Communism

Post Reply New Topic

And because of that, most of the population of the earth needs to be wiped out, right?



I heard that you can put the entire world population in the State of Texas, and they would each have about an acre of land or so. For a different perspective on all this, read:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker5.html



Because most people do like nature, there would be demand for them to be allowed access.



Well, well, Mr. Collectivist says, "There's no need for such a huge world population." A need by whom? I can tell you this, Each person considers his own life needed.



Most people want children. Most people want to live. A big part of life is passing on one's genes. You are a hypocrite. You say how much you advocate life, but then you advocate the deliberate slaughter or forced sterilization of vast numbers of people. Have you not learned from history that these utopic visions are all madness?

"Who get to decide who lives or dies?" says the monk Ikkyu. "In pondering this question, I have found enlightenment. [Everyone dies but me and my buddies.]"

You sound so much like him!

The second part isn't true. According to Wikipedia, the world population is 6,350,538,084, and the land area of Texas is 696,241 km², which works out to a population density of 9121/km², or about 37 people per acre.

However, this is still not very crowded compared to Manhattan (which has 71 people per acre).



Let's start by killing people who think like you. It would solve two problems at once.

Sorry about that. I'm trying to remember where I heard that from. Note to self: Check such things more often before posting about them.

Time to cool it guys...

That was a personal attack by the way Dan. Can all protagonists on this thread please refresh their memories regarding the announcement on this forum.

Overpopulation is a strawman, as cornince pointed out, but I must also add that our population is set to stabilize, and then decrease, therefore we have no problem if we just use what we already have, with the people that we have, wisely. 30 people in the 3rd world live on what 1 person in the US consumes, recources-wise in general.

There is no need to burn down rainforest etc. These abuses are what happens in the absence of Libertarianism. In a libertarianism tort laws would dictate that people polluting others living environments would be sued or otherwise prosecuted for their crimes. As it stands now, LA residents seem to have no legal recourse against those who pollute the air they breath.

Hmmm...

Will the real GW please stand up?

I'm six-foot-six, and usually try to be warm and supportive towards tall women -- there aren't enough of you, and I want you to like me. However, I just have to disagree with you -- and from a place of love and respect, suggest that you're talking out of your butt. The thing of it is that I really <b>am</b> serious about meaning this in a nice way -- you make the same mistake most people do.

Factually, the world has not yet seen a communist state -- Russia and China were agrarian dictatorships, and North Korea is just straight-out fascism. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to talk about a communist <b>STATE</b> at all -- the state is a mechanism of control wherewith the proletariat is dominated -- or so Marx would have said.

The revolution Marx envisioned was not to occur in the agrarian eurasion steppes, but rather in the industrialized countries. Indeed, he claimed, the revolution is a foregone conclusion, the outworking of a shift in the socio-economic substructure upon which the cultural superstructure is founded.

His basic thesis was that market economies go through periods of boom and bust -- and when things go bust, a lot of economic enterprises go under. The ones that survive, though, not only get to pick at the carcasses of the dead, but they also get to take over the territory that the dead enterprises had controlled.

The end product is a concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands -- and the addition to a number of skilled, talented, and trained former-members of the upper class.. Eventually, Marx claimed, there would be so many of these former bourgeoise that they would form a critical mass and supply the proletariat with the one thing they lacked -- organizational talent.

The Bolsheviks weren't communists. They started out with communist<i>ic</i> ideas, but the agrarian nature of the society in which they struggled quickly overwhelmed their intentions. What both they <i>and</i> Marx neglected was culture.

The Bolsheviks made the mistake of changing the ruling party without changing the relation ship between the ruler and the ruled. In essence, all they did was supplant one Czar with another -- and changed his name to Premier. Marx made the mistake of not taking into acount the emmergence of consumerism.

A very interesting person to read about is Gramsci, who was the first person to call attention to the primacy of culture. He wasn't interested in a bloody revolution, he was interested in creating an organic counter culture . . . which brings me to another quote from you:



I have always thought that Hollywood and the music/entertainment industry suppresses artistic creativity. They don't look for visionaries, they look for people and ideas which resemble other people or ideas which have made money, and end up churning out formulaic crap.


thee atavist

I also thought about that South Park-episode while I wrote the post.

Of course corporations and companies, large and small, produce products that are useful (or at least percieved as useful).
In many cases, it's likely that a company becomes larger than other companies, because they are better at something than the competitors. It could be that their product(s) is (are) better, or that they are better at marketing. They could also have some advantages (such as geographical location, or having to pay less tax), than their competitors. And most companies conduct their business without any complaints; many of them are not doing anything wrong.

But there are companies that are so large that they are able to crush their competitors, before they are able to make a single product. In the long run, this prevents competition from taking place.

One could say that this is a natural consequence of free trade (or unrestricted capitalism). Some people think this is OK, others do not.

If those large companies are using the law, and buying out congress or other lawmakers to make legislation in their favour, it could be a symptom of fascism.

I support local busines, i would rather eat in a local coffee shop than a tim hortons

The world is on a slow, downward spiral into the Hell-hole of 1984. Firstly, the international fascists are putting aside their differences to oppress the proletariat, but they are doing it in a far more clever manner than in the time of Marx by brainwashing ignorant masses of neurotypicals into conforming and obeying. The evidence for this is the rise of chav culture in Britain and the worship of jocks and brain-dead celebrities. The only way out is not really communism as it is to easy to be mutated into fascism. The only way out, as suggested by me, is to create a proper democracy in which their are no political parties and no leaders and where the destiny of the society is decided by the educated elders elected by the people. And who appear to be the most educated elders? All with high intelligence. And now for random emoticons.
He, he hee. They are so random.

Before I start people, I just want to emphasize that Communism is not the opposite of Democracy. Communism is an economic system alternate to Capitalism. You can have a Communist Democracy. Thank you.

You know, that's quite a loaded poll. "Does Chelation Really Work Since It Kills Babies And Eats Kittens?" But you do have a point. I'll try to elaborate here (but not too much!).

I would be inclined to agree. In theory, Communism is great! I sure would do well in it.

Careful, that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Any argument we make, you cannot answer, "Well that's not pure Communism" without explaining why not. Just to warn you.

That's by no means exclusive to Communism.
I would put that under Socialism, the state butting in to care for the needy of society.
Nothing in Marx, or anything really says whether Communism is good at stopping conflict from turning bloody or not. Whether a government is peaceful is almost totally independant of whether it is Communist. One might argue that Capitalism achieves peace, since war damages the free market.
I believe the word you are looking for there is "meritocracy" not "Communism."
Again, how is that Communism? A certain country between Mexico and Canada is by no means Communist, yet requires this to be so. Just because the requirement is ignored... but it's not something Communist only.

Ah, there's your problem then.
I thought "The Giver" was about someone who was forced to devote their life and like, soul magic thingy, to sacrifice themselves in order to save the village?

Communism works very well on a small scale. On a large scale though, it suffers the same problems as any anarchic form of government. There is no way to stop people within a Communist state to start exploiting each other, and there is no way to coordinate the working class should the nation be attacked by "freedom loving" Capitalists. A combination of these turned Soviet Russia into the corrupt oligarchy it is today. Once you can solve the problem of how to enforce a Communist state, then you can start to claim it as a valid, if not perfect, form of government. I'm not saying solving it is impossible, just that it needs to be done.

Capitalism isn't all that great either. Successful Capitalists profit from destroying the free market and eliminating competition, so pure Capitalism is doomed to destroy itself.

As for Democracy, Democracy is great except for one thing: advertising. Powerful people come to control our educational institutions (how many high schools have Linux computers in their labs?), our news media, our scientific community, and our public speakers. Then they can convince us to hurt ourselves as a majority. All they have to do is offer a conflicting argument to what is really the truth, and regardless of evidence it will sway the majority. They manipulate us emotionally, disguise themselves as religion, tradition, and family values, and We the People then screw ourselves over by voting against our own best interests. Democracy, as I see it, is doomed. Advertising truly destroys it. I don't think it will last another 50 years. Maybe that's just me being arrogant though.

Each Tim Horton's is an independently owned and operated franchise. They represent a significant investment (typically more than $500,000) by a member of your community, and although THD Group Ltd. gets their cut, a good part of the profit stays in your community. It's far better than shopping at Wal-Mart or Real Canadian Superstore (Loblaw's) and having all the money leave your community.

I would think that in a thread arguing the relative merits of communism, socialism and capitalism, franchised businesses would be easily recognized as the ideal compromise: a capitalist's opportunity for success mixed with communal sharing of risk and advertising expenses.

This is the main plot point in "Atlas Shrugged". Only Ayn Rand took more than 1000 pages to come to the same point.

We don't mention Ayn Rand in polite company...

Why not? Because her assertions are too hard to argue against?


If ever there was a question slanted toward a particular answer...

This reminds me of poll questions like, "a) Should Creationism be taught in school science classes, or b) should our children be allowed to grow into devil-worshiping, murderous syphilitic cannibals?"

Can you say "false dichotomy"? I knew you could.