free and equal?

I take equality to mean "equal under the law" rather than "everybody is exactly like everybody else in wealth and talent". The second isn't possible at all. Even if you were to forcibly prevent a person from using their talents, betoven would still be a better pianist than I am, Bill Gates is still a better programmer. You just can't take someone's abilities away from them. As far as equality it is possible to make everyone legally equal, meaning that no one no matter how rich talented or well connected gets special privledges or exemptions to the rules. Complete freedom isn't possible because you have to live with other people, so you have rules to keep you from hurting people and causing chaos in the community. I see no problem with the two of them working together, but you would have to be careful of the rich getting too much power in deciding elections.

captalism does not gurantee freedom. you can live in an oppressive capatalist country.

as long as you have to pay for an education who are born to will determine your future. if you're parents cannot afford to send you to a good school or to univeristy, your prospects in life are already hampered before you have even done a days work. you won't be getting that law degree if your parents can't send you to university. that is not your choice or fault. but your future as a lawyer is over before you have a chance to proof yourself.

why in order to be free do i have to be better than my neighbour? and why in order to be equal would i need to oppress him.

(neighbour in the biblical snese)

Quote:

---

As far as equality it is possible to make everyone legally equal, meaning that no one no matter how rich talented or well connected gets special privledges or exemptions to the rules.

---

I agree, and this is exemplified in true capitalism: you are judged solely by your merits, not your parents, not your skin color, not your political or religious or sexual preferences, just by what you are and do. That's freedom of the mind, and is the focus of capitalism.

Quote:

---

captalism does not gurantee freedom. you can live in an oppressive capatalist country.

---

That's a contradiction. An oppresive country may call themselves capitalist, but that's wrong. I think you don't quite understand what true capitalism is.

Quote:

---

as long as you have to pay for an education who are born to will determine your future. if you're parents cannot afford to send you to a good school or to univeristy, your prospects in life are already hampered before you have even done a days work. you won't be getting that law degree if your parents can't send you to university. that is not your choice or fault. but your future as a lawyer is over before you have a chance to proof yourself.

---

That's making two assumptions: that your life is not as valuable without a formal education, and that your life is not as valuable without money. I find those two assumptions horrible and wrong. Your opportunities are hampered only by what you perceive to be others' opportunities. However, it is completely irrelevent what others have.

Quote:

---

why in order to be free do i have to be better than my neighbour? and why in order to be equal would i need to oppress him.

---

You don't. Freedom is the ability of choice: you are free to excel or not. So, with freedom, you can be far worse than your neighbor or far better or similar to or whatever.
However, in order to be equal with your neighbor, you would have to either leech off of him, or he off of you, because no two people are truly equal. Communism is the ultimate product of this: taking the product of one man's mind, a portion of his life, and giving it away to someone who has not earned it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Anarchy is a form of government.

---

No it's not. Anarchy is the lack of a government. Everyone does not have equal chances of for example getting education in a capitalism. In a capitalism the only thing that matters is one's economical wealth and everyone is not born with the exact same amount of money. The rich have bigger chances of succeeding in life from the start. They are the ones who will own the large corporations, which grants them the right to create the rules and to oppress the ones with less power/the ones who are born poor. If you are born in a poor family, it will take a lot of luck to get a highly paid job, while a person born wealthy can buy himself an education that guarantees a good job. In a socialism everyone will receive the same education sponsored by tax payer's money. This will, unlike in a capitalism, give everyone the freedom to educate oneself to whatever one may desire and the economical wealth of a person is totally irrelevant. Therefore a socialism is both more equal and freer than a capitalism.

*sigh* "Form of government" meaning an "idea of government" which includes the lack of one.

Quote:

---

Everyone does not have equal chances of for example getting education in a capitalism. In a capitalism the only thing that matters is one's economical wealth and everyone is not born with the exact same amount of money. The rich have bigger chances of succeeding in life from the start. They are the ones who will own the large corporations, which grants them the right to create the rules and to oppress the ones with less power/the ones who are born poor. If you are born in a poor family, it will take a lot of luck to get a highly paid job, while a person born wealthy can buy himself an education that guarantees a good job. In a socialism everyone will receive the same education sponsored by tax payer's money. This will, unlike in a capitalism, give everyone the freedom to educate oneself to whatever one may desire and the economical wealth of a person is totally irrelevant. Therefore a socialism is both more equal and free than a capitalism.

---

That makes one gross assumption: that "success" is measured in monetary means. I find that distasteful.
In capitalism, you have choice(which is freedom). In communism, you don't(which is equality).

Quote:

---

I have the right to live my own life - yet communism condemns that as evil, and capitalism hails that as just

---

Have you ever actually read communist philosophy?

Quote:

---

it is a sad fact that these days many people seem to judge a man purely by the amount of cash in his wallet.

has being poor became the new being black, jewish or communist?

it's a grim thought that these days people are prejudice against a man dependant on his bank account.

---

Yes, and I am still waiting for a reply on this from the people who have claimed equality as mediocrity. I'm sorry, I don't see it. Someone has to explain it. I think of all the things that save people from being mediocre, and none of them can't be achieved on an equal society. Most of them are either really cheap or just free.

Quote:

---

Have you ever actually read communist philosophy?

---

Yes, I have. It claims I have a moral obligation to give up my life in the service of others, that my life is merely a means to the end of others and that if I exert the effort to produce more than others, it merely increases my obligation.

Quote:

---

Yes, and I am still waiting for a reply on this from the people who have claimed equality as mediocrity. I'm sorry, I don't see it. Someone has to explain it. I think of all the things that save people from being mediocre, and none of them can't be achieved on an equal society. Most of them are either really cheap or just free.

---

If there's true equality, there's no better and no worse - only the norm, the average, the mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

That makes one gross assumption: that "success" is measured in monetary means. I find that distasteful.

---

Well that is how it is in a capitalism. Capitalism is about nothing but money, which is obvious from just hearing the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

In capitalism, you have choice(which is freedom). In communism, you don't(which is equality).

---

Wow, I never realised it was that simple.

Quote:

---

Yes, I have. It claims I have a moral obligation to give up my life in the service of others, that my life is merely a means to the end of others and that if I exert the effort to produce more than others, it merely increases my obligation.

---

What book was that?

Quote:

---

If there's true equality, there's no better and no worse - only the norm, the average, the mediocre.

---

Eh? We're speaking of economical equality, not of equality in all damn senses. Equality in all senses is completly impossible, unless you do some evil genetical plan or something.

Quote:

---

Well that is how it is in a capitalism. Capitalism is about nothing but money, which is obvious from just hearing the name.

---

Maybe you should read up on it a bit, then. Capitalism is about whatever you choose it to be. It's the freedom of choice(and there is no other freedom) to live your life the way in which you want to. If you are an artist, and want to be free to express yourself, you would want a capitalist society over a communist one. It is the societal system which says that you must live your own life, and that your life is an end in and of itself.
With true capitalism, you are free to make money or not, free to follow your dreams, your passions, or not. You are free to live in the routine or not. How is that "all about money?"
In fact, I'd go so far to say that communism is all about money, because it deems that "equality" is based off of money.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

What book was that?

---

Why? Are you saying it's wrong? Tell me why, then.

Quote:

---

Eh? We're speaking of economical equality, not of equality in all damn senses. Equality in all senses is completly impossible, unless you do some evil genetical plan or something.

---

Yes, and I'm saying that economic equality is irrelevent and doesn't deserve consideration. Why is a poor person's life less worth living than a rich person's?

Take those things Raistlin is saying and pretend its me saying them so I can save my breath.

OK, Raistlin, no offense but you are going into some impressive capitalist pamphlet. Anyway...

Quote:

---

Why? Are you saying it's wrong? Tell me why, then.

---

Yes, I am. Well, at least that's not in my books. Through my readings of Marx, Engels, Marcuse, Saramago, Candel and Fromm I have not seen such claims anywhere. And nothing close to it. Of course, I can't claim to have read ALL of communist philosophy written, but I have gone through plenty. The concept of productive totalitarism is absolutely opposed to the concept of the work promoted in communism. You are seeing communism from the capitalist mindset, wich means, basically, to grab the communist economical system and adapt it to capitalist means of production. That leads to a total disaster, and Cornelius Castoriadis already did a very good critique to Lenin from his group "Socialisme ou Barbarie". I can't understand how many communists admire Lenin so much, I mean, I'm not technically a communist, but I just can't understand how Lenin can be considered a communist hero, given how he mantained certain production methods. For Marx, work is not something alienating, but something meant to be positive for the worker. OK, I can't start explaining this right now, because it is very complicated and would require a lot of typing, but he does treat the issue deeply in the Manuscripts. Also, there's a very interesting Fromm book called "Marx's Concept of Man" I have mentioned several times in this forum.

And of course, I recommend that book because it also makes quite a denounce on the manipulation done to Marx on the USA (this manipulation has extended to many other countries, but in USA we have the extreme cases). Basically, I have the feeling most people base their judgments on this philosophical system on capitalist propaganda, thus leading to this confusions. To this it has also contributed the wicked applications of communist theories by dictators, thus making some people believe Marx would have actually defended Stalin or Mao. He would have never done that. Marx was brought up philosophically by people like Schiller, not by some damn Nabucodonosor. Your definitions on communism seem to be entirely based around the anti-communist propaganda, and of course, under such concepts it's preety normal you jump to hug capitalism. I would too. Actually, I thought the same you did on communism until I actually bothered to read some serious stuff on it, to find out I was wrong. I don't think communism is the most advanced political theory ever, and I disagree on many aspects, but Marx never wrote about alienating people to work or anything like that. He was a cultivated man, a liberal person and one of the enemies of the state of Prussia. Hegel was the totalitarist, not Marx.

Of course communists wouldn't say that they claim the individual to be insignificant, but that's what it is, by definition. Please, prove me wrong.

There's two ways to regard life: as an end in itself, and as a means to an end.

The logical conclusions to both are:

End in itself: Each life is of value in and of itself. Nothing external can define the internal value of a life. Each person has the right to live their own life, and no one has the right to lay claim to another person's life(this immediately voids the idea of communism). Each person has the right to their own life, the right to their own mind, and therefore also the right to the product of their own mind, the product of their own life.
The sociel system designed around this ideal: capitalism.

Means to an end: each person's right is only of value in what they serve to some other end - there is a moral obligation to serve that end. Invididuals are insignificant.
Social system designed around this: communism. Communism claims that each person has the moral obligation for "the good of the people." Each person does NOT have the right to their own life, and the product of the lives of those that succeed, those that have the curse of ability, are taken from them by force to those that have not earned it. Ability, success, wealth are punished and mediocrity encouraged. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." By claiming need, a person claims a moral right to the product of another's life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

How do you define equality and how do you define freedom? Total freedom is impossible, as is total equality (I mean, we have our limitations as humans, no one can deny that).

If equality was total, of course, freedom would be impossible. If you are just like the guy next door in all senses, then you have no real individuality, because distintions between one and the other are not present. You would become...pointless. Of course, this is impossible to acomplish.

If by equality you mean equal economical income, then well...I don't see how freedom is impossible. Oh, wait, you don't have the freedom to have a gigantic mansion near the beach!

---

When you deny a person of another group the freedom to be successful or goto places that another group can travel or whatever they do go one on one.Theres no and ifs or buts and you can't run in circles making it sound intelegence due to the fact that its common sense if you use oyur brain.

Can you say exactly where the hell are you taking this definition of communism you use from? There's no point in replying to your points if we are refering -with the same word- to somethign completly different. In catalan, "fart" means "to be tired", wich is not the same meaning as in English, and we're speaking a different language here. Seriously, I want to know the source of your definition.