<p>they can be tricky bastards</p>
<p>No trickier than cheney or Rove.</p>
<p>And they don't shoot people in the face.</p>
<p>Obviously the discussion has degenerated. I guess you've reached the end of your "serious" tolerance.</p>
<p>I flow with the conversation, sweetums</p>
<p>Serious, degenerate.........as long as I can enjoy myself, Myself.</p>
<p>Alas, that is why you're better than us all, myself. Your 'serious' tolerance never lets up.</p>
<p>Lol - in a free society you have unlimited opportunities. If you make an assertion please give <em>some</em> reasoning to back it up...</p>
<p>^^ Tell that to the FBI^^
KIDDING!!! </p>
<p>My point earlier was that human nature is flawed because it depends on the suppression of instinct. Remember Meursault in Camus' stranger?
Well when was he happiest? He was happiest when he had sunken down to unrestrainted showing of his instinctual nature. Forget for a second that he killed someone because of the sun, but it was when his nature was unsupressed that he was most happy.</p>
<p>Economics believes in self interest, which economists claim is different than greed and selfishness, but in essense they're the same thing. This is especially true if companies don't give back to their community, etc.
My point with the inherently flawed nature remains that 100% of people are not 100% good due to some qualities that stem from instinct (jealousy, greed,etc). This is why communism doesn't work, well this and the fact that people don't like making the same amount of money or getting the same amount of things as someone who they perceive has done less to warrant the pay.</p>
<p>Uh - I wouldn't use The Stranger as a basis for human motivation. Meursault <em>was</em> a "stranger". He wasn't typical - that was the point of the book - how we react to people differently to ourselves. In the end he died because he couldn't feel remorse for killing the Arab... Camus was an odd man. I'm not sure if that was because of existentialism or not...</p>
<p>But I digress...</p>
<p>You're basically using the "argument from depravity." That we aren't "good" enough to be ruled by a dictator. No matter how you slice it, collectivism is slavery - it denies freedom by forcing everyone to live for everyone else. I don't recognize that we aren't good enough for communism - I posit that humanity is good enough for freedom - that as long as the government is confined to it's original purpose (protecting our rights) that each person can excell and find happiness for themselves through determination and effort. Communist countries are brutal - anyone who disagrees is slaughtered. Anyone who believes that communism is a benevolent "tragically idealistic" system needs to read some history books. Just look at China and the whole controversy of censoring the Internet - that is the result of such an "idealistic" society.</p>
<p>Oh yes - I'm all <em>much</em> better then you. I think that I'm stronger, faster, and doubly more handsome than any of you. People mistake me for a speeding train or an aeroplane (hey that rhymed!) So that's me - really better then you. Are you happy I spelled it out? Because I really think I'm superior. As long as we've got that straight. Remember that - superior. Because that's what I am. I'm also really serious - the source of my superiority. You might as well just make me dictator of a communist society - that's how good I am. I wouldn't be corrupt or anything...I promise.</p>
<p>well, if you promise, then I have no choice but to take your word for it.
Seriousness and rhyming to boot- I'm impressed.</p>
<p>This post has gotten ridiculously long in just one day.</p>
<p>I don't remember who it was, but it may have been Gambadent that pointed out correctly that communism is supposed to follow a highly industrialized state where there is a plenty of resources to go around, and an estranged and upset massive working class to revolt. Russia and China both lacked the plenty of resources, and additionally, neither followed Marx's outline of political economy as he would have it.</p>
<p>Somebody asked me to point out page numbers where Marx allows for individual rights. That is difficult because different volumes will have different pages numbers. It is also difficult because Marx talks a lot less about the joys of communism than he talks about how great it would be to overthrow capitalism. For now, I'm going to say that if you read the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, you'll see how laboring individuals are estranged and economic slaves to the bourgeious. He describes communism as </p>
<p>"the positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life is, therefore, the positive transcendence of all estrangement--that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social mode of existence" (85).</p>
<p>It should make sense that unestranged, free workers have more individual rights than they do under capitalism. If they need to sell their labor to survive, are they really free? Especially if they can't always survive from selling their labor, because of a surplus of workers perpetuated by the bourgeious? Besides, individual </p>
<p>Yes, I admit that there are problems with Marxist communism. However, it provides an excellent criticism of capitalism.</p>
<p>Slaves? Really? Even when they can quit at any time? No one forces anyone to take any job they don't want under capitalism.</p>
<p>Define "estranged" in the context Marx and you put it in.</p>
<p>Oh yeah - individual rights and freedoms allow people the ability to be free from coercion. That's what they all boil down to. There is no right to a job, meals, a brand new tv, etc. Selling their labor <em>makes</em> them free. Or would you rather that some comimttee force workers to work at factory #2 (or whatever).</p>
<p>There is no <em>right</em> to enslave!</p>
<p>Meursault was considered a stranger only because he wasn't engrossed with religion, and refused to give up his own personality for the homogenous society that tried to make him a part of itself. Refer to the part about his trial, where the outrage is more on the fact that Meursault is an atheist and not that he killed another man. An arabs life, as depicted in the era of the book, was not worth as much as a man's life. If Meursault had embraced religion, then he would have been a free man. Yet, his decision not to lie and to show his personal beliefs led to his execution. He died happy only because he died with his beliefs intact.</p>
<p>I would also be a stranger to this society, I'm more agnostic than atheist yet i refuse to embrace religion. Does that make me a stranger? I think the title of the book had an ironic nature to it as the stranger was the only one who wasn't strange, and was an individual. Sure there were arabs and whites in the book, but they were homogenous in action.</p>
<p>And he couldn't feel remorse only because he was made to embrace religion to do that, he knew what he had done was wrong and decided to face it instead of hiding behind a fake veil of religion.</p>
<p>I believe that people DO have goodness in them, yet you cannot ever convince me that all people are inherently 100% good, which is what my point is. Certain experiences in my life have shown me otherwise, and i'm not talking your teenage emo stuff (thank you very much :-p).
People do tend to act in their own self interest, survival of the fittest if you must. Communism goes against our instincts as we have tried to supress our instincts by becoming members of a so called 'society' for the betterment of man.</p>
<p>From ESquared:</p>
<p>"Because the action of amassing wealth for oneself often has a negative impact for someone else. Communism is built on COMMUNity effort, while capitalism is built on individual goals."</p>
<p>You are so terribly misinformed I don't even know where to begin. Free market capitalism works because it tends to make both parties better off. I amass wealth because you're buying products from me that you want or need. If you go to the grocery store and buy toothpaste, yeah they make a profit...but no one forced you to buy it, you're better off for buying it (at least, you thought so, since you deemed the tube more important than your dollars and change) and, if there were no incentives for a store to sell toothpaste (like making a profit), then you'd probably have to make the toothpaste yourself. Good luck.</p>
<p>You're [maybe] going to the best economics school in the nation. Try and learn something while you're there.</p>
<p>"Free market capitalism works because it tends to make both parties better off."</p>
<p>debaser (fan of the pixies?), try telling that to exploited, third world countries.
second, free market, pure capitalism rarely ever works. thus, most countries have a nice blend of socialism and capitalism. however, the us is one of the few countries in the world that leans heavily towards capitalism... and now the gap between the rich and poor is widening... hence, we have colleges that cost roughly 46K a year.</p>
<p>Matt -</p>
<p>Your comments are disjointed and incoherent. It sounds as though you copied and pasted a bunch of Communist rhetoric from some website. In one small paragraph you try to connect third world countries, mixed economies, and college tuition. Apparently explaining yourself and citing examples is unnecessary when making assertions anymore. For the record free market capitalism doesn't exist and has never existed - there has always been government intervention in some form. Why don't you pick one topic from your jumble of assertions and work from there.</p>
<p>My God, it makes sense that somebody with the username "Myself" would be so arrogant in dismissing the points of Matt, who, ironically, has "Hubris" in his name. Matt's points are all relevant, even if they aren't organized very well.</p>
<p>"Slaves? Really? Even when they can quit at any time? No one forces anyone to take any job they don't want under capitalism."</p>
<p>This argument is going to be fairly hasty because I don't have my text with me... Marx was very concerned with modes of production. The capitalist mode of production is based on the worker selling his "free labour" to the capitalist for sustinence, not of himself and his family, but sustinence of the entire working class. Therefore, if workers are not "working", you're clearly not under the capitalist mode of production. "They don't have to take any job they don't want to"? Really? Even if they don't take these minimal jobs, they'll die of starvation, along with their families? Even if under the capitalist mode of production, they are intentionally kept at a level of skill and intelligence that renders them incapable of skilled labour? How are they not slaves? If they insist on freeing themselves, the capitalist mode of production falls apart, and we have the communist revolution.</p>
<p>"Define "estranged" in the context Marx and you put it in."</p>
<p>I'm going to have a hard time defining that without my text. Either I'll get back to you on that later, or you can read more of the text I quoted earlier.</p>
<p>"Oh yeah - individual rights and freedoms allow people the ability to be free from coercion. That's what they all boil down to. There is no right to a job, meals, a brand new tv, etc. Selling their labor <em>makes</em> them free. Or would you rather that some comimttee force workers to work at factory #2 (or whatever)."</p>
<p>That's basically a set of unjustified claims. Individual rights and freedoms do not actually allow people anything. There are violations of individual rights all the time. Only an executive power can actually protect those rights with justice. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to assume that just because you have the right to do something, you are free from coercion. Let's take an example from Rousseau:</p>
<p>Suppose that there is a highway man...</p>
<p>Aw man, I need to go, but I'll finish this thought later.</p>
<p>The motives for the trade in your delicious toothpaste example are based on individual incentive. Instead of incentive coming from the desire to profit by creating and selling the toothpaste, a true communism's (not the Soviet Union or really any applied system to date) incentive comes from wanting everyone to have everything. It's made because it is needed, not because I can make money doing so.</p>
<p>I don't really like defending matt_hubris, but this "your comments are disjointed and incoherent" and "you are so terribly misinformed" is pretty unecessary.</p>
<p>From what I've noticed, many of the defenders of capitalism concepts of communism are horribly skewed and based on the systems failed applications (e.g. the Soviet Union - even though it was never actually communistic). We're two different sides of a battle, of course we're going to throw exaggerations into the mix to try to prove out point, everyone does. Obviously, I'll seem not "to get" capitalism like you do - if I did, don't you think it would be my preferenced. You don't have to condemn people as ignorant because they disagree with you and have a different view of what capitalism is to THEM. It's all about sharing information, sweetums.</p>
<p>Zach - </p>
<p>Your comments were truly confusing</p>
<p>
[quote]
The capitalist mode of production is based on the worker selling his "free labour" to the capitalist for sustinence, not of himself and his family, but sustinence of the entire working class. Therefore, if workers are not "working", you're clearly not under the capitalist mode of production.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A worker is <em>hired</em> (selling yourself sounds like prostitution). Why do you say just for sustenance - they're paid a <em>salary</em> with which they can dispose of as they see fit. How is <em>one</em> worker "selling his labour" for the entire working class? Your last sentence is truly bizzare. Are you saying that you don't work under Communism? What happened to "he who does not toil shall not eat"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if they don't take these minimal jobs, they'll die of starvation, along with their families? Even if under the capitalist mode of production, they are intentionally kept at a level of skill and intelligence that renders them incapable of skilled labour? How are they not slaves? If they insist on freeing themselves, the capitalist mode of production falls apart, and we have the communist revolution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you talking about? Why are you saying that everyone has "minimal jobs"? What "families"? If a person is unsatisfied with a job they find a different one - it happens all the time. If you are productive you don't "starve". </p>
<p>Who intentionally keeps skill and intelligence intentionally low?! Companies actually <em>pay</em> for workers to go back to school so they can get better jobs, if they see promise in a person! Why is <em>anyone</em> incapable of unskilled labor, unless you're retarded? And in regards to your last sentence - what are they "freeing" themselves from?! Freedom?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's basically a set of unjustified claims. Individual rights and freedoms do not actually allow people anything. There are violations of individual rights all the time. Only an executive power can actually protect those rights with justice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There I actually agree with you on something. Of course the government has to protect our rights - that's it's only moral purpose anyway, to abrogate the use of force on others and and protect our rights. I don't know why you assumed that I didn't agree with you.</p>
<p>Communism is slavery, simple enough.</p>