How are you honestly gonna implement a communist system without it's economy crashing or it turning into a totalitarian dictatorship? I'm honestly curious.

4262148 They might actually require the lack of an economy, if that makes any sense.

4262148 I agree with tarkus for it to truly work it may require no economy, however the same goes for capitalism, how could it work without a lower class to be exploited?

4262148 we turn it into a totalitarian theocracy, and use heathen slave labor to manufacture AK-47s for The North Koreans.

4262203

how could it work without a lower class to be exploited

Because no one is truly exploited in a free market capitalist economy. In a free market capitalist economy. Nobody forces you to buy or do service with someone you don't like. If you don't like Walmart than don't shop there. You can always go to Target or Supervalue or Copps. And the same thing goes with employment nobody forces you who to work for. The only limit to your employment is your skill level. However, in a free market, when you earn better skills you can more than often get promoted or find a job that pays better. Heck you might even save up enough money to start your own business.

yeah in a capitalist society the rich do get richer however, in a free market capitalist society so do the other classes. Poor people in the developed world live upper middle classmen one hundred years ago. I went to school with many poor kids in my class some of whom lived in trailer parks and they all had an HD tv, a game system, a computer, and a vehicle. The only threat to people's liberties in a free market society is when the state comes in and starts meddling with the system. But that's not capitalism's fault that's the state's fault hence why I believe the overwhelmingly majority of economic problems can be fixed by shrinking the state.

4262194 It doesn't. There hasn't been a single human society that has an economy in one way or another. The idea that human society can survive without an economy is utopian thinking.

4262203 Simple. Capitalism is not the exploitation of a lower class. Capitalism is a system meant to promote personal advancement through any means necessary. The idea is that Capitalism is meant to make anyone who puts forth enough effort, wealthy. The only issue is that the easiest way to get what you want, is by convincing others to work for you.

4262272 Well what about the people in other countries who will have to slave away in sweatshops to produce the products for this new, rampant consumerism. And if you shrink the size of the government, it will not be able to do anything, including stopping corporations power from dominating the country, who will supply the water when the government can't, what about the army or the police service, or any emergency services. The flaw with libertarianism is that it relies on people to boycott corrupt corporations, but even then if these corporation formed a coalition a weakned libertarian government would be powerless to stop them.

4262287 I know but the best way to get to the top fast is to exploit those beneath you, meaning that in order to truly get ahead in a capatalist system, exploitation is required

Hence the need for bread lines, mandatory factory labor and total destruction of free will and human rights. it's not exploition when everyone is worked to death by the same standard.

4262282 Well, that's why I believe that Communism is inherently flawed.

4262289 A decentralized government is not necessarily a weak government. A government with no central authority can still enact laws that prevent corporations from getting out of control. There can still be safety standards.

A decentralized government is only weak to a unified civilian population.

4262351 I know but will they have the power to enforce the laws is the real question?

4262353 Yes.

4262289 And the biggest problem with communism and statism in general is that is assumes that humans are these "evil greedy tryants" who will exploit other given the opportunity and that only a central authority can assume control of the situation.

slave away in sweatshops to produce the products for this new, rampant consumerism

Look the reason why it's easy to say that is because you most likely live in a developed nation. Third world countries do not have the option of that there options are very limited. Now am I saying that sweatshops are the best jobs in the third world? Absolutely no, but let's compare them to the options they have. Many people in the third world if a Western company sweatshop isn't available the only other alternatives are working in a state run factory which is ten times even worse with less pay, begging, or prostitution. Taking away what little options they have is not gonna fix their problems. The fact is, sweatshops operated by American and European companies are the best option of employment they have. The thing with capitalism is that in the short term, it isn't very pleasant. You have to make personal sacrifices and struggle a bit, but in the long run, if you work hard and stay determined, you will get better. The US and many European nations had sweatshops in their earlier years but they gradually went away. Why? Because they provided poor unskilled workers with a stable source of income so they could send their children to school. their children would then have an education and much better skills and eventually go on to get jobs at other places. And before you say anything, the labor movement had little to nothing to do with the improvement in worker benefits. Many of the labor laws didn't appear until 1930s and many labor unions were actually formed with very nasty intentions (Just look up the history on the Davis-Bacon Act).

And if you shrink the size of the government, it will not be able to do anything, including stopping corporations power from dominating the country, who will supply the water when the government can't, what about the army or the police service, or any emergency services

Let me refer you to this video.

4262402 The UK had mines that worked like your sweatshops, I wonder what happened there

Also I live in one of the most torn up areas of Western Europe, riots are common and divisions are some of the worst in the world

Also you argue that you don't know who will feed the poor so we should vote libertarian to find out, that's flawed logic right there

4262148 Communism is built upon the pooling of resourses.

The industry will provide all production with next to no effort. It is just a matter of using the precent resourses to the maximum capacity.
We just need a purpose for each and every citizen, but production is out the window here. Education, healthcare and these sides still needs people.

Making certain all have a satisfactory home is the first and foremost priority, then you need to feed and clothe them.
Producing and preparing food for all is a worthwill effort and purpose for people who enjoy the job.

Any surplus resources can be stories or traded for what is lacking.

4262272 The problem is that we never had a truely free Market, or a true Communism in history. The same goes for Democrazy.
4262282 This depends on how you define Economy. You have a limited set of resourse, you can't escape it. The problem is that everything is owned today. Even the forest is but a storehouse for an owner.
4262287 So it is merely corrupted by the sin known as Greed? We need to leave greed behind. You don't have more, just because your fellow citizen has less.
4262289 The National state is obsolete, we need to see the Continental states.
Consider the US, EU and Russia such states? Not perfect, but these could manifest and implement more power towards correcting the market?
4262307 Hmm, if this truely better?
How about looking to our Equine breveren, they don't mke the mistakes we do. They know the leader to be true, because it is in the best interest of all. If the leader falter, there is a second taking over for the good of all. Quit struggling to prove yourself the better one, when even you yourself know you are the loosing part in the game?
4262402 The best leader is the one you barely see. The leader keeps us on the streight and narrow path to our salvation.
If only we could cure our herd of the sins we inherited?
Greed is a plaque we must free ourselves from.

4262408 The poor should feed themselves. Capitalism exists with the intent not to make slaves of men, but to make kings of all men who but reach out for it.

4262687 It's only very rarely corrupted when people figure out how to cheat the system. It should however be pointed out that this doesn't happen anywhere near as often as people seem to think it does.

4262899 People are only poor, if they are incapable of fending, the wquaestion is why.
As communists, none needs to be poor or defenceless. We don't lack resourses. Everyone deserves a ONE fair chance at a life.

Ceating the system is the same as cheating yourself. Or the sytem was flawd in the first place.
Only takes the few on the top to topple the entire system.

If you drink your fill and leave the rest in the store, there is enough for everyone.
Then we just need to make certain we never grow more numerous than the store can provide for, simple as that.

Now, how many can this Earth feed? How many can be housed on this world?

I need byut a small house, a wardrobe, a fridge. Friends and purpse can never be bought or paid.
Friends are the fellow Ponies who enjoy my company, and the purpose is what I choose to spend my time on.

4262941 The problem with Communism is that it forces everyone to be in the same position in life, to achieve equality. That position is always poverty because there's no way to redistribute wealth effectively enough to make everyone at least middle class. It takes away the freedom to try and better your standing in life by forcing you to be as poor as your neighbor for the benefit of the state as a whole.

The greatest irony is that Communism somehow plans to fight poverty by bringing everyone down to an impoverished level.

Capitalism gives everyone a chance to improve their quality of living, even those who are poor. You just have to actually put in effort. Overall, Capitalism is a more effective system, and with modifications could potentially be the best societal plan that humans have ever conceived of.

4262980 That is the image we have been forcefed from people who are opposing the system.

Equality means that all are equal, not identical.

The farmer makes his best in producing a good crop, because he loves his work.
The smith does his best to produce for the same reason. Old expressions, but this is the only place we know the government form.

The True Communism should have risen from a stable community, where production could be maintained.
Imagine the state owning production in a truely industrial community? Putting forth all you need.

The farmer need only produce as much as we need, of what we need. The bigger gain is in a larger community, where several cities can pool together.

4262997 No, Marx had every intention to inspire the laboring class to rise up and bring the upper class into the same impoverished state that the laborers were in.

Equality does indeed mean that all are equal, but Communism demands everyone to be in the exact same impoverished state to work. Communism doesn't practice equality, it practices oppression for the sake of what it thinks is beneficial uniformity.

If the state owned the rights to all production, then you wouldn't be living in a free and equally fair country. Communism would not allow you to be an individual beyond your identity. Your identity is irrelevant, you are in the same financial position as your neighbor (not identical, but equally poor).

Under Capitalism, it is fair law that gives everyone equal chances and equal rights. Most importantly, it gives everyone the chance to better their lives and financial position through honest work. Every man who is responsible has his efforts rewarded with honest compensation. Under Capitalism, all men can achieve their dreams.

This is not the case for Communism because Communism gives the state the rights to everything. You literally would not be allowed to better yourself.

4263008 Marks was a Man, as such he is still liable to have all the faults of a Man, even to this day.

What we saw in the East is no True comunism. If I am not entirely mistaken, what we are looking for is looking like what is refered to Confusionism.

The Economical level of the People depends on the grnd vorth of the combined work performed. The problem is if Greed is infecting the system. We can only be rich, if the generated resourses are equal or greater than the total needs of the people.

If you drive a cab, you need to love the work, driving others around in the city in which you work. Only when you arepasionate about the work, can you fulfil your quota in order to truely be rich. It is never a question of getting away with less work, becuse you can get away with it. this is how and why a system fails. Goes for any system.

The freedome of a nation isn't bound by the ownership of production. the problem with privately owned production is in the cost of initiating the production of the goods asked for. Can you afford to start production without anyone standing behind you, owning your factory? I doubt it. At this stage, a factory is so expencive, only a state can establish production if and when needed, based on the neds of Citizens, as opposed to needs of greedy owners.

Actually, fair law is Liberalism, to be exact. Liberalism ignores the system of the state, which is exactly why it is liberal in the first place. The liberal law is there to acscertain you the rights to govent your life to the best of your abilities.

The right to better yourself falls under Liberalism. Neither communism nor Capitalism care for it directly.

The problem is that we only see what our big brother permits us to see.
has anyone on this group read any part of the manifestos of either of the debated systems or philosophies?
Sadly, I doubt it.

4263078 I never said that the East was a true Communism, I know it's not. The example of Communism that I gave was Marx's own idea. That is Marx's legacy, Communism inherently promotes a loss of freedom, and the poverty of all for the sake of equality.

Communism actually prevents freedom, whether accidentally or on purpose.

Capitalism actually promotes freedom, as intended.

Yes actually, I've read both. Communism and Capitalism is a required subject of any self-respecting philosophy class. What I found is that Marx accidentally made the most oppressive economic system to ever masquerade as efficient and just. It is not efficient, and it manages to destroy human rights in the process.

Capitalism on the other hand, encourages free and personal enterprise (which is commonly known as good business) and manages to support human rights in the process.

4263105 At least some does read up on the philosophy, then, that is encouraging news. From the arguments I see, not just here, people seems to be blinded by false promises.

I am not sure if Marksism is truely the ideal for Communism. Maybe I should take the time to read up on the philosophy, it was quite some time since I read these subjects, as far as I did read them, that is.

There is an inherent problem with all old philosophies, they are built on old technology and obsolete believes to far too great an extent.

What we need is a Liberal system, one that permits citizens the true freedom so far as technology can suport.
Just that Ownership in and of itself isn't actually promoting freedom or progress. at the current state, it seems to work against both.
What any Community needs is to have all needs met first and formost.
Pooling resourses to meat these needs is what we need. Everyone needs one daily rashion of consumables each and every day.
If I had been a lawyer, or similar, I could have worded these issues more elegantly, I guess.
We need to free everything to every citizen, not lock it away, based on income or status like we do now.

Give every child the optimum Education in order to liberate them and the potential they represent, then give them a job hat makes the best possible use of them in a manner that makes them feel usefull, needed and desired.
Is it so hard to match potential with education, capabilities to jobs and mates? or citizens to homes?

Once the community is fully built, there is no use of politicians or Princes. The law is passed down.
Considering how few workers are required to keep a factory at optimal efficiency at this time, most are free to pweform other tasks.
Healthcare and Education still does require a large portion of people. The extension of education would be research, which would make progress for al, not the few.
Once the requirements of production, both feed and factory, the rest could choose to perform art to their hearts content.

4262287
4262272

Capitalism is not the exploitation of a lower class. Capitalism is a system meant to promote personal advancement through any means necessary. The idea is that Capitalism is meant to make anyone who puts forth enough effort, wealthy.

Because no one is truly exploited in a free market capitalist economy. In a free market capitalist economy. Nobody forces you to buy or do service with someone you don't like. If you don't like Walmart than don't shop there. You can always go to Target or Supervalue or Copps. And the same thing goes with employment nobody forces you who to work for. The only limit to your employment is your skill level. However, in a free market, when you earn better skills you can more than often get promoted or find a job that pays better. Heck you might even save up enough money to start your own business.

Capitalism is not the exploitation of a lower class.

Not only is this blatantly false, it is inevitably and unavoidably false. In order for there to be profit, the capitalist literally has NO CHOICE but to exploit their work force.

Capitalism is a system meant to promote personal advancement through any means necessary.

Translation: Capitalism is a system that turns worker against worker for the sake of "advancement".

The idea is that Capitalism is meant to make anyone who puts forth enough effort, wealthy.

That's a fucking laugh, dude, and a complete and utter shunning of material reality.

Because no one is truly exploited in a free market capitalist economy.

"HAY LOOK GUIZE LETS CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF EXPLOITED! SEE?! NO ONE IS EXPLOITED LAWLZ!"

In a free market capitalist economy. Nobody forces you to buy or do service with someone you don't like.

... This is going to turn into an argument for worthless liberal "ethical consumerism", isn't it?

If you don't like Walmart than don't shop there. You can always go to Target or Supervalue or Copps.

Yep. Ethical Consumerism. "If we just bought from ethical companies capitalism would be much better and bad companies wouldn't exist" Now let me tell you why that's complete bullshit.

1. Consumers are not, can not, and will never be informed enough to make this work. Even if the information was "freely available" as liberals and lolbertardiots/ancraps like to imagine (which is itself complete bullshit since it is not within a company's best interests in the slightest to divulge this sort of information. Why do you think commercials never talk about the downside of their product? Why do you think we have a billion dollar industry that hires psychologists and sociologists the world over for the sheer purpose of creating an ill informed consumer public? It's called advertising.) people simply do not have the time to sit around googling the company history of every product they buy and then deciding whether or not they're ethical. You'd literally have to know the practices of EVERY company you bought EVERY product from. Oh, and it gets worse..
2. There are way too many companies and processes that go into a product to make an informed decision. What? You think that choosing to buy from walmart or shopko or buy tombstone or jacks is the end of it? OOOhhhhh no. See, these companies very rarely make their own cheese, their own pepperoni, their own wheat which they press into their own dough, their own vegetables which make the topics, their own plastic to wrap it in, etc. And they certainly don't make their own factory machines or tools to make them or gloves and caps to wear during the construction process. They subcontract outside companies for all these. And if you wanted to make an ethical choice, you'd have to know where all of this comes from.
To demonstrate our point, I refer you to one of your own people, Milton Friedman, as he talks about the various points of the construction of a pencil.

And that's just what goes into a #2 pencil. Now Imagine trying to ethically buy a car. Or a load of say... 20 groceries from different companies.
You'd have to know about all that, or else you're not informed well enough to make an ethical decision. Sure, the company you buy the soup from and the store you buy it at may be "ethical", but the company they bought the meat or rice from might not be. Not that any of this matters anyway since...
3. You cannot spend ethically if you do not have money to spend in the first place. Most of these so called "ethical" products are far more expensive than their "non-ethical" counterparts. For most people it's a matter of cheap vs expensive for the sake of good feels, since they don't and can't care about company ethics. Guess which ones they're going to go for?
4. You can't go to Supervalue or Target or such if there IS no Supervalue or Target or such for you to go to. Seriously, the entire point of capitalist enterprise is monopoly. To corner the market and be the last one on top and undercut anyone who tries to outsell you by any means (and by any means we typcially mean the most dirty means) necessary. No one is going to go to supervalue instead if they have to drive a town or two over, especially with high gas prices.
It goes right back to the above: You only can spend ethically if you have money to spend in the first place.

Sorry liberals, but you can't defeat "bad" capitalism by being capitalist. It doesn't work. Never has, never will. Ethical Consumerism is a dead end, and only serves to make middle class liberals feel better about themselves.

And the same thing goes with employment nobody forces you who to work for.

However, you are still forced to sell your labor to someone. And odds are that someone else will be hardly be any better. Because if they are, someone else will come along and pay their workers less and undersell them in the market.
Oh, don't tell me, your next argument is going to be "well all the worker from (poorly paid factory) will just go work at (Better paid factory). Because, you know, unemployment isn't a thing, and it isn't like there's a finite number of jobs you can give people hur hur.

Sorry, but the hidden hand of the market doesn't work the way you think it does.

The only limit to your employment is your skill level.

- And the pressure put on employers by the competition of other employers to drive down wages for the sake of higher profits.
- And the fact that there's more workers than there are jobs.
Funny how cappies always forget these inconvenient details, isn't it?

However, in a free market, when you earn better skills you can more than often get promoted or find a job that pays better.

How? In a "free market", companies are more free to pay you less while forcing you to work more hours just to keep your head above water while undercutting their competition. If anything, you are LESS likely to get free time and money to go to college and get "better skills."

And what constitutes "Better skills" anyway? Better business "skills"? Being able to create reports that no one reads? Being able to crunch numbers behind a desk? Won't be long and they'll have apps for that. Actually, in a lot of cases, they already do.

Another deluded fantasy by middle class idiots that know nothing about having to work for a living, while swallowing magic market snake oil.

4262272 Well capitalism as I know it us a system where everyone is encouraged to exploit each other as much as they can, So exploition happens, but everyone has some amount of power over each other so in the right circumstances a lot of ecploition doesn't happen. But some evolution always happens.

4263105 It doesn't always protect human rights. In the government and unions don't create laws to protect workers they can often gee replied. Consumers can hurt too if the government doesn't pass laws. A long time ago, And still in parts off the world, true capitalism is still in effect and it totally hours against human rights.

4263008 Nit necessarily. It's more about all if us progressing at the same time and when something better is available it's available to everyone.

4262980 In capitalism you get the immoral chance to improve your state of living but when sine jobs are high paying and some aren't and all jobs need to be filled for the system to nit break down, It's not possible for everyone to have a good quality of life no matter how hard anyone tries. Communism isn't about wealth distribution, It's about making sure the resources available are available to everyone.

4262287 Through any means necessary? If all we cared about was personal advancement we'd be fucked since we'd never get help. But if all of society is well if the individuals in the society are too.

4264400

... It's called Edit Button. Ever heard of it? You know... the pencil thing in between the >> button and the trashcan button?

4263986 The vast majority of that quote isn't even mine.

4264840

Semantics

4264963 A subfamily of Afroasiatic languages? Or did you mean 'semantics'?

4264991

Fix'd

4265045 Nevertheless, if you're going to quote Wolf-Baron, at least add a response to him.

4263905
Czechoslovakia and Hungary had success, but were crushed by the revionists when they were making progress. Not a flaw of the economic system though.

Tito was a jackoff idiot in racial and social policy, so he paved the way for the Yugoslav wars, but the actual economic policy was sound I guess.

4262148
The issue is that numerous peoples are culturally authoritarian. It doesn't matter what economic system a country has, if its people still have a collectivist mentality in any direction (monarchy, corporatism, socialism), than you can expect that country to have authoritarian states throughout.

Compare the mentality of Chinese, Serb and Russian people and their governments usually being authoritarian to libertarian Americans for instance.

Exhibit A: communists/socialists refuse to recognize the economic reality of the real world. They are so blinded by their dreams and philosophy that they cannot see what's in front of them: nothing in this world is free.

4266462 Careful with your wording: the two groups you describe are very broad. For example, Tony Blair, Francois Hollande, Dilma Rousseff, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn are all socialists; Giorgio Napolitano and Alexis Tsipras are both communists. Whether one agrees with their beliefs (or in the case of DSK, consider their behavior appropriate) or not, their political positions are not outside of the mainstream, nor are they terribly idealistic.

(If you do not know who these people are, they are, in order: the former prime minister of the UK, the president of France, the president of Brazil, the former head of the IMF, the former president of Italy, and the prime minister of Greece).

4266462

Exhibit B: A pretentious overprivileged first world idiot that doesn't know anything about anything outside his sheltered little white middle class world telling the rest of us about how we "refuse to recognize the "economic reality of the real world"."

Tony Blair, Francois Hollande, Dilma Rousseff, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn are all socialists;

Da Fauq?!

Social Democrats are not Socialists. In fact most of those aren't even Social Democrats, they're neo-liberal shits.

4276985 Like I said, it is a broad term. As with many political ideologies socialism is extremely diverse, and indeed there is a fair amount of overlap between liberalism and socialism.

Somewhat reminiscent of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.