house) for their Offspring, everything which is above of this money (and all Companies and the like) are probably sold (and the money and earnings from selling the Companies go to public Projects, like Education, Welfare or other things) or (in case of a Company) it goes to the Workers (which all get equal shares from the Company)
Of course, you should somehow close Loopholes which maybe used to circumvent these Laws, for example by giving your Children a whole Company as a Birthday Present

I think it would lead to a Capitalism wich is much more "fair". People could still try to earn much money, to have a better life and they still can support their offspring by leaving them mony, but they can do so only up to a certain degree.

No more Dynasties where maybe the founder as a very clever person who knew how to make money, but his #Offspring are just a bunch of lazy Partypeople, who just live from the money they get from their shares in his Companies.
Instead the offspring would have to work to get money (and maybe sometmes be just as wealthy as their parents).
Of course they may have an advantage over Children of ordinary workers, as they would probably get a better Education and their Parents will try to get god Jobs for their Children, by using their Contacts. But it wouldn´t be as injust as it is today

[Tiberius]

dp

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Neither of you has seen communism. You have seen the eastern European form of socialism, which is at most a stalinistical distorted preliminary stage and has not much (if anything at all!) to do with communism.

This is what I've said earlier, that the social free-market society from western Europe is much closer to the "perfect" society than real-life communism ever was.

What makes you to believe though, that any other attempt to build a communist society wouldn't lead to the same result?

Btw, you better drop the word "communism" if ever want to gain some acceptance for some of its ideas. It is irremediably discredeted.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Maybe a good Idea would be to limit the amount of Property and Money which Parents can leave for their Offspring.

See, what you are doing is to take an important idea from communism and apply it to capitalism. This idea is, lets make the society a more equal place.

So, in this aspect, communism is already successful, by forcing the capitalism to adopt its ideas.

[Curiosity]

Originally posted by SKILORD
lmao.

If you think this is not far worse in communism then you are naieve and foolish.

I didn't say it was. I said that that's a problem with capitalism.

In theory one ought to be able to design a form of government where it's not such a problem, and since it would involve a planned economy it would probably be classed as communism. But, clearly, nothing like past experiments would be any better.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
Here's your chance. Explain why what I'm about to say is wrong.

Communism is immoral, because it is slavery. I produce a commodity, my labor. I sell that commodity in exchange for money. If you require that I give that money to other people who have less money, then you are really requiring me to give my labor, without compensation, to them. Thus, I am their slave. Slavery is immoral.

Except for minimum wage and other labor laws to regulate the labor market capitalism doesn't even make an attempt to make employers pay you a fair wage. It only claims that the market wage is fair. Now every thinking person knows that the market wage is determined by supply and demand which is constantly changing. The notion that the market wage is the fair wage is ridiculous. Communism is the ideology that sees this and corrects this.

[chequita guevara]

Do I wanna read and respond to four pages of drek? NO!

But I probably will anyway. Just not tonight. Cubs must be watched.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do I wanna read and respond to four pages of drek? NO!

But I probably will anyway. Just not tonight. Cubs must be watched.

We have you exactly where we want you now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I produce a commodity, my labor.

Actually, you do not sell your labor. You sell your labor-power, which is a differnt thing.

I sell that commodity in exchange for money.

Only because capitalists used their legal power to seize the common lands and destroy the livelihoods of peasants, and artisans, and apprentices. Few people would work for someone else if they had the means, and by hook and by crook, the capitalists closed off all the means that they could, and freeing up a source of labor for themselves.

But those who argue about the supposed morality of capitalism always forget its very immoral history: the slave trade, the conquest and pillaging of five continents, world war, fraud, genocide, famine, etc.

If you require that I give that money to other people who have less money, then you are really requiring me to give my labor, without compensation, to them. Thus, I am their slave. Slavery is immoral.

Then all societies are immoral, because all require you to contribute to the group. At least in communism, you're supposed to have a democratic say in how much, and how it is distributed.

The fact is, you have an obligation to the group, because the group protects you and teaches you and provides for you.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact is, you have an obligation to the group, because the group protects you and teaches you and provides for you.

Very nicely put.

[Japher]

Morality is subjective.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Well, we lack a proper manifesto, but the basics of capitalism are, as Curiosity pointed out, to amass as much wealth as possible through noncoercive ends

Curiousity is wrong. Mark Twain captured it best when he said the morals of capitalism were "To get rich, illegally if we can, legally if we must." At no point have capitalists has any qualms about using coerced labor. From poor houses to Nazi slave camps to chain gangs to enclosure acts, far from being opposed to such things, capitalists have rushed to use it.

Coca Cola hires thugs to beat up and kill union activists in Central America and Columbia. Cholatiers use chocolate gathered by child slaves in Cote d'Ivorie. Micorsoft and TWA use prison labor to package software. Delta Pride Catfish chains the doors shut on its facotry so workers can't sneak out for a smoke break and times and limits their bathroom breaks.

There's nothing moral about capitalism.

But that's not why we oppose it, since being immoral doesn't mean it won't function. Fuedalism worked for thousands of years, and it was terribly immoral from a modern stand point. But it was the best they could have given the level of technology.

No, we oppose capitalism because it is extremely wasteful, bot of resources and of lives. There has been no bloodier system in human history than capitalism. Ironically, it is so murderous not because it is unproductive, but because it is too successful. People go out of business because they make moer than they can sell. American farmers have to paid not to produce because otherwise their great productiveness would swamp the market and none of them could make a living. Capitalist famines occur because there is too much food to eat. And that's just insane.

And it happens regularly, every seven to ten years, since the very first depression in 1825. Up until after the 2nd Great Depression (oh yes, the one we know was the second), each depression got worse and worse. But so much capital was destroyed in that war that it allowed for a "restart."

Ultimately, the question isn't do we want socialism or capitalism. Capitalism will eventually be replaced. The question is, with what, socialism or barbarism?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Curiousity is wrong. Mark Twain captured it best when he said the morals of capitalism were "To get rich, illegally if we can, legally if we must." At no point have capitalists has any qualms about using coerced labor. From poor houses to Nazi slave camps to chain gangs to enclosure acts, far from being opposed to such things, capitalists have rushed to use it.

Coca Cola hires thugs to beat up and kill union activists in Central America and Columbia. Cholatiers use chocolate gathered by child slaves in Cote d'Ivorie. Micorsoft and TWA use prison labor to package software. Delta Pride Catfish chains the doors shut on its facotry so workers can't sneak out for a smoke break and times and limits their bathroom breaks.

There's nothing moral about capitalism.

But that's not why we oppose it, since being immoral doesn't mean it won't function. Fuedalism worked for thousands of years, and it was terribly immoral from a modern stand point. But it was the best they could have given the level of technology.

No, we oppose capitalism because it is extremely wasteful, bot of resources and of lives. There has been no bloodier system in human history than capitalism. Ironically, it is so murderous not because it is unproductive, but because it is too successful. People go out of business because they make moer than they can sell. American farmers have to paid not to produce because otherwise their great productiveness would swamp the market and none of them could make a living. Capitalist famines occur because there is too much food to eat. And that's just insane.

And it happens regularly, every seven to ten years, since the very first depression in 1825. Up until after the 2nd Great Depression (oh yes, the one we know was the second), each depression got worse and worse. But so much capital was destroyed in that war that it allowed for a "restart."

Ultimately, the question isn't do we want socialism or capitalism. Capitalism will eventually be replaced. The question is, with what, socialism or barbarism?

thats why u have capitalism w/ rules. u catch the ppl who try to cheat. and keep it in bounds, there's nothing all that capitalist about western agriculture. its subsidized up the ass. price fixing, tarriffs, pay to farm, pay to export, pay to not farm. It's true ppl go out of business if they misjudge their ability to sell their product. but thats no magic genie to the demise of capitalism. thats called making a mistake.

[chequita guevara]

Yavoon, ever hear of editting? You don't need to quote all of my argument.




edit: spelling fix

[Japher]

[Tiberius]

Communism isn't immoral. Nor is capitalism. People are.

[Whaleboy]

Morality is subjective and useless in this question.

Very bad troll. If you want to critique communism (economic), use an economic argument, i.e. planned vs libertarian.

[Az]

wtf does an 'economic arguement' mean?

[Whaleboy]

The major gripe I have against communism (or rather, stalinism, communism is too broad and even can encompass right wing liberalism), is economic. Which system gives the better economy? Economic argument is born thus.

[Curiosity]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Curiousity is wrong.

You're right. It should be Curiosity. :P

Mark Twain captured it best when he said the morals of capitalism were "To get rich, illegally if we can, legally if we must." At no point have capitalists has any qualms about using coerced labor.

It's a little unfair to criticise capitalism because not everyone behaves as they ought to under the law, while turning a blind eye to the admittedly viscous history of communism. If communists look to an ideal version of their system, then so may capitalists.

People go out of business because they make moer than they can sell.... And that's just insane.

True.

Of course the small farmer in most developed countries has been supported on the verge of collapse by government grants. If they hadn't been then by now the agricultural industry would probably be controlled by corporations, who would have the sense to do some sort of forecasting of supply and demand, and choose the best land for exploitation rather than using it because that's the way daddy did it.

Oversupply is also a relatively minor problem in most industries outside farming and logging. Marx's predictions here are false, IMHO.

Ultimately, the question isn't do we want socialism or capitalism. Capitalism will eventually be replaced. The question is, with what, socialism or barbarism?

Sorry, I don't see capitalism collapsing into a state of barbarism. In theory it should even be able to outgrow the emerging environmental problems.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah
The major gripe I have against communism (or rather, stalinism, communism is too broad and even can encompass right wing liberalism), is economic. Which system gives the better economy? Economic argument is born thus.

'better'? what do mean by that? The one that serves your goals? what are your goals?

[Whaleboy]

World domination. Was that not obvious?

[Az]

and you want to do that with a market system?


now, seriously.

[Whaleboy]

Ah, I'd leave the markets to themselves. My only real concern is cannabis.

[SKILORD]

Maybe a good Idea would be to limit the amount of Property and Money which Parents can leave for their Offspring.

Is it not the parent's money? And therefore isn't it the parent's right to bequeath it upon whom they will? There will be fortunate people in any form of government and no amount of bloodletting will alleviate this. Could the parent's not also give it to the poor? They could. The offspring are in no way entitled to this money and unless they were you cannot hold up the 'freedom to give aaway your money after your demise' as a problem with capitalism.

There's nothing moral about capitalism.

Oh my freind how you are wrong! Capitalism is not a central ideology, as Communism is. You can criticise business leaders but can you honestly prove that they represent capitalism? Capitalism leaves it to them to make their policies, and does not dictate that we should do this or that.

So do not hold up Businessmen as the failures of Capitalism. Have you ever heard of someone being a Capitalist?

-

An interesting side note, you Communists make an interesting double standard, declaring that to view the realistic Communism that emerged in Eastern Europe is unfair to Communism, while also declaring that we should judge phenomenal (as opposed to noumenal) Capitalism.

You are saying they are not working?

My point is that they are.

No, we oppose capitalism because it is extremely wasteful, bot of resources and of lives

I can't see what you mean? How could a system dedicated to profit, cutting corners and so forth, be seen as wasteful?

Morality is subjective.

You can't possibly have any sort of order when you adhere to such a philosophy. Any form of government has it's own morals (decided upon and made into laws) and therefore it is unfair to judge different governments from the same scale (From a non-Christian perspective of course) but you still cannot declare that Morality is always subjective.

thats why u have capitalism w/ rules.

Capitalism with rules is just as bad. The problem is that the workers won't stand up for themselves, and so they abuse the powers of government by abusing the system of popular government into coercing the businessmen. However, as recent history proves, not all workers have decided to do so and there are still workers who ill not defend themselves; even in the cowardly and statist way.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I can't see what you mean? How could a system dedicated to profit, cutting corners and so forth, be seen as wasteful?

Because what is wasteful from a profit point of view isn't necessarily wasteful from an: environmental, social, or resource point of view. For example, the market only needed certain parts of the buffalo, and so millions of buffalo were slaughtered for their hides, select peices of meat, and for entertainment. Most of the carcass was left to rot. That was an extreme example, but today, natural gas is burned off as a by-product of petroleum extraction. And so on. It just depends on what you consider important.

The problem is that the workers won't stand up for themselves, and so they abuse the powers of government by abusing the system of popular government into coercing the businessmen. However, as recent history proves, not all workers have decided to do so and there are still workers who ill not defend themselves; even in the cowardly and statist way.

Bosses do a hell of a lot to make sure workers won't defend themselves. In the 3rd world, they'll have them beaten and killed (here too if they can get away with it). They threaten to move plants out of the state or country. They threaten to fire organizers. They hire strike breaking firms. They use propaganda. They use the state to outlaw most effective methods of workers defense. And they call us traitors or loonies, so workers won't even listen to alternative points of view on winning the class struggle.

[SKILORD]

Because what is wasteful from a profit point of view isn't necessarily wasteful from an: environmental, social, or resource point of view.

So your support of Communism is based upon your support of the ideal that, if I understand correctly, Your values are the highest and they should be enforced on others through violent revolution.

And they call us traitors or loonies, so workers won't even listen to alternative points of view on winning the class struggle.

By alternate point of view you are, of course, referring to the wanton slaughter of the burgoise.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Curiosity


I didn't say it was. I said that that's a problem with capitalism.

In theory one ought to be able to design a form of government where it's not such a problem, and since it would involve a planned economy it would probably be classed as communism. But, clearly, nothing like past experiments would be any better.

Lasseiz Faire Capitalism is the only system I know of where there are no entrenched figures with sufficient authority to stagnate progress (or idle change, which may masquerade as progress). If you want to complain about government institutions and laws which use the government's holier than thou outlook (which we all take too seriously) to impose it's own views on others then you agree with me, though you do not realise it yet.

[Ned]

It is interesting that the communists primarily defend communism by attacking capitalism and the capitalists defend capitalism by attacking prior examples of communism. But, with few exceptions, even communists do not defend the prior examples of communism, while all capitilists point with pride to the success of capitalist systems.

The only successful communist society is that portrayed in the Star Trek series which presupposes that all essentials are supplied by machines. I used to like Star Trek for its "realism." However, I now think that it is extremely unreal in its protrayal of a future society.