[vyper]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes
Nation is the people that share a common history, culture, language. Country is the state, with defined borders and a governement. Example: We all know that the nation of Kurds exists, but not the country of Kurdistan. And Bush speaks to the nation, not to the country.

In this thread we are talking about political systems, and using the term "nation" can lead to racism, as in "I believe the Afghans are the worst people in the planet", etc, etc.

I conceed that much. However, should we perhaps look to how nation influences the strength of the country?

[Snakeseyes]

Yes, the nation influences a country's power, but it's not only that. In history there aren't many example of countries, kingdoms, or empires that become powerful depending solely on its people. Egypt, Persia, Rome, the British Empire, USA, they all used foreigners, slaves, to do the hard work for them.

Perhaps the only examples of the opposite are the countries that had a dictatorship, like Germany, Japan, Russia. But of course they didn't last that long.

But this isn't very relevant to the topic.

[vyper]

Originally posted by Snakeseyes
Egypt, Persia, Rome, the British Empire, USA, they all used foreigners, slaves, to do the hard work for them.
 

To manual labour, yes, but they were achieving what any country is supposed to: The reduction of hardship upon its own people.

Let us assume that a country derives power from success. Also, we must say that success is defined by how close a person comes to achieving a predefined goal. Therefore, the more successful the person, the powerful the person?

Take this idea and impress upon it the arguments you make about the great empires of the past. I have said, power is derived from success and that a country has the goal of reducing hardships for its own people. If this is true, is it not also true that all the Ancients and modern empires achieved that goal? (No matter thier methods.) It was the country itself that annexed foreign lands and captured slaves, not the slaves themselves - so I must conclude that the praise for gaining power, is due to the country itself.

You are of course correct that this is not directly linked to the main topic so, allow me to link this in.

If power is derived from my conditions above, is not capitalism the ultimate way of achieving power? The subjucation of others for your own success?

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Styxx, I will just respond to your post here, since this is the appropriate thread anyway:

I specifically told you to continue the discussion through PMs, but if you feel that's too much, I'll reply here too.

Originally posted by CP5670
None of them started as attempts at pure communism; they started as more or less a power struggle between a couple of guys all wanting control of a nation. And here is the main part that it has not worked so far: all of them started through revolution. The attempted change from feudalism to capitalism was very gradual in all example in history, and so it allowed enough time for the culture to catch up with the change, while the attempted change from capitalism to communism has always been through revolution. A lasting communism will not come about through revolution because people are fed up with capitalism; it will come about because of the success of capitalism.

Ooh, right. You read some article from some socialist wannabe and are dazzled by it. Indeed, all change from capitalism to communism has been through revolution, yet the methods used were just the same you quoted later on your reply. I see you posting many reasons why communism didn't work, but I didn't see you post a single reason why it will work in the future except for "because I said so".

Originally posted by CP5670
What would the rewards have to do with production rates? And don't give me the "incentive" thing, since that can easily be changed over time by propagandic conditioning.

Nope, it can't. No amount of propaganda will force people to give up what they have already achieved, simply because it would impact on their comfort - and therefore on their perception of their chance of survival inside society. Unless you either resort to authoritative methods - actively threatening people to accept your "regime" - or engineer them not to regard survival as their prime motivation, that won't work. Not effectively, and not for long, at least.

Originally posted by CP5670
As I said earlier, the reason it did not work was that it was not carried through slowly. And what does slavery have to do with communism?

Again, you point me reasons why it didn't work, not reasons why it will work in the future. And slavery has everything to do with it simply because you stated that the way to "motivate" people to work without providing them with the benefits of their work would be to threaten to kill them. You're not talking about a communist system, you're talking about a dictatorship ruling over a population of slaves.

Originally posted by CP5670
You're trying to throw me off with petty insults once again, eh? Now show me where I said that your second sentence there was not true; I was saying exactly that. As for the rest of the part, even today the people can be partitioned to work in the areas appropriate to their skills/interest/effort, but what I am talking about is applicability to a generation of the far future, where one human and another will be more or less the same thing. (and the evolution of societies is always is in that direction)

Nope, just replied in the same tone as you did.

Yes, people can be partitioned to work on their areas of skill and effort, but the ones that dedicate more effort (and gain more skill, consequently) will never accept to receive the same reward as those who dedicate no effort at all, and there's where your system breaks.

Talk about future generations all you want, if it's the only way you find to get away and try to save face.

Show me how society evolved up to now to make the composition of its members more "homogeneous" (I'd say that the exact opposite happened, in fact).

Originally posted by CP5670
When has history proven this? History has shown exactly the opposite. (e.g. look at religion) The human has certain weaknesses in his very methods of thinking and acting, and these can be exploited to great effect. The human of today does indeed regard personal freedom as a high virtue, but these things are constantly changing. Why do you think that people value freedom so much today? It is because they have been taught to do that and nothing else (and I don't mean through schools either; I am talking about what they see in their surroundings at all times as they live their lives), and the idea lives on in every generation to become stronger than it was in the previous one. Then you really started to twist my words; I never said that capitalism is anything but the best method for today's cultural system. Capitalism will be by far the best economic system out there for at least another thousand years. It will be successful beyond the highest expectations of analysts today. The communism will gradually come right out of the capitalism over many millennia. (if you want to know the exact reasons for this, see that book written by Schumpeter I mentioned earlier to you)

Read some history, throughout all of history the human beign has regarded freedom as a "high virtue" as you say. Tell me of a single civilization that openly accepted being enslaved by another without any kind of resistance.

And yes, capitalism is the best method for today's system, but as I said twice already, you didn't show me a single reason why communism should work in any foreseeable future. You keep pointing to reasons why it didn't work, and fail to point to any reason why it should work. And feel free to quote the book if you think it will help, the burden of proof is upon you.

Originally posted by CP5670
A combination of cultural change and secret police will work. Actually, the primary motivating force will be exactly the selfishness you were talking about earlier; it is this selfishness that has driven all of human society up to this point, and it is the selfishness that will continue to drive things on. These communist systems will form to last only when man is as selfish (defining the objective) as can be, but also as logical (defining the method) as possible. There can be a communism even less ethical than capitalism but that still thrives.

Heh, funny. Nice statement there, now show me some sort of logical reasoning to back it up.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Also, I bet if you ask an Afghan guy he would say that his country is the best in the world.

Eh, that's true. Patriotism is just foolish.

[Stargazer_2098]

Originally posted by Styxx


Eh, that's true. Patriotism is just foolish.

I fully agree on that statement.



Stargazer.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I find I agree with Stryke here. Ok, so we're not born to be lazy selfish bastards, but the U.S. society promotes it indirectly.

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
The reason it's portrayed so negatively because its most famous example was a country that was possibly the opposite economy communism works best for. Russia had a terrible economy: the ruble was worth what, one-hundredth of an American dollar at the time? Before the revolution there were mostly a lot of really poor people and few rich people. After the revolution there were instead a lot of mildly poor people and a few rich people who were government people. A dictatorship. Beginning to see a problem here?

What in the name of bloody hell are you banging on about? First of all, the Soviet Union was a not a dictatorship, in the traditional sense, to start with (we owe all of that to Stalin and his pals). Lenin's soviet Union was probably the closest a Society has ever come to Communim in the way Karl Marx described. There was hardly any repression, women were given the right to abortion/contraception/equality/easy divorce, church and state were seperated (without the repression that followed later) and freedom of speech and discussion was embraced (seriously). I suggest that anyone who doubts this, read the Works of Lenin or Trotsky. Obviously as soon as Lenin Died, things changed. The Revolution Betrayed does a pretty good job of explaining what went on (search google for an online version).

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Problem we'd lose rights and emphasis on idividuality. So I'm asking you: which is the lesser of the two evils?

No. It's amazing how everyone seems to equate Communism with Stalinism. Again: Read the works of Lenin/Trotsky/Marx. If you still think a communist government would harm our freedom, then fine.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Styxx
Ooh, right. You read some article from some socialist wannabe and are dazzled by it. Indeed, all change from capitalism to communism has been through revolution, yet the methods used were just the same you quoted later on your reply.

I think it's far more likely he read it from one of Marx or Schrumpeter(sp?)'s books. The predictions they made were fairly accurate (the small capitalists being driven out by conglomerates, inperialism (although in a different sense to the old British kind everyone is familliar with)). they just seem to be happening rather sliggishly.

Originally posted by Styxx
I see you posting many reasons why communism didn't work, but I didn't see you post a single reason why it will work in the future except for "because I said so".

Communism has never been given a chance to work because we've never seen a complete communist government, just regiemes claiming to be. Read the damm manifesto before decrying it, it makes you look a lot less ignorant.

Originally posted by Styxx
Nope, it can't. No amount of propaganda will force people to give up what they have already achieved, simply because it would impact on their comfort - and therefore on their perception of their chance of survival inside society.

You underestimate people's stupidity and their ability to spread it via the family. Take a look at the popularity of organized religion.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Top Gun
Communism has never been given a chance to work because we've never seen a complete communist government, just regiemes claiming to be. Read the damm manifesto before decrying it, it makes you look a lot less ignorant.

Dum, dee, dum... I didn't see a reason for communism to work on your statement, what was your point again?

Originally posted by Top Gun
You underestimate people's stupidity and their ability to spread it via the family. Take a look at the popularity of organized religion.

Ooh, right. That's why noone "sins" or goes against the church these days... Right... How many people do you know that would actually agree to give up whatever comforts they (or their ancestors) have achieved for them? And what was your point anyway - that communism will only work if people are stupid?

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Styxx

Dum, dee, dum... I didn't see a reason for communism to work on your statement, what was your point again?

The fact that you just renounced a system you knew nothing about by claiming communism didn't work based on the shortcomings of the many regiemes that claimed to be so.

There is no evidence to say that communism wouldn't work except for the ranting of a few Politicians/Businessmen who's interest it is to preserve capitalism. You've done nothing but repeat tired, cliches and half-truths yet demande evidence from us, yet you fail to supply any evidence that you yourself even know what you're talking about. Now if you're prepared to go through Marx and Engle's work with a fine tooth comb and pick out the parts you believe to be unworkable (which I highly doubt because you haven't even bothered to read the book before coming here and rubbishing it) then fine.

Originally posted by Styxx
Ooh, right. That's why noone "sins" or goes against the church these days... Right... How many people do you know that would actually agree to give up whatever comforts they (or their ancestors) have achieved for them?

Organized religion still holds huge amounts of power over people's thoughts, allbeit not as much as it used to.


I fail to see how that fits in with the idea of communism. You still equate communism with stalinism and there's no link. If you want to know more, Leon Trotsky wrote a lot of books answering the doubts/questions etc. you put forward here. I don't have the time to fully explain in any great detail how It is full workable and far superior to what we have now.

 

Originally posted by Styxx
And what was your point anyway - that communism will only work if people are stupid?

Did I say that? NO You made a statement and I challenged it. where did I make the connection between communism and stupidity?


Personally, I think letting multi million/billionaires exist, living a better life that the rest of us through birth and/or pure luck, and have the state tirelessly serve their interests, putting them before that of those without such wealth is a bit stupid if you don't happen to be one of those people .


Don't reply until you've read at least one of Marx and/or Engle's books

[Styxx]

The fact that I didn't read the manifesto has absolutely nothing to do with it - you simply didn't show me why communism should work at any point. You say that I didn't prove why it shouldn't work, while it is you who has to prove that it would work at all - simply because there is "no real life example" of it in any form, as you say.

Originally posted by Top Gun
Don't reply until you've read at least one of Marx and/or Engle's books

But if you want it that way, that's fine for me - you know I'll never read that kind of fanatic bull, so concession accepted.

[castor]

Whatever. Eventually we'll end up with something that works (or die trying).
At the time being, I don't think anybody has a clue what that could be.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Styxx
And what was your point anyway - that communism will only work if people are stupid?

[CP5670]

Alright, I only have time for one more of these long-winded posts, but here goes.

I specifically told you to continue the discussion through PMs, but if you feel that's too much, I'll reply here too.

I was going to PM you but the message was too long to fit there, and since this thread now exists we might as well use it.

btw is it possible to remove that PM character limit?

Ooh, right. You read some article from some socialist wannabe and are dazzled by it. Indeed, all change from capitalism to communism has been through revolution, yet the methods used were just the same you quoted later on your reply. I see you posting many reasons why communism didn't work, but I didn't see you post a single reason why it will work in the future except for "because I said so".

Well come on, that part is obvious. The conditions that led to it not working out will have changed in the future, and the advance of civilization has always been in that direction. (few societies have gone backward from capitalism to feudalism) Now what you are claiming is that this social advance will abrubtly stop at capitalism and remain there for eternity, or at least as long as humans last, simply because people are enjoying its benefits right now, and this is what I am contesting.

Now there are a number of reasons why the communism is likely to come about (actually, first a mild socialism), and these are investigated more thoroughly in that book I mentioned before; I'm not going to bring up everything here because that will take forever, but I'll give a quick overview of one of the reasons. (there are many of them, and they all come together to increase this probability) The main thing that capitalism has advanced in is innovation, and this alone is what has allowed it to thrive today. It's more than mere freedom - people will readily forsake the freedom for happiness - but this innovation, which enterpreneurism thrives on and which forms the largest backbone of the forward progress in the capitalist system. The capitalist system has been the most conducive to innovation so far because innovation has largely been an individualized process. People have worked up on their ideas, gotten "flashes" of insightful genius, whatever, but it has all been privatized. Capitalism would have long since died out if it did not work well with innovation. Now Schumpeter claimed that innovation is slowly becoming as routine and as automated a process as industrial mass-manufacturing is today, and I quite agree with this assessment here. It is no secret that the era of individual discoverer has pretty much come to an end; the amount of accumulated knowledge, even in a specific field, is now far too great for any one man to comprehend, and almost all of modern research is done in groups in a systematic, logical manner. This innovation is just about the only reason that individuals even have a reason to exist independently (remember that the social group as a whole exhibits certain kinds of logic not seen in individuals), so by the time this happens all other processes of the civilization will have become completely automated. The concept of the automated process is one of the main principles behind the workings of communism; everything works in a large, ordered, fully synthetic system, just like a big machine. The fruits of the innovation, the technology, will also greatly expedite this process. (heck, in this age, I'm not sure if the individual will even exist in the way he does today) The innovation will bring about technology and since technology does not alone adapt to the people it serves, but the people also adapt to the technology, that will be one factor that brings about a socialism. Of course, the new system will still be called capitalism by everyone who exists in it (because the change was too gradual for anyone notice, spreading out over hundreds of generations), but it will operate more closely to what we call communism today.

Anyway, you might want to read some of that "fanatical bull" before arguing against it, because even the most crazy stuff can have some good ideas mixed in there.

Nope, it can't. No amount of propaganda will force people to give up what they have already achieved, simply because it would impact on their comfort - and therefore on their perception of their chance of survival inside society. Unless you either resort to authoritative methods - actively threatening people to accept your "regime" - or engineer them not to regard survival as their prime motivation, that won't work. Not effectively, and not for long, at least.

Impact on their material confort perhaps, but their mental comfort will greatly be increased, and thus they will give things up if the right methods are used. Then of course we have what you call "authoritative methods" - as you said, the people can simply be directly modified to have different objectives - but that will not be necessary here. How do you think that religions formed?

Again, you point me reasons why it didn't work, not reasons why it will work in the future. And slavery has everything to do with it simply because you stated that the way to "motivate" people to work without providing them with the benefits of their work would be to threaten to kill them. You're not talking about a communist system, you're talking about a dictatorship ruling over a population of slaves.

The main reason that slavery did not work is that the slaves were actually quite powerful compared to them masters, outnumbering them by ten or more to one; when they got organized, they were able to revolt quite easily. In other words, the masters basically greatly underestimated their slaves. But when did I say that this communism can only exist in such a way that the human mind resists?

Nope, just replied in the same tone as you did.

uh...I was practically half joking in that other thread...

Yes, people can be partitioned to work on their areas of skill and effort, but the ones that dedicate more effort (and gain more skill, consequently) will never accept to receive the same reward as those who dedicate no effort at all, and there's where your system breaks.

That is what I am saying; everyone can be made to dedicate the same amount of effort. You keep thinking of humans as they are today, not as they might be a couple thousand years from now, and thus you continue to make distinctions between one human and another.

Talk about future generations all you want, if it's the only way you find to get away and try to save face. Show me how society evolved up to now to make the composition of its members more "homogeneous" (I'd say that the exact opposite happened, in fact).

Because that is what civilization is all about! An attempt of mankind to create uniformity in a disorderly world. The human has a tendency to be dissatisfied with his life no matter how much better it is than it used to be, and he strives to make things even better; this is the forward driving force in all of large-scale human affairs. (this is not apparent in individuals; it can only been seen when millions of them exist in unison; this is the same thing as with elementary particles)

Read some history, throughout all of history the human beign has regarded freedom as a "high virtue" as you say. Tell me of a single civilization that openly accepted being slaved by another without any kind of resistance.

India in the 1930s under British rule. While that wasn't exactly slavery, the vast majority of the people were quite willing to accept that their oppressors were inherently superior to them. (and if you think Gandhi's charades constituted resistance, I really don't know what to say ) The British were quite smart here - they knew that they were vastly outnumbered by their enemies and could not hold the nation for very long by physical force alone, so they used the methods of propagandic conditioning to influence the minds of the people, and remnants of this are still quite visible today. A good example of what can be done with mobs if it is done right.

Man has only thought highly of freedom as long as it contributed to his happiness. When it stops doing so, he is quite ready to forsake it. (and once again, there are many historical examples of this) But that's irrelevant in this case, since I'm not arguing that the freedom will just fade away in a sudden bang (revolution); it will be more slow and subtle than that.

And yes, capitalism is the best method for today's system, but as I said twice already, you didn't show me a single reason why communism should work in any foreseeable future. You keep pointing to reasons why it didn't work, and fail to point to any reason why it should work. And feel free to quote the book if you think it will help, the burden of proof is upon you.

See above.

Heh, funny. Nice statement there, now show me some sort of logical reasoning to back it up.

Actually I was replying to someone else there, but anyway which part do you need more detail on?

I will let you have the last word on this one, since I am unfortunately too busy these days to write up lots of these kinds of posts with all the other things I need to do. Back to math and fred2 for now...