Communism

[Michael Archer]

I'm convinced that Communism would only work with robots. Robots: beings that have no free-will and can only make what they're told to make--they can't actually create anything from scratch.

 

Because humans have free will and must create things to survive, communism (or any form of statism) can not result in prosperity.

 

Hey, you can take the Craig Mengel challenge! Craig (voice of Dave on CP) is a political science major, working towards his Master's degree, and he challenges any anarchists out there to play the computer game STALKER then afterwards still say you support anarchy. While it does have fictional things like mutants and anomalies, he considers it a great anarchy simulator.

 

Heh, I never thought of it like that. I guess you're right! In S.T.A.L.K.E.R, your goal is to survive and just hope like hell you don't get looted or killed; you have to make sure you have the right friends if you want to live.

 

You should tell BTGBullseye that when he gets back.

 

I have more faith in a social democracy, that is a slight mix between democracy and communism, than communism by itself.

 

It baffles me why people think that democracy and dictatorships are mutually exclusive. Democracy is no more than mob-rule; where the helpless individual or other minority is subject to the brutal will of the majority. There's no objective laws: there's only the brutal will of the majority.

 

Well we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we have a very high living standard. Clearly we did something right.

 

Isn't the European Union falling apart?

 

Of course, it's contributed a great deal to our wealth.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Ah, so this is the mentality of a social democrat: the wealth is ours, despite who took the effort upon himself to create it.

 

This is another reason why I reject any form of statism.

[Vapymid]

Ah, so this is the mentality of a social democrat: the wealth is ours, despite who took the effort upon himself to create it.

 

I am no social democrat but I believe it is naive for anyone to think that he/she can claim credit for single-handed creation of wealth.

 

No matter what you do you are doing it having the benefit of the entire civilisation building knowledge and infrastructure for you so that you could use it to "create wealth". If you are a carpenter - your tools are made by someone, your furniture is needed (and paid for by someone), if you are a financial trader - you are using computer and networks created by other people, your data is someone else's effort, your financial model is the result of centuries of mathematical development...

 

Most successful people are not specialists in anything, they are organisers - and they need geniuses and hard-working people to organise in order to achieve their success.

 

Robots: beings that have no free-will and can only make what they're told to make

 

This is may be digressing from the original thread but I would like to say that robots will continue to lack free-will for not very much longer. Dumb robots are inefficient because they need humans to hard-program their every task. The more complex your robot's job is, the more tedious is the programming and the higher the probability of making an error (bug). Therefore, you will see that more and more the science of robotics will be pushing for AI, self-learning, fuzzy algorithms, decision making etc.

 

So, back to OP, communism will not be possible even with robots

 

There's no objective laws: there's only the brutal will of the majority.

 

This is not so. Even mob rule is not random. Just like the evolution, there clearly are objective rules which govern development of the society. There also probably is a gradient, a vector of development, which is directed by the fundamental laws of nature. Ever since I have been introduced to thermodynamics in my student days I am amazed how many parallels there are with the collective behaviour of humans.

 

Isn't the European Union falling apart?

 

It is at a similar stage as the US was just before the Civil War. It is no longer possible to avoid deciding on key aspects of the union. The countries must either form a centrally governed federation or break the eurozone (and de-facto the EU) apart. I personally hope they will unite on the continent with the UK staying well out of it.

 

Regards

[ProHypster]

It is at a similar stage as the US was just before the Civil War. It is no longer possible to avoid deciding on key aspects of the union. The countries must either form a centrally governed federation or break the eurozone (and de-facto the EU) apart. I personally hope they will unite on the continent with the UK staying well out of it.

 

Regards

 

No offence but You sound like every other british guy I have heard saying something on EU for the past 10 years, especially whenever it was on the low..

It's easy to criticize something then.

 

And the UK is far from the superpower (or even great power) it was 60 years ago, your GDP growth, military and territory is not very impressive. Having the closest ties to the USA, especially militarily doesn't help your independence. If Europe were to divide my hypothesis is that Britain would be just about as powerful or rich as Poland. So I don't understand this move you would like to stay out of the EU.

 

I've stated my opinion on Communism and Socialism and Social Democracy and I don't think I did a mistake so...

 

@Michael Archer Since when is Norway in the EU??

 

Mind baffling question to Michael Archer:

Why is USA portraying itself as a democracy and protector of democracies and has gone to war due to it's ideology when as you say USA is laissez Faire Capitalism which protects the rights of the individual? Also, isn't Sadam Hussein an individual?

 

2nd Mind baffling question to Michael Archer:

Who makes the constitution of the country in laissez faire capitalism?

 

3rd question:

Don't you think that a solid constitution from the elders passed onto the new generation is a dictatorship of the elders on the new generation.

 

That's all I have to say I think... I've lost hope on an agreement with you since a long time ago, just interested in the answers.

 

EDIT:

Actually, one more sort of thing, I really miss the soviet era positive tv shows, animations, films.

They were truly the best and have now as far as I know completely dissapeared in favour of south park, family guy, MTV. I watch these sometimes but they are for the most not art, just humour or straight uncensored drama.

 

There was a weird shift in taste of the mass during the last 20 years which I experienced which slowly went from positive attitude and artistic to junk and mass.

 

This clip came from an animated film made in the horrible country of the USSR during Kruschev, it's about friendship and humour and peace .

Millions of these cartoons were shown on tv.

 

Date: 1969.

 

wUL4KgV4EG8

 

My point is, the USSR since Kruschev may have not been an ideal country but it was not evil and people in it certainly had a style.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

So I don't understand this move you would like to stay out of the EU.

 

You are overreacting a bit. I was not really criticising anyone but simply stating the fact - if you have a single currency you have to have a single treasury. If you have a single treasury you must have a single government, to enforce the treasury policy. Otherwise it's like giving all your relatives credit cards covered from your account - when the bills come all you can do is shut up and pay up.

 

Never ever allow separation of control from responsibility!

 

Now, Greece is really pushing for it. They are bringing it to the point where they will probably be kicked out of the Eurozone and have the EU put sanctions against them. The only alternative is military intervention. Is that possible?

 

As far as the UK is concerned, it cannot join the Eurozone and become a state within the EU federal structure (if it will come to that). The cultural differences with the continent are simply too great. It can only end up in tears. But note that I'm saying about the Eurozone - the single currency union - not the EU in a wider sense as a trade organisation.

 

Regards

[ProHypster]

You already are out of the eurozone. You use British pounds.

Unless I am mistaken britain is only in the free trade euro act but outside the zone.

 

@ And as far as I know greece is not a country anymore, but more of an anarchy.

Just like a man who cannot pay his home becomes homeless greece became countryless.

Now either the greeks will make a new state or Germany and France will take over politics.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

You are right. And all I would like to see is for it to continue like this. Both Britain and the Continent will benefit from that IMHO.

 

Regards

[Alyxx Thorne]

It baffles me why people think that democracy and dictatorships are mutually exclusive. Democracy is no more than mob-rule; where the helpless individual or other minority is subject to the brutal will of the majority. There's no objective laws: there's only the brutal will of the majority.

Yeah, I can see your point.

[Michael Archer]

I believe it is naive for anyone to think that he/she can claim credit for single-handed creation of wealth.

 

Something like the iMac is the birth child of Steve Jobs: he conceptualized it and brought it into this world. The factory worker did not create the iMac.

 

Saying that he can't claim credit for that wealth, is like saying that you can't claim credit for making a child i.e. you can't say "this is my child." After all, you didn't create your reproductive organs, you didn't create the matter that your child was made out of, nor did you create the DNA.

 

This is not so. Even mob rule is not random.

 

I never said it was random; I said that it's based on whim (that's usually unfair and non-objective), rather than facts.

 

It is at a similar stage as the US was just before the Civil War

 

Ooh, a topic I know quite about!

 

Why did the United States go into war? Well, Lincoln put it very nicely: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

 

The North was capitalist and industrial, while the South was feudal and rural. Capitalism is incompatible with slavery--that's why it wasn't in the North. Lincoln said that the country could not exist being simultaneously capitalist and feudal.

 

The reason for that is the same reason why there's no compromise between medicine and cyanide: you either have one or the other--the two can't co-exist.

 

So, are you telling me that the EU is mostly socialist, but it still retains some of the capitalism that made Europe great? Is that capitalism dying?

 

Since when is Norway in the EU??

 

Lol, my bad.

 

Why is USA portraying itself as a democracy and protector of democracies and has gone to war due to it's ideology when as you say USA is laissez Faire Capitalism which protects the rights of the individual? Also, isn't Sadam Hussein an individual?

 

I have no idea. That's one of my gripes with the leaders of an otherwise great nation: they think democracy is the final answer. United States is not lassiez-faire; it's a mixed-economy.

 

Saddam Hussein was the dictator of a system and a country that violated the rights of the individual. That country also had a history of attacking Israel, not to form a freer nation, but to form a dictatorship. When someone tries to systematically destroy a system that protects the rights of the individual, that person has no rights; there is no such thing as the right to enslave, which was the "right" that people like Saddam Hussein was fighting for.

 

Who makes the constitution of the country in laissez faire capitalism?

 

United States was intended to be a lassiez-faire society, and I believe the founders made the constitution.

 

Don't you think that a solid constitution from the elders passed onto the new generation is a dictatorship of the elders on the new generation.

 

If it is, then the only thing I have to say to the people who wrote it is: "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG"

 

A constitution is always a constraint on the government, never an individual. If anything, the constitution is a dictatorship of the elders onto the new government--as it should be. The government should not be free to use force whenever they want to.

 

Because a government holds a monopoly on the use of physical force, an unchecked government will, as history has shown, commit enormities.

[Alyxx Thorne]

With the economical crisis going on, it seems less and less likely Norway will join the European Union.

[ProHypster]

Saddam Hussein was the dictator of a system and a country that violated the rights of the individual. That country also had a history of attacking Israel, not to form a freer nation, but to form a dictatorship. When someone tries to systematically destroy a system that protects the rights of the individual, that person has no rights; there is no such thing as the right to enslave, which was the "right" that people like Saddam Hussein was fighting for.

 

Protecting rights of individuals my ass then.

[Vapymid]

Something like the iMac is the birth child of Steve Jobs: he conceptualized it and brought it into this world. The factory worker did not create the iMac.

 

I'm pretty sure a company designer put together a few ideas and Jobs chose the one he liked more. He only created iMac or any other Apple products to the same extent as, say, the CEO of Colgate-Palmolive creates a new formula of toothpaste.

 

Saying that he can't claim credit for that wealth, is like saying that you can't claim credit for making a child i.e. you can't say "this is my child." After all, you didn't create your reproductive organs, you didn't create the matter that your child was made out of, nor did you create the DNA.

 

Firstly, in your previous post you were defending price-fixing as an intrinsic right of a capitalist, and not a general right of inventors or creators of a product to take credit for it (few people would argue against the latter). Price-fixing is as incompatible with capitalism as you can ever get for reasons I explained.

 

Secondly, you can only say "your child" to indicate the parental link. You don't own your child and you cannot do anything you like with him. Also, you can't take any credit for making a child, only for upbringing him/her and even then, normally the credit is shared among many people (your spouse, teachers, doctors, your parents, in-laws).

 

Saddam Hussein was the dictator of a system and a country that violated the rights of the individual. That country also had a history of attacking Israel, not to form a freer nation, but to form a dictatorship.

 

Again, a few things here.

 

a) I hope you don't for a minute think that, say, Cheney or Rumsfeld or George W gave a flying f*ck for the rights of any eyeraqy individuals when they've made a decision to start the war. Nor should there be any doubt about Tony Blair's motivation either... Whatever is was, the human rights or dictatorial oppression never played a part in it.

 

b) A history of attacking Israel? So what? Does Israel somehow have a special status of a country that cannot be attacked under any circumstances? Egypt, Syria, Jordan all attacked Israel in the past, so did Britain (well there was no Israel then as such, but...)

 

When someone tries to systematically destroy a system that protects the rights of the individual, that person has no rights; there is no such thing as the right to enslave, which was the "right" that people like Saddam Hussein was fighting for.

 

But you just argued that individuals should not have certain rights yourself, how is that consistent? Well, it's not, of course. All you are saying is -"if someone wants to deny people the rights *I* think they should have - it's bad, if I want to deny people the rights *I* think they should not have - it's good".

 

Why did the United States go into war? Well, Lincoln put it very nicely: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

 

There is an analogy here with the EU. There is more productive North, more relaxed but indebted South. The South is not happy to be called to terms by the North, the North cannot tolerate the South endangering their monetary system. Something has to give.

 

Now, Greece is heading for secession with all the money it borrowed from the North. Spain and Portugal are watching with eager eyes. Italy has an ambition to be considered as part of the North but cannot escape being a bit of a Southern type. It's a mess and cannot go on like that.

 

Socialism v Capitalism? In Europe in general hard right is way too left for the US, so shouldn't really compare...

 

Regards

[ProHypster]

Capitalism is incompatible with slavery

This is bullshit and you've stated this before and I replied the same thing.

For the economic state britain was in late 18th century and early 19th century was industrial capitalism and it allowed slaves. When laissez faire capitalism kicked in the only thing that changed is black slavery changed into wage slavery. Furthermore, laissez faire completely allows and even encourages the state to have no minimum wages and no intervention of criminal monopolies/individuals and encourages an everyone for himself state. I honestly don't know how one can be happy about all this.

 

@Michael Archer

I'm interested in what you have to say about this, I wonder if you will defend individual rights here or laissez-faire capitalism.

 

In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism. In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law. Clarendon, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote, "I don't think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering

[Michael Archer]

Firstly, in your previous post you were defending price-fixing as an intrinsic right of a capitalist, and not a general right of inventors or creators of a product to take credit for it (few people would argue against the latter).

 

It is the right of the inventor to sell his products to whomever he wants under what conditions he wants.

 

Price-fixing is as incompatible with capitalism as you can ever get for reasons I explained.

 

And that we agree. Setting your prices independent of the market can only lead into trouble for your company.

 

I hope you don't for a minute think that, say, Cheney or Rumsfeld or George W gave a flying f*ck for the rights of any eyeraqy individuals when they've made a decision to start the war. Nor should there be any doubt about Tony Blair's motivation either... Whatever is was, the human rights or dictatorial oppression never played a part in it.

 

I know it didn't. America has a interest in the middle east: oil. However, it doesn't matter for what reason the Americans go in; a dictatorship has no right to exist.

 

b) A history of attacking Israel? So what? Does Israel somehow have a special status of a country that cannot be attacked under any circumstances? Egypt, Syria, Jordan all attacked Israel in the past, so did Britain (well there was no Israel then as such, but...)

 

Israel is one of America's closest allies and one of the few stations of freedom in the middle-east. Israelis enjoy relative freedom while being surrounded by savages. The United States would be justified in invading Egypt and and Jordan, but it has no self-interest in doing so.

 

When someone tries to systematically destroy a system that protects the rights of the individual, that person has no rights; there is no such thing as the right to enslave, which was the "right" that people like Saddam Hussein was fighting for.

 

But you just argued that individuals should not have certain rights yourself, how is that consistent? Well, it's not, of course. All you are saying is -"if someone wants to deny people the rights *I* think they should have - it's bad, if I want to deny people the rights *I* think they should not have - it's good".

 

No, I was talking about dictatorships and people who initiate force. You cannot claim a right to initiate force; that's a contradiction in terms.

 

This is bullshit and you've stated this before and I replied the same thing.

For the economic state britain was in late 18th century and early 19th century was industrial capitalism and it allowed slaves. When laissez faire capitalism kicked in the only thing that changed is black slavery changed into wage slavery. Furthermore, laissez faire completely allows and even encourages the state to have no minimum wages and no intervention of criminal monopolies/individuals and encourages an everyone for himself state. I honestly don't know how one can be happy about all this.

 

Before I respond to this, can you please tell me what you think lassiez-faire capitalism? If you can't state what my position is accurately enough to make me say "that's what I think", I don't think a discussion is possible.

[Vapymid]

It is the right of the inventor to sell his products to whomever he wants under what conditions he wants.

 

Yes. Provided he is operating in a free market environment. However, colluding with others or using his monopoly market power to block competition should NOT be his right.

 

When you are talking specifically about inventors (so involving the "intellectual property") and the apparent natural monopoly applicable to them, an attempt to reconcile that monopoly with the need to preserve markets has been made in the form of patents. They recognised the temporary monopoly of the inventor (and so his right to commercially benefit from his invention) but also ensured open access to anyone who wanted to exploit the invention (for a fee). Unfortunately, even this system seems to be badly broken now...

 

However, it doesn't matter for what reason the Americans go in; a dictatorship has no right to exist.

 

This is at once terribly idealistic, naive and opportunistic statement.

 

Firstly, by intervening in other people's affairs the interloper, like the US, acts a dictator - dictating its will to others.

 

The issue of governance is a complex one and can only be dealt with by people who are directly affected. If you intervene from outside in 99% of the cases your timing will be wrong and the result will be worse than it would otherwise have been. Case in point Iraq - the iraqi people should have been left alone to deal with their internal affairs. If not for the sanctions Saddam would not probably have lasted as long as he did anyway. Yet, now all you have done is handed the country to Iran on a plate and at a cost of hundreds of thousands of people. This is not easily forgotten - you will not be welcome there for generations.

 

Secondly, if one is against dictatorship on principle - he must act consistently, against any dictatorships that are out there. I don't see that happening. So it looks as if the US is not against dictatorial powers as such but is simply using it as an excuse to further its own geopolitical interests. This is not a surprise and pretty much everyone in the world now sees it for what it is (largely because of the Iraq war debacle with Gitmo and all other things).

 

I am not judging your country for trying to get as much of what it thinks it needs by force (if you do have force available you are compelled to use it to your perceived benefit) but - it is equally reasonable for the objects on one country's ambitions to resist force with force (and when single country is unable to resist on its own it will form alliances with others) or deception or bribery, if force is not available. And also, sometimes you have to ask yourself - "are these people who direct the policy of my country really pursuing the country's interests or their own?"

 

And thirdly, the approach of "I don't care why they did it but they did the right thing by me" is a slippery slope. Some old sayings about selling one's soul to the devil come to mind when I here this...

 

Israel is one of America's closest allies and one of the few stations of freedom in the middle-east. Israelis enjoy relative freedom while being surrounded by savages.

 

I have nothing but respect for Jewish people by I often say to my Jewish friends - when a Jew steps on the Israeli soil he leaves his brain at the immigration desk and puts his balls where the brain used to be.

 

I cannot see Israel as a success at all for the time being. For decades they cannot establish relationship with neighbours - this is not statesmanship. Freedom? Very questionable in a country which is officially based on religious and racial discrimination. What is happening with the Palestinians bears very troubling resemblance to the Final Solution in the Nazy-occupied Europe (with some sensitivities taken into account - so no gas chambers or extermination camps - but with ghettos and a similar ultimate goal).

 

Is the US support good or bad thing? Clearly, without it Israel in its present form would not be here today. It would have had to adapt and make peace with those around it or disappear. Also, reliance on the US support is a dangerous game. One day that support will vanish in thin air and Israel will have to face all its enemies on its own, all of a sudden. A country so reliant on a Big Daddy's helping hand will be very, very vulnerable when that happens.

 

You cannot claim a right to initiate force

 

Oh, every country in the world actually claims that right by virtue of their sovereignty.

 

Regards

[alphabetagamma]

Israelis enjoy relative freedom while being surrounded by savages. The United States would be justified in invading Egypt and and Jordan, but it has no self-interest in doing so.

"surrounded by savages". That's a very dissapointing opinion Michael.

I am not judging your country for trying to get as much of what it thinks it needs by force

He's Canadian, as am I.

[Vapymid]

He's Canadian, as am I.

 

Sorry, my mistake.

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

I cannot see Israel as a success at all for the time being. For decades they cannot establish relationship with neighbours - this is not statesmanship.

 

Kind of hard to choose diplomacy with people constantly shooting at you over their fences and announcing that you should die in nasty ways.

 

In any case, wrong. Israel normalized relationships with both Egypt and Jordan, and has not significantly abrogated either treaty.

 

Freedom? Very questionable in a country which is officially based on religious and racial discrimination.

You mean like all those officially Islamic countries, right?

 

What is happening with the Palestinians bears very troubling resemblance to the Final Solution in the Nazy-occupied Europe (with some sensitivities taken into account - so no gas chambers or extermination camps - but with ghettos and a similar ultimate goal).

And without the Jews constantly launching attacks against the Nazis, or inviting the Allies in to get in the first strike before Germany even formed a government, and... well. basically the entire history of Israel that WASN'T Written by Hamas. Seriously, where did you learn this utter bilge, Abu Nidal University?

 

Do you even know who invaded first in 1948? Or for that matter, that the reason Israel won the 1967 war was that it attacked Arab forces that were already massed for invasion?

 

Who rejected a path Palestinan Statehood in 2000? Israel, or the Palestinian leadership? Who has ALWAYS rejected overtures to Palestinian statehood that don't coincide with the abolition of Israel?

 

Also, reliance on the US support is a dangerous game. One day that support will vanish in thin air and Israel will have to face all its enemies on its own, all of a sudden.

Naah, even the Space Hippies know Israel is the US's most reliable ally anywhere. It's not like there's any other nation in the Middle East that is a better choice for alliance. Everywhere else is worse.

[Vapymid]

Listen, I have no interest in either side's reading of history. I also have absolutely no desire to go into what they think are the reasons for their mutual hatred - they can hate to their hearts content.

 

All I see, as a disinterested third party is one group of people put in a ghetto by another group of people. There are a number of obvious observations one is forced to make:

 

- those living in ghetto will not ever feel any disposition to be nice to those who keep them here. Rockets and terrorists is what the captors MUST expect from the captives.

 

- those who put the others into a ghetto are not interested in giving the latter freedoms, self-determination, human rights, peaceful coexistence, all that crap. The only reason for that is to force the captive to either die or go away.

 

That is the essence of what is going on - Israeli powers that be do not want a Palestinian solution, they want THE Palestinian solution (hence my analogy to the Nazi Germany).

 

It is stupid of anyone to expect or demand from Palestinians (whether you like them or not) to stop trying to hurt the Israelis back. It's a physical impossibility, it is happening on instinctive level, like bees attacking you if you put a stick into their beehive. The difference is that if you watch a movie about Jewish resistance in WWII the bombing of a Nazi gauleiter is OK, when you are on the receiving end of a Kassam it isn't.

 

As for the US support, it's political. Anything political is not permanent. One forgets about it to his peril.

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

Ah, I understand. You see what you see (or more accurately, what one side has presented to you), and you have no interest in what the deeper reality actually IS. Surface appearances are good enough for you. Massive amounts of contrary evidence? Well, that's just somebody's opinion.

 

Okay, then. Enjoy the political equivalent of being a Young-Earth Creationist.

[Vapymid]

Quite the opposite. I am trying not to be distracted by either side's propaganda and parochial infighting and look at the situation objectively.

 

I don't care if each of them has his own strong opinion on what age one should be circumcised at or what type of skullcap one must wear or which direction one should look at when praying.

 

Regards