__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

Sorry mis phrased it. The wealthy shouldn't be allowed to take their wealth, just their money. As no-one would own anything is a communist community, previously owning something isn't a viable reason to steal it back form the workers.

About communist labour. The jobs that people don't want do (removing sewage blockages etc.) would get done. How? If someone has a problem they take it straight to their soviet and the soviet opens up the job to anyone who wants it. So why would someone take it? Well it's just like you say Java, if there's something disturbing the local community then a person will stand up a fix the problem because they cab see the direct benefits this action has. So am i placing to much faith in human kindness? I don't think so. I just look at the actions of everyday people to see how they could easily be applied to the economy. Whenever there's a plank wood over a hole that looks particularly dodgy, there's always someone who steps up and tests it. If ever someone can't quite manage to lift there buggy onto the bus, someone nearby will always help them. If someones lost someelse will point them in the right direction. These actions are all things people don't have to or may not want to do. They do do them though.

Capitalism is not the best thing you have to enable individualism. I'm not going lie, communism isn't either. Capitalism may well let some people seek fortune etc. but some people don't get that chance. Some people have to be oppressed for others to aspire. I can't see how you can misshape capitalism to fit any other bill.

Try to stop it. If more 50% of people in your local area want you part with you possessions then chances are it's you v. a mob.

There would be a scarcity of resources in beginning Force. Regularly? What makes you say that? There's enough food being produced to feed the world 3 times over. Distribute that equally and its more than enough (3x in fact ) People couldn't hoard their goods anyway, everything they made is made by a group not the individual. Can't hoard it if it's not yours. If you all got together and tried to hoard whatever it was you had in supply (say you made socks), then everyone else would refuse to give you what they made (like food). The majority would win out. You also have to remember that if someone does decide they want there goods for themselves all they need do is change there vote.

What made you lose faith in humanity? People do co-operate in times of hardship. Take hurricane Katrina. Remember all those stories about looting and violence? They were lies.

http://www.alternet.org/katrina/27442/

People banded together in a time of dire need. That's humanity Force.

Units don't come into play Force. In communism i will be fed, sheltered, clothed and pretty much everything else a human needs. Guaranteed. I can have extra is the situation allows. In capitalism i can have everything or i can have nothing.

More likely to work hard or capitalism? How is stacking a shelf faster going to make me a millionaire. Is answering a phone quicker and more politely going make me rich? Is packing peoples shopping more carefully going to give me the world? No. workers have no incentive. Entrepreneurs do. Entrepreneurs will work harder under capitalism force but under communism workers get back more of what there labour worth, so workers work harder.

You also don't take into account people's lives. Let's take your unit example. In communism everyone gets a unit right? In capitalism some could get 100 units. The amount of units being produced hasn't changed. the only difference is the distribution of the units. The only difference is 99 people not struggle to put food on table, make rent etc. while 1 person becomes a glutton. The impact on people lives is devastating. Have some empathy force, think what it's like to have a child feed but to be in a area with no jobs and having no money to move. Just try to imagine what's going to happen to that family.

The reason i want to tear down the capitalist system is because isee its failures everywhere. I see homeless selling the big issue. Willing workers who just can't find employment and have been forced into the streets because of it. I see the manager of cash converter's (a large of chain of pawn shops) showing off his gold bar on the tv. That gold bar was made by people's suffering, by people being forced to sell there what little they have to make it through another day. What the hell is he going to use is for? I see people getting evicted from there council flat and then i see the rich moving into a freshly built mansion. This is a list that won't end unless something is done.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

That means that the state has stolen from the wealthy though. Why should the government be able to just all of a sudden tell you that you can no longer own what you've worked for?


That might be so. But I don't think complex tasks such as sewer maintenance will work in the same way. These voluntary efforts tend to focus on quick tasks that can be done by one or two people. Also they tend to be repeated only when appreciated by those who benefit. No one truly does anything for free. People expect a good feeling and that typically fades when the effort is taken for granted or the fruits of that effort quickly spoiled. So yes, they'll help old people on to buses. No, they won't fix the sewers. Specialized tasks require specialists so someone actually has to specialize in some crappy jobs.

That is why Western democracies have become welfare states. I'm not against the principles of a welfare state in supporting capitalism, lifting barriers, and filling in the cracks that people fall through. But (unlike most conservatives these days and a shocking number of liberals see it) there is a difference between that and socialism. Well-defined welfare policies (unlike the ones we have now) help people to learn to be productive if they wish and keep the disabled and elderly cared for, while enabling the rest to compete. I think optimizing the welfare state capitalism shows more promise than communism. And frankly if the private sector takes a larger part in welfare, I'll be pleased, not only because of the efficiency but because it will show that our culture is not completely void of a soul (unfortunately sometimes I wonder).


How do you not see this as oppression?


The scarcity thing is irritating. Having finite resources is defined as scarcity in capitalism. That is one of its weaknesses: the ignorance of absolute poverty in the face of extreme wealth. But why should it be split equally. I say help those in absolute poverty by offering basic food and shelter (which in the US, charity does a decent job of- needs a little work) and perhaps hygeine, new clothes, and work skills. We should help give everyone the chance to make it, not just a full perfect living as a hand-out. But in principle, I agree that we in the West consume way too much to babble about "scarcity" (the food spoiled rich girls regurgitate due to our sickening model culture would be enough to feed a small nation).

This is true. But we're not always in a state of hardship. People don't help when they aren't connected to the problem. So I see the point of localism. Just not Communism. On a global scale, we are all @$$holes.


It's not tough to get subsistence in capitalism. We have co-ops and communes even for those who wish to drop out partially or fully because people are free to create them. You can live as a communist (in the true sense) in a capitalist world, but you cannot live as a capitalist in a communist world (and it is yet to be proven that you can live as a true communist in a communist nation). I think what is important is that we allow a greater spread of information so that the poor can be more aware of their choices in life.

If your employer is competent, you will be motivated to work harder in capitalism. Or if you think in terms of building a resume rather than just earning pay. The trouble is that most of the workers today are not good capitalists (nor are they good communists, since they tend to be very self-centered). If they were, they'd put more pressure on employers to give incentive. Instead they get comfy and that only advantages the rich. The problem with capitalism isn't the fact that the rich have it down. It's that the poor don't. Personally I don't see that as much different from the better stuff Marx wrote (when he wasn't being paid by the Communist Party). Class consciousness and the destruction of the ruling ideology does not necessarily imply communism in my book.

The problem isn't that the government doesn't step in. Take another look. They do try. The problem is that the masses are seperated from the plight of those less fortunate and focused on their own lives. There is no government solution. The government just uses quick fixes and gets poor people conveniently out of the way. This is a cultural problem fueled by Calvinist hatred of the poor that still dwells unconsciously under the surface. It helped build this system and also helps to undermine it. The sooner we all flip the bird to Calvin and act as more compassionate capitalists the better for us and for capitalism.

I agree that only a fool or a right-wing ideologue sees capitalism as perfect. But why replace it with an even more imperfect system, one with a more delicate fabric surrounding it, one that requires oppression to implement?
Why can't willing people find work? No skills or wrong location. So let's fix that. We don't need a revolution, just common sense and a bit of compassion.
Pawn shops aren't evil, just lame. The fact is that sometimes you must sacrifice something in order to get something else. The pawn shop gives people the option to sell off luxuries for paying the rent rather than going without food. Also lets you get rid of junk or buy used things for cheaper. Under communism they wouldn't own anything to pawn, so it wouldn't make a difference.
Rent is another one of those troubles. I view one of the biggest problems in capitalism being people not being in the right place at the right time. This is a problem heavily unaffected by current welfare policies. People should be able to move with ease to follow jobs and homes that suit them, much like we followed herds in the ancient past. With telecommunications these days, people don't lose contact with those they truly care about and perhaps we should make it easier for people to travel to see their families. Travel infrastructure may just need a revolution. But not the whole system.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Government spending, which acts as a demand side influence for good or ill, should be increased only when the majority of people are unwilling to take financial risks by investing their time and resources (money or what money represents). As long as most people in low-paying jobs are aiming to climb the corporate ladder, the economy moves forward. It is only in rare situations like the Great Depression that the government must artificially stimulate the economy. There also does need to be a safety net for those who can't find any work (the disabled). The basic principle remains in tact, though. If most people foresee possible advancement beyond what they could have under communism, capitalism makes sense. It's not ideal, but then again, not much of anything is what it should be.
As for social problems caused by communism, apart from the risks in the transition to communism, imagine America (or Britain) as a nation of voluntary communes. Even if everything had gone well up to this point, I'm reminded of the fact that 4% of people are psychopaths and they generally blend into society quite well. Since there would be no centralized government to punish them, they would steal goods, gain influence and so forth by force or by stealth. The only solution would be pure vigilante justice, but that would cause fear to spread and radical individualism would return as people attempted to protect themselves both from the callous troublemakers and the panicking vigilantes. Eventually, some centralization of power would be necessary, and anarcho-communism would become authoritarian communism, which, as both history and common sense show us, is about as far from a utopia as it gets. Ultimately, I'm convinced that human nature is so driven by a desire to hoard goods, even when such miserliness is unnecessary (not unlike dogs eating quickly even when no other dogs are present), that right-wing economics are inevitable. The only question, then, is whether the government will seek to benefit economically from its power (right authoritarianism) or allow a sort of privatized plutocracy (right libertarianism). I dislike both, but those seem to be the only realistic options. Do you remember the political compass? In my view, as economics move left, social policies become more authoritarian by necessity, but then that authority is used to enforce inequity rather than equality, meaning that authoritarian governments move right. I don't like any of this, but I see it as the only realistic outlook.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Communism isn't the answer, but it certainly beats the hell out of this Orwellian nightmare:
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14412
Is that guy serious?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Well, I've been trying to reason with FA, but I doubt it will work. He has the worst political agenda I've seen on the Internet (and I've seen some pretty bad ones).

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

After all, there is less than a 0% chance of America going Communist. Plus, you would think that the evidence of it not working is so stacked that people would just give it up.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

dear Schwarzwald, after all disaster and suffering the communist regimes have brought to peoples last century (see e.g. the recent PACE resolution), your statements make you full idiot.

Where still have a communism reigns