all fair points, however i will say that i respect you radical views of not excepting the idea of a state but i have and i dont think we can ever change this, plus my hatred of capitalism ( generalised as most western democracys) has given me the options of communism and possible socalism...
its inefective yes but would you not say its the only thing we have? and i wouldnt say its a total disaster because everything has its problems if you look hard enough doesnt it...
Gregoravich: communism has never happend in a rich country. only depserate ones. wat is to be shared up amoung the people when there was little to begin with? when russia was doing well econmically in the 60s people began to enjoy life mroe. their just needs to be alot of econmic stability for the effects to really be felt.
communism has never happend in a rich country. only depserate ones. wat is to be shared up amoung the people when there was little to begin with? when russia was doing well econmically in the 60s people began to enjoy life mroe. their just needs to be alot of econmic stability for the effects to really be felt.
Cuba was quite wealthy before the Revolution actually. It had a big immigration numbers, highest per capita consumption rate in Latin America, and boasting some of the highest wages in the world.
and hwo is it communisms fault tht people are egomanics?
Gregoravich:i will say that i respect you radical views of not excepting the idea of a state but i have and i dont think we can ever change this
Why don't you think that an anarchic society is possible?
Gregoravich:plus my hatred of capitalism ( generalised as most western democracys)
That's not Capitalism, that is corporatism, which I despise as well.
You don't hate capitalism. Have you ever been bargain hunting before? Or comparison shopped? How did you get that computer you're using? Did you just close your eyes, walk into the electronics store, and purchase the fist one you bumped into? Or did you take a look at cnet (or consumer reports, amazon reviews, etc.) first, to see which had the best features, at the best price?
Gregoravich: i wouldnt say its a total disaster because everything has its problems if you look hard enough doesnt it...
That seems rather defeatist.
Gregoravich: and hwo is it communisms fault tht people are egomanics?
It's the Communists' fault that they try to legislate away the basic (and good) human nature of self-interest.
Gregoravich:plus my hatred of capitalism
Can you explain specifically why you hate capitalism(not state fascism, not corporativism), but uncoerced laissez faire capitalism?
i would call it defeates as such because im not, you must admit that even good things have negative aspects and even though this is the case i have accepted it and look for the best option. i got this laptop for christmas, im glad we have something in common but can you define capitalism then?
ok right... anrachism is the idea of removal of the state am i right? well i think that total anarchy generally would not work because people are slefsh and it would lead to a chaotic society that would be a terrible place to live and have live under... how do you view it?
were the not listen wen i said human nature is realtive bullshit
jst cuz there selfish bastrds dont mean the entire world is
filc: Gregoravich:plus my hatred of capitalism Can you explain specifically why you hate capitalism(not state fascism, not corporativism), but uncoerced laissez faire capitalism?
bcuz it means people get hurt for the sake of others. it promotes greed and hate. which then under mines morals. how is it in any way just that some people should wipe their arse with money while others starve to death.
Gregoravich:well i think that total anarchy generally would not work because people are slefsh
Two things.
A) To the contrary, it has consistentlty been the most selfish people on this planet who have benefited the human race the most. Nearly all empoverished nations grow out of poverty and out of hunger due to selfish people. The selfless ones are the ones who keep them in a state of poverty.
It was a selfish man who made your laptop, yuor operating system, your home, and nearly every tangible created object you enjoy and cherish. Microsoft alone, being a profit oriented business, has massively made the entire world wealthier and increased the productivity of even the poorest in 3rd world countries.
The selfish man can only succeed by satisifying the desires of individuals. The more individuals he satisifies the more he succeeeds.
B) There is no such thing as a non-selfish man. If you choose to live your life as a philanthropist you are still doing so by your own merit, to satisfy your own merits. To argue that man are evil because they are selfish is superficial and bears no weight. For it is the selfish men who hold virtue, integrity, and generally create wealth for his neighbors around him. It is the selfless man who lives by donation.
You have been taught many things but you have never logically scrutinized your belief system.
Ultimately a selfless society is inheriently impossible for the human race. Man acts to satisfy his own ends. Even you act to satisfy your own ends. If this were not the case man would not act, he would be a robot, or an object of inaction, like a stone.
To state that man should not be selfish is to state that man should not be man, that man is evil for feeling hungry, evil for desiring shelter, evil for desiring leisure. Such an argument falls in on its face when really considered.
Please explain why you hate capitalism.
Bravo... i am impresed i can say that... however i believe that everything you have said is in a sense pointless, we all know that people are selfish its just a matter of how selfish, as in selfish wanting to live or selfish wanting to control the world... its you choice but yer i dont have the knowledge to tackle your argument im affraid... sorry... however where do you stand on the political spectrum?
Gregoravich:you must admit that even good things have negative aspects and even though this is the case i have accepted it and look for the best option.
I don't think communism is the best option for achieving your goals. Speaking of, what are you goals?
Gregoravich:i got this laptop for christmas
Well, where did santa get it? I'm sure it wasn't the central laptop distribution bureau.
Gregoravich:can you define capitalism then
Voluntary exchange of goods and services.
Gregoravich:ok right... anrachism is the idea of removal of the state am i right?
Absence of a state, yes.
If people are selfish, why would you want them to be in charge of you, if they will only look out for their best interests?
Gregoravich:it would lead to a chaotic society
All the nations of the world interact in what is essentially an anarchic way. There is no world government.
Gregoravich:how do you view it?
People are selfish, and they are lazy. These two traits counteract each other, so most people would rather cooperate to get what they want, rather than fight. Also, the mob does a great job weeding out troublemakers.
Gregoravich: it promotes greed and hate.
Greed simply means that man has an end, and there are certain means to that end. Greed is a superficial word. Truth is greed, or desire, is the mechanism which motivates man to create wealth for himself and his neighbors. Society benefits from his greed. The only time where this is not the case is when he is allowed to compel his neighbors against their will, that is the function of a state and why it is anti-capitalistic.
Gregoravich:hurt for the sake of others.
An uncoerced exchange can only occur when both parities benefit. One party gives up his potato's for another persons carrots. The one person valued the carrots more than the potato's the other valued the potato's more than the carrots. If this arrangement were not the case the exchange would never have taken place. Therefore it can only be concluded that during an exchange both partiies benefit, had they not benefited the exchange would never had occured.
This is the exchange axiom.
Gregoravich:which then under mines morals.
In a free society you are free not to associate yourself with those whom you find immoral.
Gregoravich:bcuz it means people get hurt for the sake of others.
It is generally considered poor business practice to hurt your customers. Usually in such situations those companies go out of business's as people stop dealing with them. This is an example of the market correcting things. It's in a business man's best interest to please all consumers, not hate against them. But if a business man wants to hate he is welcome to, he will suffer financial consequences.
Gregoravich: wipe their arse with money while others starve to death.
On this forum at least it's typically helled that the people you describe are statists and coercers, who extract wealth from the producers.
Would y ou prefer that we steal by violent force from those who produce wealth for the world, and give to those who produce nothing? This is the economic model of communism, and is why communism destroys capital, destroys wealth, and general fosters an impoverished economic environment. It is the paramount of why communism cannot foster a wealthy nation. The steal from the producers, and give to the leaches.
You support violence and coercion. It's wholly hypocritical of you to be what is or is not morality when you condone a system thats foundation is built upon violence and theft.
You describe the parasite. Economic prosperity, global wealth, can only occur when capital can be allowed to accumulate freely, meeting the desires and ends of individuals. Directed by those individuals, for the purposes they see fit. If the capitla is directed by a central authority it assumes the roll of omniscience, pretending to know what the desires/ends are of each individual on the face of the planet. No such collective body can exist, humans are not omniscient.
Gregoravich: control the world
Most people are are against coercion. Pretty much anything short of self defense and the defense of one's property. We characterize statists as coercers in case you have not yet noticed.
Gregoravich: political spectrum
I don't.
But if you must you can call me a Voluntarism.
my goals for life? well i grew up without a father and didnt have a male role model in my life and have wanted to join the army, i think i mite join the army for the experience but im currently stufying politics at A level, i would like to go into politics but the problem being in our modern elective ditatorship (united Kingdom) i dont have much hope with my views lol
lol i must say the santa comment made me laugh, once again i hate things but i have to put up with them, i live in a capitalist world and at my age nothing i do can change this so for now i have to put up with it...
i would rather a selfish man govern an equal society than hundreds of selfish people exploiton one another and everyone around them in our society...
Now that youve braught it up what are your aims for the future?...
and vouluntarism is?...
baxter that is the biggest load of crap i have read all night...
youn cant blaim national socalism on there defeat, they were defeated because of sheer military might against them as well as unforseen luck and a psychopathic (yet lazy) leader...
and camps do not provice fairness for all inside because they were never "fairly" put there in the first place, and everyone inside was subjected to diffrent torture and treatment depending on race, gender and attitude...
PROFITS
HI there. Seeing that you are a communist, I assume you have a deep seated hatred for profits. How can we abolish profits. and what is a profit? I think you would agree that a profit is the result of an action that changes a person's state of condition from a less desirable state to a more desirable state for that individual. for example the grocer in charging $2.50 for a gallon of milk, which he paid $2.00 for whole sale, changes his state of affairs from a less desirable state to a more desirable state.
But also the consumer would profit from this exchange too. Unless he would like to put 10 quarters into a milk bottle and try feeding it to his child. He is clearly better of because of the trade. But because profits are manifestly evil, We should abolish all trade. It does no good to use legislation to push down the price of milk even to 1 cent because even then the consumer would profit by the exchange, if the grocer was willing to trade at all. But that is the key. Trade must be abolished to stamp out profits of greedy human beings.
But that is not all. In fact even if I am isolated in nature, and expend my efforts to pick fruit, I have still traded the oppurtunity of leusure for that gathering food. Whether or not you agree in the concept of an autistic trade, it is undeniable that I have profited by my actions. If profits are to be abhored and fought as an ultimate end, then infact all actions must be prohibited.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Gregoravich: i would rather a selfish man govern an equal society than hundreds of selfish people exploiton one another and everyone around them in our society...
What is "exploitation"?
"The only way to make money on the free market is to produce what others want. The better one serves others, the more profit he earns; thus the market is grounded in mutual benefit and harmony of interests." - David Osterfeld.
Gregoravich:bcuz it means people get hurt for the sake of others. it promotes greed and hate. which then under mines morals. how is it in any way just that some people should wipe their arse with money while others starve to death.
Define for me morality
It does not promote greed per se, it promotes voluntary exchange and cooperation. As for your "starve to death" argument, it all depends upon your definition of "just" however if you look in modern capitalistic countries I would be amazed if you found anyone starving. In the argument presented however, there are some who are say, provding valuable services to millions and others who cannot or will not provide valuable services to anyone. In the case of somone starving though I don't understand under what condition they would be allowed by people to starve if you understand me. Also, in the end everyone is just enjoying their property rights.
If he doesn't want to starve and can work then he will just accept a v. low wage where he would be immensly valuable to any firm that hired him. If he can't work then he will have such sympathy that I would be astounded that he would be starving and not recieving charity money. As for the people who are really starving in the world they are the results often of states utterly f***ing up or not receiving much/as much charity due to the existence of a state and the artificial barriers in both the real and percieved things that this causes.
You also wish to solve the problem by involuntary interaction and waving guns around in other people's faces. How is this just?
Forgive me if I am incorrect here but so far your argument seems badly put together, badly spelled (there is a spell check option in the forum tools), and entirly reliant upon toy morality and the whole communist idea about human nature which I don't even challenge for the most part. I consider that people are just people, people will do the job that's in front of them for the most part, 95% of the population will live how they are born, raised, and told by society to be raised. I still don't beleive that communism is possible or is moral.
If I were you and I actually wanted to argue/learn somthing/get a point across I'd try to have a 1 on 1 conversation with somone here, and I'd be all for that.
-TLAR
Gregoravich:i would rather a selfish man govern an equal society than hundreds of selfish people exploiton one another and everyone around them in our society...
In mutual exchange there is no exploitation. As defined by t he exchange axiom posted above. You fear ghosts and goblins.
The Late Andrew Ryan: In the case of somone starving though I don't understand under what condition they would be allowed by people to starve if you understand me.
TLAR makes a solid point. If the capitalists incentive is to make a profit he's undermining his goal by allowing his consumers to starve. Everyone is productive under the division of labor. The level of the productivity changes but the law of comparative advantage shows us that even the retarded can be a great economic benefit to society if they are allowed to, we all benefit in that case.
ow my life ive got a few replys to do... righteo then... ok i have nothing against profits, buying something and selling it for more is perefectly exceptable, however when profits are made by paying people stupidly low wages in sweat shops then that crosses the line does it not?
Never the less selling to make a profit is fine as long as you take into consideration the postion your customers are in e.g working class men and women with little money
Please don't confuse ethics/morality for economics as that's the biggest error of many pro-communist/communitarian thinkers. From an economics standpoint, socialism and communism will never work for precisely the fact that each person can only know so much about themselves and of that amount very little can be objectively transmitted or defined. As such, to assume that some collectivization of ends, in terms of economics, is impossible as it would throw away many vital pieces of data necessary to make equitable exchange possible; chiefly, the price mechanism. Without at least the price mechanism being free of any cartel's/State's control all economics would devolve into small communities of farmsteads. Meaning no industrialization, no information technology, no modern medicine, and so forth.
An economy to uplift a population in a relatively equal fashion can only be done with a free market, not only in goods and labor, but in ideas. If you cannot accept this basic condition, then your wishes for the poor and unfortunate will never come to pass. Mutual aide in the 19th century came about because of a relatively free market, not because of labor laws. Prices fell sharply not because of State intervention, but because the State was impotent to interfere in the first place.
Wealth will never be evenly distributed as some are better than others are figuring out the economy from time to time, but their success will not be inborn or inherent to their wealth. That wealth could be easily squandered in a generation's time and that is often the case. Very few families ever dominate an economy, and those that do either are good at what they do or they have some how subverted the market processes.
So, please before assuming that communism will ever work ask yourself how the economy works first. After you understand economics, then consider the assumptions made for communism a step at a time, you'll find the flaws in communism very easily this way.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
I apologize as I got caught up with something that needed done. So where were we...
Gregoravich:thankyou wilderness, i understand we all have our own beliefs and i understand mine is not exactly the most popular. and i understand your next point about definition, ok well when you say free market i think of liberlas and open trade with no tariffs, however im guessing that is incorrect? and yes communism is diffrent in many ways but i guess in a way im refering to marxism more than communism...
Free market means voluntary exchange of economic goods. Are you ok with that?
Gregoravich:i realise anachy is here but i ment in a political way, in the sense of colapsing politics to replace it with anarchy and i do not agree with that...
ok good. If it is here, then could you define it please.
Gregoravich:i can see definitions are becoming a problem... ok lets say capitalism is in simple form, most western democracys and the idea that the individual is key to their own succes.
No. That's not capitalism. Capitalism is basically the free market, but even more precisely to provide more of an explanation, capital=savings. Anything that is saved. Anything at all. If I save food for winter the food is saved, it is now capital. Capitalism is the economic system of saving.
Hope that helps.
Gregoravich:ow my life ive got a few replys to do... righteo then... ok i have nothing against profits, buying something and selling it for more is perefectly exceptable, however when profits are made by paying people stupidly low wages in sweat shops then that crosses the line does it not?
Would you rather have t hose economically growing people back on the dirt disease ridden streets dieing of starvation? The sweat shop argument can only be made from ignorance. I'll grant you that you know very little about what your saying over that topic. Also no one points a gun at their head and forces them to work at a sweat shop. They do so becuase of the economic advantage they gain from it.
Whats funny is your resolution to the supposed sweatshops is to put a gun to everyone's head and force all men to work for a universally low wage, impovershing an entire nation. If your against sweatshops how can you be pro-communism? Which does nothing more then create one huge nation wide sweatshop backed by violence.
At least in real sweatshops people work there voluntarily, and they are economically better off doing so.
ok guys im gona be honest with you, i really cant keep up with all the questions and highly structured questions and ideolgys your throwing at me, i am a communist, i believe in communist ideolgy, i believe the world we live in a screwed up little planet full of evil exploiting people that need to be stoped... if you have any specific questions then go ahead and ask.... plus im currently doing a British politics essay on the modernisation of Parliament and the power of the executive...
shoot.....
Gregoravich: ok i have nothing against profits, buying something and selling it for more is perefectly exceptable, however when profits are made by paying people stupidly low wages in sweat shops then that crosses the line does it not? Never the less selling to make a profit is fine as long as you take into consideration the postion your customers are in e.g working class men and women with little money
ok i have nothing against profits, buying something and selling it for more is perefectly exceptable, however when profits are made by paying people stupidly low wages in sweat shops then that crosses the line does it not?
VALUE
Then it is a matter of value. I don't know if you have ever noticed the similarities in the words value and evaluate, but they have such a similarity for a reason. value is not inherent in an object or a service. It can not be said that something is bought and sold under value, because every item is always sold at the exact value at which the buyer is willing to pay for, and the seller willing to receive for the item. If there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with buying or selling anything (including one's own labor) for any price, since to do so is, as I've pointed out above, profitable for both parties.
no no and more no.... it is not "what the buyer is willing to pay for it" it is how much they pay for it work sense, if a man is giving up all his wages to keep is family alive on a bair minimum then that is un exceptable, the seller should be selling products at such a price that will give him a steady income instead of trying to make as much money as possible, in that sense prices should be as low as possible to allow the working man to buy things without being exploited to the last penny and only "willing to buy it" because he has no other choice to survive.... that my dear friend is sick and wrong...
Gregoravich: ok i have nothing against profits, buying something and selling it for more is perefectly exceptable, however when profits are made by paying people stupidly low wages in sweat shops then that crosses the line does it not?
Who decides which wage level is "just right" for people? If the sweat shops are really so bad then why do people voluntarily offer their labour to them? What is a "stupidly low wage"? For people in the third world a few US dollars is a lot more money than the returns of joblessness or subsistence farming.
ok right you say that a few dollars are ok and yet, no, no they are not, that money does not offer nearly enough for that person to live a comfortable life like they deserve, the wages are low because big capitalist companies want a big profit, and what better when thean forcing people with nothing to work for nothing because they have no other choice.... the honourble thing to do would be to respect the worker and give them a better wage so they can live a good life, just like everyone is intitled to.
Gregoravich: ok guys im gona be honest with you, i really cant keep up with all the questions and highly structured questions and ideolgys your throwing at me, i am a communist, i believe in communist ideolgy, i believe the world we live in a screwed up little planet full of evil exploiting people that need to be stoped... if you have any specific questions then go ahead and ask.... plus im currently doing a British politics essay on the modernisation of Parliament and the power of the executive... shoot.....
Which is why you should take my earlier advice
The Late Andrew Ryan: If I were you and I actually wanted to argue/learn somthing/get a point across I'd try to have a 1 on 1 conversation with somone here, and I'd be all for that.
Why is it that you want to use the state in order to achieve your goals?
when you say use the state to complete my goals what do you meen exactly? my carrer goals? my communism goals? or communism on a whole? (sorry its been a long day)
Gregoravich: ok right you say that a few dollars are ok and yet, no, no they are not, that money does not offer nearly enough for that person to live a comfortable life like they deserve, the wages are low because big capitalist companies want a big profit, and what better when thean forcing people with nothing to work for nothing because they have no other choice.... the honourble thing to do would be to respect the worker and give them a better wage so they can live a good life, just like everyone is intitled to.
They are not working for nothing, mate. They are getting paid, as you have admitted. If the capitalist companies raised their wages they wouldn't be able to sell their goods at competitive prices in the first place. Remember, businesses need to serve their customers first otherwise they'd go bankrupt very quickly. Then all the workers who now have some income would have no work and no income. They wouldn't be able to develop their skills and productivity which is the key to gaining increased wages.
He means the goals of production and provision for individuals.
Gregoravich: when you say use the state to complete my goals what do you meen exactly? my carrer goals? my communism goals? or communism on a whole? (sorry its been a long day)
Its certainly alright.
I mean your goals of an egalitarian communist society. Although quite frankly I'd like to know what you consider your goals are upon the assumption that they do not allign absolutly perfectly with those of the traditional communist.
So basically what are your "worldwide" goals for the alteration of society, and why to you propose the use of the state to achieve them?
in saying that are you telling me honestly that people in africa making nike trainers for absolutely nothing are NOT being exploited? and are you telling me that companys cant afford to raise those wages at all? when you can admit this to me then we will continue with your theory, yes there getting paid but they are pritty much unable to live off it let alone keep a family alive... ow and the reason most of these countrys are in this state is because of us e.g capitalism and exploitation of people for resources,
[
besides this, I would try to familiarize myself with the economic workings of socialism http://mises.org/books/socialism.pdf
Read this, and get back with us in about 3 months. Also I'd like to apologize on behalf of some of the people in here if they come across as belitting towards you. Old habbits die hard, and it is still difficult for some of us to act cordially when others suggest that we should not be free.
That's an ethical question and not an economic question. We can focus on the economic side of capitalism and communism.
Gregoravich:it promotes greed and hate.
No. In a free market the consumer has the power of who fails and who doesn't fail (profit/loss). The current western democracies are not capitalism as they are political systems that initiate physical aggression upon the free market and redistribute the wealth gained in the economy. These are two distinct entities where a governmental system exists. One is free market were all the workers are out trying to make a buck to just get by. Whereas the political system preys upon the hard work of people and redistributes the wealth. It is destructive to have coercion upon the free market. It destroys wealth and the poor people are usually the people that are effected first by government policies. The special interest groups that go to the gov't for legislation and handouts stifle competition and therefore the price system is distorted by all the socialistic measures that have been taken, ie. social security, minimum wage (which creates unemployment), all the other gov't laws that come out of the Dept. of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.... The price system is key because it creates malinvestments in supply and demand. As gov'ts distort the market with interest rates, monetary policies, etc... thereby devaluing the purchasing power of the dollar (for instance), then as more wealth or regulations are redistributed around in the economy it is NOT clear what the consumer is demanding. If that is not seen, then it creates unemployment and poverty.
In a free market businesses have to make the effort to NOT be greedy because if consumers don't like their product then the businesses go bankrupt. Businesses therefore have to give, not be greedy, they have to give what consumers want or else the business fails.
Liberty doesn't undermine morals. Liberty semantically means absence of initiated physical aggression, ie. peace. So liberty can't be immoral or undermine morals. It is violence and coercion that undermines morals.
Gregoravich:how is it in any way just that some people should wipe their arse with money while others starve to death.
Money is simply a medium of exchange. It is how complex economic systems above barter work. It is how I can go to the store and get a lamp from the lamp owner when I don't have anything the lamp owner wants to barter (outside of currency). Yet the lamp owner will take the currency I have because he/she can use that currency to buy what he/she wants that I didn't have to offer other than the currency. It makes exchange in higher order good system, ie. capitalism work. Money is like any other economic good in society. Money is the same as a watch, door, TV, food, etc.... It is valued so much though that people will trade money more than in the market than all other economic goods.