2007-09-11, 21:10 | Link #61 | |
King of the l33t
IT Support
|
Quote:
|
|
2007-09-11, 21:21 | Link #62 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
In any rate, if I can interpret what you're saying (overcoming that little thing there with the surrendering of the work), you're calling self-disinterested people "lunatics". If you would be so kind as to go and read my posts, I'm talking about a society where a capitalist way of understanding the world and acting accordingly (e.g., where people are considered lunatics for being self-disinterested) doesn't exist. What is so hard to understand? Is it too hard to open your mind a little bit, to get out from the cage of western typical behavior? Is it so hard to imagine a different world, where different values from the ones we are used to are more important? I repeat: This can't happen now! I'd hate to live in a communist society. I'm not ready for it. Most people, if not all, aren't. Which doesn't necessarily mean they never will!
__________________
|
|
2007-09-11, 21:22 | Link #63 | |
Far and beyond
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Not a good idea. Socialism relies on the assumption that everyone worth considering is willing to work for the "common good". So let's say I don't. Let's say I want to live a selfish existence, keeping what I earn, passing on to others as I like, and managing my own affairs. Does the government have the right to say I can't? In Socialist systems, the answer is yes. Socialist systems kick in the doors and throw you in prison until you're willing to buy into their way of thinking. You do not have an option but to fund the welfare state. You do not own your life; the "common good" does. It is illegal not to buy in. If you disagree, your liberty no longer exists. And that is what I mean by "lockstep". Last edited by Oneironaut; 2007-09-11 at 21:33. |
|
2007-09-11, 21:47 | Link #67 |
Far and beyond
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Age: 34
|
Regardless, the invalidness of a way of thinking does not warrant that holders must be forced to adopt another.
Let's put this in perspective. I was born into the middle class, a position that comes with a great deal of privilege. As I child I had excellent education, food, and healthcare. Now, in college, a good half of my student expenses are covered by my parents. I am spoiled rotten by the standards of ninety-five percent of the world. For all that, why should my parents, or I, or my children, be forced to pay for idealism? We do not ask, as many upper classes have in history, for protection. If we crash down into another class, we'll rot in a dumpster with as much dignity as we can muster. We have no desire to impose on others. In exchange, we say that no one else has any right to impose on us. How do you, or anyone, have the right to say we must think and do otherwise? |
2007-09-11, 21:55 | Link #68 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
But what is important is to understand that the current system is filled with injustice and that it can change, and that the status quo is not something to be maintained as long as people remain unequal under it. Instead of staying content with our own good, we have, at least, to understand that there are things that are wrong with the system. I'm not asking you to stop working for yourself. I'm not asking you to go and give your stuff to everyone else. I'm just asking you to understand that things aren't right. Even with that slightest of understandings, something has improved. Something is different. And, by building that understanding step by step, things can change. You and I won't be there when it happens, if it happens, but the possibility is there. Don't deny it.
__________________
|
|
2007-09-11, 22:23 | Link #69 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
As an economic system, all that socialism means is that some duties would be better if they were performed by the government. How is that anything like what you said above? Quote:
__________________
|
||
2007-09-11, 22:52 | Link #70 | ||
King of the l33t
IT Support
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2007-09-11, 23:03 | Link #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-09-11, 23:10 | Link #72 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
The whole point of communism is for the workers themselves to own the means of productions
__________________
|
|
2007-09-11, 23:20 | Link #73 |
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
Artist
|
A decent type of government is what the people want. If a society is already accustomed to a specific one, then changing it won't help them too much. If they are unwilling to accept a new one, then changing it will just damage their economy. Just like when the USSR crashed and Russia became a country. It was rough, but cause they were forced to change, they grew steadily to accept/force accept the Democracy ish type.
__________________
|
2007-09-11, 23:42 | Link #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-09-11, 23:52 | Link #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ALASKA!!! W00t! I'm BACK FINALLY!!!!
Age: 35
|
Quote:
How would I "control" my work? It seems more like you're just arguing semantics here. Who is forcing me to do something I don't want to do? One of the key flaws I see in Marxist theory is the idea that everything has a fixed fundamental value, and that exchanging something for an amount not equal to that thing's value is unjust. That's not true. "Value" is relative. Its defined in terms of personal interest. For example, in the 70s, pet rocks were popular. But pet rocks are just normal ordinary rocks. You can find one just like them on the side of the road. Nevertheless, people payed significant amounts of money for them. Does that mean that rocks have some fundamental value that justified that? No. The value exists only in the minds of the people who are willing to offer their work in exchange for it. If I've misunderstood Marxist theory, please correct me. |
|
2007-09-12, 00:01 | Link #77 | ||
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Quote:
Though I get your point over the "value" of things, it really depends on the society. And that's why I've been saying, over and over and over again, that communism can't be applied to the current society. Concepts like "reward" and "value" (and, of course, "private property") are too rooted to the current sociological mindset. Which doesn't mean it can't change over time.
__________________
|
||
2007-09-12, 00:09 | Link #78 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ALASKA!!! W00t! I'm BACK FINALLY!!!!
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would think that rather than starting with revolts, communist societies would start through the voluntary altruism of people who support communism's ideals and naturally spread to those who also have those ideals. Last edited by Ziv; 2007-09-12 at 00:34. |
||
2007-09-12, 00:47 | Link #80 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
Communism is based on the idea that all who own the means of production are greedy one-uppers who abuse the proletariat. Well, that's not true. It's just that both sides have their own conflicting interests. Also, how can we, as consumers be assured of the quality and service of the produced goods if there is no alternative to the state-run monopoly? What protection do we as consumers have if they do price manipulation? |
|
|
|