free and equal?

[Gnostic Yevon]

The problem with absolutely pure capitalism is that it in practice always puts the rich over the poor. They won't let the government make a policy that hurts them. FDA for instance is against pure capitalism. So are minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic health and safety laws etc. Under pure cpitalism such laws could never possibly exist.

On the other hand under communist systems, what you think is yours isn't up to and including your own body and mind. You can't protest an unfair policy without jail time. You just found the cure for cancer. Great! now it belongs to the People's Republic of Bendover, and the glorious state will distrubute the cure to the masses. Of course you won't get any reward for it. And you still will work in the same dirty old hospital as before.

Pure systems never work because people tend to try to get power for themselves and not worry about other people. So if you have a beautiful theory, it will never work. Societies just don't work that way. So the best solution seems to be in the middle somewhere.

[Raistlin]

My source is irrelevent, as are all conclusions in a debate. Tell me, what is communism, then? What's wrong with my reasons? Is communism not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Does communism not put the "good of the people" and the "good of the community"(where it gets its name from) above the individual? Does communism not demand that each individual contribute "his fair share" to the community? Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

The problem with absolutely pure capitalism is that it in practice always puts the rich over the poor. They won't let the government make a policy that hurts them. FDA for instance is against pure capitalism. So are minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic health and safety laws etc. Under pure cpitalism such laws could never possibly exist.

First off, child labor laws are not for or against capitalism. I concede the rest.
Secondly, capitalism only favors the rich if you deem that money is the standard with which you must judge a person's value.

On the other hand under communist systems, what you think is yours isn't up to and including your own body and mind. You can't protest an unfair policy without jail time. You just found the cure for cancer. Great! now it belongs to the People's Republic of Bendover, and the glorious state will distrubute the cure to the masses. Of course you won't get any reward for it. And you still will work in the same dirty old hospital as before.

I just have to say: The People's Republic of Bendover is brilliant.

Pure systems never work because people tend to try to get power for themselves and not worry about other people. So if you have a beautiful theory, it will never work. Societies just don't work that way. So the best solution seems to be in the middle somewhere.

Pure capitalism doesn't work because people hold that their lives are less meaningful without money, and more meaningful with it. People define their lives with external values - which devalues their life. If people viewed their lives as ends in and of themselves, than capitalism is the perfect system.

[Shadow Nexus]

My source is irrelevent, as are all conclusions in a debate. Tell me, what is communism, then? What's wrong with my reasons? Is communism not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Does communism not put the "good of the people" and the "good of the community"(where it gets its name from) above the individual? Does communism not demand that each individual contribute "his fair share" to the community? Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

It took centuries for Enlightment to develop through Europe, it took a lot to bring German idealism and romanticism, intellectual revolution, social revolution through Europe and opression in Prussia. All of that brought Marx to write his theory. To justify his philosophy, Marx and Engels wrote thousands and thousands of pages: the Manuscripts, the Capital, etc. After that, it took another century and a half on extensions on this theory, other points of view, etc. I haven't read all of The Capital, I haven't read all of Marcuse, or Schiller, or Fromm. I can't explain communism in a post because it is a very complex theories that go far beyond the cheap simplifications often exposed. In fact, I can't even claim to understand communism as a whole, because I admit my ignorance around many topics touched by Marx and followers (and predecesors). If I was to explain what I know of communism- and it would take a lot of typing, even if I am not that well read on the issue- you would probably still find many parts lacking. However, I can claim to understand at least the main parts of the structure of the theory, and it's nothing close to what you are saying...in fact, what you are saying is explicitly- and it matches, point by point- what Fromm called the "sad manipulation of Marx". That's why I asked the source, if I could check the source- provided it was a book or website- I could attempt to show you where the wrong points are.

You keep on with your points and seem to refuse to admit the possibility of being wrong, as if I was here just to try to cheat you or something. I am just telling your understanding of marxist theory has nothing to do with the actual theories, that your source is wrong. I may be wrong on many things on communism, but I am fairly sure I am right when I say your idea of communism is probably taken from a manipulated view of the actual theory. Are you sure your source is correct? Have you actually attempted to look at other sources? Marx and Nietzsche are two very dangerous philosophers, because the first was taken as avatar by Stalinism and the second as a symbol of Nazism. That's why it's risky to talk about them, because history has manipulated them. For example, never look at Russell's book on the issue, because his text on Nietzsche was wrote on 1943, and I think Russell was jewish and English, so he had enough reasons to charge against the avatars of nazism, even though his views of Nietzsche were completly unfair. Even worse were the nazi interpretations of Nietzsche. And your readings of Marx are as close to Marx as Russell's writings on Nietzsche. And I could go on with this, but it's nearly 5 am and I don't want to get more pedantic.

[Raistlin]

You support communism...but you can't explain it? You defend it, but you don't understand it?

I couldn't care less about the history of it or the people that made it up and their intellectual prowess. What I want to know is: what does it do, and why does it need to be done? I can explain that for capitalism(and have done so) quickly, concisely, through a logical process of reason.

I take reasons - the facts of reality given to me - and use those to shape a conclusion. I am confident in my own judgment and my ability to logically analyze facts. I am confident in my own conclusions until and unless new facts are shown to me which prove me wrong. I am confident in the veracity of my conclusion until and unless I am shown reason to do otherwise. You have not provided any, and seem to be stuck with citing your sources, as if the prestigious names of the past can somehow justifiy your opinion. But their names are irrelevent to a serious discussion as are their conclusion: only their reasons are relevent, and you have provided none.

[Cloud No.9]

why has noone noticed that raistlin is a closet communist? his claim that life should not be judged by money is so close to marxist philosophy it's scary.

captalism is based on the idea that money is your rewardin life. you do a good job you get paid more. it is the ojne reward of a captalist system more work = more money. while not always true in a captalist society as one man can do less work and earn more money, land owners for instance, inheriters. but that is beside the point really. the reward in a capatalist society is money, that's what the economic theory is actually based around. that people want more money so they want to succeed more which makes the world go round. pure captalism used to be followed in britain in the victorian age and indutrial revolution. it is in essence laissez-faire.

the idea being the big wig owns a factory. he employs people with poor money so he can make more profits, so he has more money with this money he can buy more things thus employing more people with a new factory or by buying lots of new shiny things. both provide more jobs and money. he is free to do with his welath as he please but at the end of the day it will all benefit someone. even putting it in a bank will benefit the banker. benefitting the banker means he has more money and so can either get a new bank and emply more people or buy new shiny things. see how it works?

each man is rewarded with money. in the above example though who has the power? the big wig. we decides what wage he pays his worker and so how much money he makes. laissez-faire tells us that no matter if he chooses to pay his workers more than a pound a day or keeps the money to himself benefits society.

happily this idea died out. people saw that big was being a touch exploitative if he continued to pay his workers badly, employed children, and had no health and safety. people saw this as a very bad thing cos people had a habity of dying for whatever reason. the government had the same policy with the helath of the people until everyone starting getting cholera and started dying all over the place. it then decided that leaving the power with mr big wig was possibly not a great idea becase no matter how it benefitted society mr big wig did what he saw fit with his money, and that was moslty for his benefit so people has the odd habit of getting their hands stuck in the machines and getting cholera becuase installing clean water has not on the top of his agenda compared to buying a new factory or mansion.

so the goverment decided that it might be a good idea for the government to do stuff. so it made a sanitation system. and people didn't get cholera. it forced health and safety and people didn't get their hands stuck in machines anymore. it forced minimum wage and people no longer went hungry. death was done to the liassez-faire policy and mr big wig lost some of his power.

however his money continued to grow and at a much faster rate than his workers. so he regained his power. and the workers were not happy. they believed that they work harder than mr big wig but he had more money. in effect they made mr biug wigs money and without them he was up the creek. the idea formed that the worker was more important than the owner. without them the company would fail.

each job is as important as the other.

communism belives like raistlin does that money was not how people should be rewarded for what they do. it gave people a sense of purpose. in communist russia this was the war effort. the idea was that all work needed to be done, all people could do different things and all people were equal and would be rewarded equally. of course this would still need to be done by money as tghat is the way the world works. but at the same time people would gain pride in their work, working together for the good of the community. not for their purely for their won gain. however they will be rewarded in themselves.

raistlin hinted at htis point when he said money is not how a man should be judge nor should it be his reward. this idea is actually a marxist one. not capatalist. the reward in capatalism is money. and more money than others.

[Shadow Nexus]

I am not a communist, I do not defend communism, I just think it to be a better system than capitalism. I just don't want to explain because I have done it so many times in this forum...I already got tired. Plus, as said before, it would require a lot.

I don't wish to start giving pro-communist argumentations for the simple reason I can't see we are talking about the same thing, so this would lead to misunderstanding. And as explained before, it would take a lot of typing from my part. And no, frankly, I can't make short, concise simplifications. I was never good at that. I can cite my sources, not because I attempt to justify my opinion at verecundiam, but to attempt to explain this sources have been manipulated through history. And to be a pedant, and I'm damn good at that.

However, I can try to explain the problems in your views of capitalism. For example, this whole concept of freedom. The first step for freedom is to free the mind, if you are alienated you will never be really free. Capitalism needs to create this alienation, the market needs production, prduction needs consumers, thus we create a consumerist world, so we develop advertisments shoved down the throat of the citizens through all the damn place. Make them wish for things to buy, because this makes the corporations more succesful. And in capitalism, the corporations are the rulers. Whats the problem with being poor in capitalism? That you are forced to climb up for something superior, you are preassured constantly, everywhere, by precious smiling faces feeding you materialistic wish. If people don't consume, capitalism sinks. You are free to choose another type of life? How free? Consider for a moment how free is that person, how many possibilities of moving out of a crappy routinary life he or she has.

By the way, for capitalism to work, we need extreme inequality. Some people have to work for others to succeed, some people have to fail for others to succeed. If the competence fails, then thats good for you. In capitalist mindset, being poor is bad, because you are forced to work for someone, and probably your work will be alienating, in the end you will be not doing what you wish to do.

If you're lucky, then what you wish to do may be possible. But if what you wish to do is not rentable, then forget it. If the producer dosen't like the script of your movie because it won't be succesful- because you just wrote like Igmar Bergman and people want Vin Diesel- then go to hell. Are you a songwriter in the style of Leonard Cohen? I'm sorry, because we got another Ashlee Simpson at the door. And I think it's impossible to deny this happens. I know of many similar cases.

A mind is not always free. It develops in a society, the experience affects it. When the experience reduces and manipulates the conscience, you have to be very lucky to move away from it. That is called alienation. And that happens a lot in capitalism.

[Raistlin]

I am at work currently, and don't have time to respond in full(which I will do later tonight when I get come), but for now, here's an interesting link(completely on-topic):

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spinner_8/59453.html?

[Shadow Nexus]

I am at work currently, and don't have time to respond in full(which I will do later tonight when I get come), but for now, here's an interesting link(completely on-topic):

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spinner_8/59453.html?

He forgot "it makes me sexy". I mean, look at Che, who can resist the revolucionario virility? *dreamy sight*

[Cloud No.9]

pure captalism would be freedom. but freedom only for the upper class. the owners. for the workers it would be oppression in it's greatest sense. to create a laissez-faire society would be the biggest mistakes of all time. to place control of the workers in the men who ant profits hand would be a stupid idea. to make profit you just pay people less. it was worse back then when not only did your money come from mr big wig but so did your house. these were mostly single rooms were people tended to get very sick and die. it was not a nice time. imagine what would happen if you took away all building regulations? those might argue that bad builders would just get a bad reputation, but this is a misconception. people would use what was cheap. bad builders still exist today and are still in business imagine what would happen if you allowed them to do what they saw fit?

if every employer could pay what it wanted? it would be going back 150 years. pure capitalism or laissez-faire would truly suck.

it would be a dictatorship of the beurgiose. (yes i may have spelt it wrong)

[Gnostic Yevon]

My source is irrelevent, as are all conclusions in a debate. Tell me, what is communism, then? What's wrong with my reasons? Is communism not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Does communism not put the "good of the people" and the "good of the community"(where it gets its name from) above the individual? Does communism not demand that each individual contribute "his fair share" to the community? Please, tell me where I'm wrong.

The problem with absolutely pure capitalism is that it in practice always puts the rich over the poor. They won't let the government make a policy that hurts them. FDA for instance is against pure capitalism. So are minimum wage laws, child labor laws, basic health and safety laws etc. Under pure cpitalism such laws could never possibly exist.

First off, child labor laws are not for or against capitalism. I concede the rest.
Secondly, capitalism only favors the rich if you deem that money is the standard with which you must judge a person's value.

Well, I guess I left you with a wrong impression here. What I was getting at was more how a society would end up seeing those with money vs. those who don't. Specifically the government. It always has and always will take money to get elected. So when you raise your "war chest" to go and convince people to vote for you, you will go to the rich people because they have the money. Of course they won't give you any if you work against their interests. As a result politicians will naturally favor causes that help the rich even if they hurt the poor.

Actually I would think child labor laws would be contrary to pure capitalism, because as I understand it, capitalism means the ability to sell your labor in any way you see fit. Thus having a minimum age before you could seek employment seems to me anti-capitalist. unless of course I'm missing something.

[quote]

On the other hand under communist systems, what you think is yours isn't up to and including your own body and mind. You can't protest an unfair policy without jail time. You just found the cure for cancer. Great! now it belongs to the People's Republic of Bendover, and the glorious state will distrubute the cure to the masses. Of course you won't get any reward for it. And you still will work in the same dirty old hospital as before.

I just have to say: The People's Republic of Bendover is brilliant. [quote]

glad you liked it.

Pure systems never work because people tend to try to get power for themselves and not worry about other people. So if you have a beautiful theory, it will never work. Societies just don't work that way. So the best solution seems to be in the middle somewhere.

Pure capitalism doesn't work because people hold that their lives are less meaningful without money, and more meaningful with it. People define their lives with external values - which devalues their life. If people viewed their lives as ends in and of themselves, than capitalism is the perfect system.

But at the end of the day without money, your life will be harder than with it. It isn't so much that a person sees dollar signs looking in the mirror, just that they understand that at the end of the month the grocery store and their landlord expect to see some form of currency rather than a warm fuzzy statement about how much of a developed person they are. It isn't a question of "I mean less to society because I'm poor", it's a question of practicallity.

I think what devalues human life is to have no connection to their own souls. That can happen even if you live in the forest hunting squirrels in a loincloth. Money has little to do with it.

[Raistlin]

I got a lot to read over. Well, here goes...

why has noone noticed that raistlin is a closet communist? his claim that life should not be judged by money is so close to marxist philosophy it's scary.

Hardly. Communism is based around money being the measure of one's worth.

captalism is based on the idea that money is your rewardin life. you do a good job you get paid more. it is the ojne reward of a captalist system more work = more money. while not always true in a captalist society as one man can do less work and earn more money, land owners for instance, inheriters. but that is beside the point really. the reward in a capatalist society is money, that's what the economic theory is actually based around. that people want more money so they want to succeed more which makes the world go round. pure captalism used to be followed in britain in the victorian age and indutrial revolution. it is in essence laissez-faire.

Under a capitalist system, your reward is the product of your efforts; basically, that you're responsible for the fruits of your labor, good or bad. The philosophy behind that is that the individual is the most important part of a society, that each person's life is an end in and of itself(and of value in and of itself), that ability, success is encouraged, that each person's life is their own, yadda yadda yadda.

each man is rewarded with money. in the above example though who has the power? the big wig. we decides what wage he pays his worker and so how much money he makes. laissez-faire tells us that no matter if he chooses to pay his workers more than a pound a day or keeps the money to himself benefits society.

The workers have the power to protest, quit, strike, or go along with their jobs. The job owner only has the power that the workers let him have. Same theory behind democractic governments.

so the goverment decided that it might be a good idea for the government to do stuff. so it made a sanitation system. and people didn't get cholera. it forced health and safety and people didn't get their hands stuck in machines anymore. it forced minimum wage and people no longer went hungry. death was done to the liassez-faire policy and mr big wig lost some of his power.

Sanitation systems are under the state's power, and is not socialist. The regulations for those in jobs may be, but why can't the workers and the employers work that out for themselves?

however his money continued to grow and at a much faster rate than his workers. so he regained his power. and the workers were not happy. they believed that they work harder than mr big wig but he had more money. in effect they made mr biug wigs money and without them he was up the creek. the idea formed that the worker was more important than the owner. without them the company would fail.

Effort does grant you the claim to your money. Ability does.

each job is as important as the other.

True, as it is in capitlism: you can't have the "big wigs" without the workers. The "big wigs" only have the power that the workers grant him with their consent. "Power" is a very dependent term.

communism belives like raistlin does that money was not how people should be rewarded for what they do.

That's not what I said at all. I said that money is not a measure of man's value, and therefore who has the money and who doesn't is irrelevent. Communism maintains, logically, that for everyone's life to be of equal value, they must all have the same amount of money, whether it's earned or not. The idea of life being of value in and of itself is the antithesis of communism.

it gave people a sense of purpose. in communist russia this was the war effort. the idea was that all work needed to be done, all people could do different things and all people were equal and would be rewarded equally. of course this would still need to be done by money as tghat is the way the world works. but at the same time people would gain pride in their work, working together for the good of the community. not for their purely for their won gain. however they will be rewarded in themselves.

It gives purpose for people who have no purpose. It grants security to insecure people. It grants the unearned to the lazy and mediocre. It pushes down those that don't want to live how they're told.

The idea that society is of more importance than the individual is one of the most evil ideas in the world. NOTHING is more important than the individual. Therefore, "for the good of the community" is nonsense. The only life that matters is mine, and what I rationally choose to do. If I want to be a doctor or lawyer or artist or musician, that's my choice. If I want to try to be rich or content to stay lower-class, that's my choice. If I want to try to be the best or content to stay mediocre, that's my choice. Nobody has the right to live MY life.

raistlin hinted at htis point when he said money is not how a man should be judge nor should it be his reward. this idea is actually a marxist one. not capatalist. the reward in capatalism is money. and more money than others.

Nonsense. Communism states that the life of the individual is NOT of value in itself, and that money is the measure of man's worth. Capitalism ideals are that life is of value in and of itself, and money does not measure one's worth.

I am not a communist, I do not defend communism, I just think it to be a better system than capitalism. I just don't want to explain because I have done it so many times in this forum...I already got tired. Plus, as said before, it would require a lot.

I don't wish to start giving pro-communist argumentations for the simple reason I can't see we are talking about the same thing, so this would lead to misunderstanding. And as explained before, it would take a lot of typing from my part. And no, frankly, I can't make short, concise simplifications. I was never good at that. I can cite my sources, not because I attempt to justify my opinion at verecundiam, but to attempt to explain this sources have been manipulated through history. And to be a pedant, and I'm damn good at that.

"Sorry, I don't feel like typing it all out, but I'll type out a lot of irrelevent stuff instead."

However, I can try to explain the problems in your views of capitalism. For example, this whole concept of freedom. The first step for freedom is to free the mind, if you are alienated you will never be really free. Capitalism needs to create this alienation, the market needs production, prduction needs consumers, thus we create a consumerist world, so we develop advertisments shoved down the throat of the citizens through all the damn place. Make them wish for things to buy, because this makes the corporations more succesful. And in capitalism, the corporations are the rulers. Whats the problem with being poor in capitalism? That you are forced to climb up for something superior, you are preassured constantly, everywhere, by precious smiling faces feeding you materialistic wish. If people don't consume, capitalism sinks. You are free to choose another type of life? How free? Consider for a moment how free is that person, how many possibilities of moving out of a crappy routinary life he or she has.

Coorporations only have the power that the workers and the people give them voluntarily. If people don't "consume," then the cooporation either changes, or bankrupts. It's competitive. To succeed requires effort, requires thought, requires choice. That is freedom. Freedom = choice, allowing each person to have choice, allowing each person the right to their own mind. Communism allows no such choice.

By the way, for capitalism to work, we need extreme inequality. Some people have to work for others to succeed, some people have to fail for others to succeed. If the competence fails, then thats good for you. In capitalist mindset, being poor is bad, because you are forced to work for someone, and probably your work will be alienating, in the end you will be not doing what you wish to do.

Inequality only if you view money and this nonexistant term of "power" as the measures of one's worth. I don't. Capitalism doesn't, either. Why is working for someone bad? Why is being poor bad? Does being poor lessen the value of your life? Capitalism states that, if you're poor and you don't want to be poor, you must make the choice to become greater, and make the choice to put in the effort. Communism states that, if you're poor, you don't need to do anything, and everything will be handed to you, whether you try or not.

A mind is not always free. It develops in a society, the experience affects it. When the experience reduces and manipulates the conscience, you have to be very lucky to move away from it. That is called alienation. And that happens a lot in capitalism.

No, you don't have to be lucky - you just have to think. The mind is always free unless that freedom is given up voluntarily. Many people voluntarily give up the freedom of their mind, and they're not worthy of my pity or of handouts. The betrayal of your life, of your self-value, of your mind, is the worst form of betrayal.

pure captalism would be freedom. but freedom only for the upper class. the owners. for the workers it would be oppression in it's greatest sense. to create a laissez-faire society would be the biggest mistakes of all time.

Again, only if you measure one's worthy by money and power. Any person who places life as a value in and of itself, transcendent of money, would disagree. "Power" is a very dependent term: the people "in power" are more dependent on the people below them than those people are on them. If some big cooporation does something the people don't like, the people are free to either go along with their lives, protest, boycott, or strike. "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If those good men do nothing, then it's not the coorporation's fault.

if every employer could pay what it wanted? it would be going back 150 years. pure capitalism or laissez-faire would truly suck.

Only for the weak-minded people of communism. Also, true laissez-faire capitalism hasn't really existed yet.

it would be a dictatorship of the beurgiose.

No, it would be the ultimate system of checks-and-balances, while preserving the freedom of choice(again, no other type of freedom exists).

What I was getting at was more how a society would end up seeing those with money vs. those who don't. Specifically the government. It always has and always will take money to get elected. So when you raise your "war chest" to go and convince people to vote for you, you will go to the rich people because they have the money. Of course they won't give you any if you work against their interests. As a result politicians will naturally favor causes that help the rich even if they hurt the poor.

Then why did the Democrats propose a helluva lot of pro-poor ideas in the last election? Kerry didn't seem to be "bought out my the rich."

But at the end of the day without money, your life will be harder than with it.

So?

It isn't so much that a person sees dollar signs looking in the mirror, just that they understand that at the end of the month the grocery store and their landlord expect to see some form of currency rather than a warm fuzzy statement about how much of a developed person they are. It isn't a question of "I mean less to society because I'm poor", it's a question of practicallity.

But people don't think that way. People spend way beyond their means, with credit cards and such. If people did life within their means, it would be entirely possible to survive with a minimum of income, and pure survival is the only real good of money. The rest is irrelevent, and shouldn't matter.

I think what devalues human life is to have no connection to their own souls. That can happen even if you live in the forest hunting squirrels in a loincloth. Money has little to do with it.

I don't know exactly what you mean by that. What devalues human life is to measure the value of your life with external means: money, power, fame, religion, community, donations, grades, whatever. Money has nothing to do with it. Capitalism would agree with that. Communism wouldn't.