Communism! [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

Gary Gamgee

11-01-2002, 11:45 PM

It always amazes me the way America shuns the idea of Communism when one of it's most popular entertament icon has embraced the ideologly since the sixties. I am of course referering to Star Trek, a world in which everyone is valued for whatever position they fulfill, without any regard to material gain, the doctors are as valued as the street cleaners because they all have a role to play, none more important than the other. Except of course, oddly, if your the guy wearing the red top, then your toast.

For me Communism is an ideal, like religion is an ideal, something to be strived for, something to become. All of the great religions at thier heart have the notion of compassion and equality. Christ, Mohammed, Buddha all said the same thing, we have more in common with each other than we have differences. Communism, although not relating to anything supernatural, is saying the same thing. But like any fundemental religous extremists goverment around the world ie power hungry maniacs seizing on anythig to give them power, Communism, when enforced is corrupt.

I dont believe in god. I dont believe in revolution. I believe that sometimes we come up with brilliant ideas about how to conduct ourselves around each other. Some of them are religous, some political. These ideas, for the good, are challenging and require stepping back sometimes and having a good look. We are of course animals at the end of the day, but, having the intelligence we have, we are in the privelege position where we dont have act like one.

Parrot

11-02-2002, 12:38 AM

About this questionmark of Parrot's I would like to say that America is conservative because none really can get in without fitting the shoes. Has there ever been a non-white, female, non-christian or not upper class president in America? I should think not!

I really don’t want in this discussion but let me see if I got this;

“development” is now to be defined as “having a non-white, female, non-christian, or not upper-class president” as opposed to the more mundane and unimaginative defs like those Cir mentioned (imagine how happy the “developing” countries are going to be when they hear this);

our two-party system, with quite different ideologies, is somehow less inclusive than a one party system where everyone is expected to toe (tow?) the single party line;

and this then explains the lack of non-white, female, non-christian, presidents, like all those poor black women that used to run the USSR.

I think I’m up to speed now. Can’t believe I was confused as to where you were going with this.

I have to add that I am also a big fan of your first post; where anyone who happens to disagree with your POV is automatically chalked up to being “indoctrinated” and full of “hate”, yet you still close with “but I'd like to hear everybodys thoughts!” (emph added). Good Times!

Gary Gamgee

11-02-2002, 12:56 AM

yES Parrot lets go that way lets be absolute ANIMALS!!!!

:rolleyes:

Parrot

11-02-2002, 01:03 AM

???

Húrin Thalion

11-02-2002, 10:10 AM

I knew you'd hate me!:D

The problem with your two party system is that no new parties really have a chance to get any kind of influence. Our problem in Sweden is that if one party gets 48 percent of the places in the parliament they must still have support from a small party that gets an enormous influence. This happened after the last elections when the social democrats and the left needed those suckers from the green party who suddenly started making unreasonable demands!!! At last they saw that none of the sides would satisfy all their demands and went back to the left.

I don't see that having a non-white, female or non-christian as progress itself. The lack of progress in your (and many others, most Industrial countries) country is that non in the above mentioned categories (I know it's the wrong expression) have even got a chance to be a president candidate.

I don't know what you mean by dragging the Soviet union into this discussion! They were not a communist nation!

There is only one way to successfully make a country communist, the democratic way. In the manifest it is said that revolution should only be made if you have to free the workers from slavery. Evolution not Revolution!

By the way I'm really proud of that first note, but maybe I should have added a smiley.

EAen

daisy

11-03-2002, 01:48 AM

When I was younger I used to fancy myself a socialist but of course soon found that it seemed a system of that nature would never work in the real world so I changed my definition to Utopian Socialist and then just sounded pompous...
I feel that it comes down to human nature, primarily ambition, greed and the darkness of the human heart which gets in the way of good intentions. If a communist system could work without corruption, without human rights abuses, without the Ministry of Love so to speak, then bring it on. One of my favourite places on Earth is Cuba and I have spent some time there living with a Cuban family, far removed from the reorts and Western hotel paradise. They are suffering mostly due to the overnearing and completely irrational U.S. embargo not because of Fidel. Sure, there are young people frustrated because they are trained engineers and they make more money working as a bellboy at the hotel than in their chosen profession but that is because they now want Western goods and merchandise that costs the same there in U.S.dollars and therefore Cuban pesos don't cut it. They also don't have enough rations and stuff from the government because of the embargo so they want American money to buy more.
I wish Communism could exist, but it seems it goes hand in hand with human rights abuses and the thirst for power - not, of course that these things are rampant in Capitalist societies as well.

Ciryaher

11-04-2002, 09:12 PM

Elen, communism is defined as a system of government brought about by the class-struggle between the proletariat and the burgeosie (sp?). That means change brought about by violent revolution. Communism is a nice idea. A group of educated and enlightened ministers (political definition, not religious) guide and direct the people in a wonderful society where everyone has an equal economic (and therefore, social) standing. They would of course not take advantage of their enormous power and use it against the people and for themselves.

And Morgoth packed a Glock.

Communism is utterly impossible. Humans simply do not have the "communal" desires, and there is always at least one rotten egg to spoil the utopiatic omelet. Communism in our world is totalitarianism where everyone except the elite party is repressed to the point of hopelessness. Order is maintained out of fear, and productivity is held aloft by lack of choice.

It's like the Quizno's sandiwich commercial...why would you want a tasty, toasted sandwich when you could have an untoasted one with lots of "lettuce" ? (lettuce being cash)

Húrin Thalion

11-04-2002, 10:33 PM

I hope you all do realize that I do not wish to make everything exactly after the manifest. Firstly it was written for 154 years ago which means that things have changed since then. In the west workers are no longer oppressed, and it is now not possible for a few to govern an entire state alone. Marx and Engels theories were based on the 19th century conditions that are now mostly changed and there are now democratic systems that function almost without corruption, misunderstandings ould have liked to modify Plato's ideal state a little but that time has now passed. To you who sais that it is an utopia, I would like to ask them: Has there been a democratic attempt to create a communist state?

The problem with Oligarchy is that there are no new ideas introduced. That was what made Athens and Rome grow mighty, while kingdoms grew under a powerful king his sons had a nasty habit of wasting it all away. In the Roman republic there was a political continuency and renewal! And for the few rotten eggs I think that they cannot destroy too much by themselves!

Elen

P S: Ciryher, though I did not understand what you said about the sanndwich commercial I would like to say that in a communist system evryone gets a little lettuce. ;)

HLGStrider

11-08-2002, 11:49 PM

Communism, morality or social issues aside, is based on faulty economic principles.
Economics are not something you can throw a wrench into. They are complex cause and effects system based on rewards, supplies, etc.

The thing is no government system no matter how broad or good can possibly understand all the workings of all the system. Farmers know how to farm. They know how much seed they will need. They know what crops will grow best on what land. They know what will sell and what we want.

If the government takes control the farmers will have to depend on them for their seed and fertilizer. The land will also be dished out. That doesn't work. It's just too complex.

When all industry is run by a government things get worse. It is much too complex to control.

Also all power leads to corruption. That's why the more people can lead their own lives and the less government their is the better.

Everyone knows the USSR was a mess. Cuba isn't just suffering from the embargo. Only the USA and I think the Solomen islands are holding to it. If it were only the embargo the obvious answer would be for them just to step up trade with all the non-embargo countries.
By the way, disagreeing strongly with someone is not hating them, E.C.

Also I wouldn't say we Americans are very indoctrinated against Communism anymore.. at least not against socialism. My state is making a drive towards Socialized Medicine, Canadian style. Welfare and Social security are Socialist programs. Also you don't really own your own land in my state if the Environmentalists don't want you to have it. We don't like the word Communism but half our citizens and more than half of our college professors are in favor. It's sad really. I hear a lot of people who talk about economics as if they were some sort of manipulated system where the rich oppress the poor. However, the more capitalistic a society is the more the poor people's life will improve... if there is also a strong moral character among the people and right to free speech, etc.

America has done pretty well on the system they started with. It is sad to see it deteriorating.

Ciryaher

11-09-2002, 12:03 AM

Everyone gets a little lettuce, but not a good sandwich. Is that it? I'd rather not have any lettuce and have the best sandwich.

HLGStrider

11-09-2002, 05:12 AM

You've changed your opinions a little bit, haven't you Cir? You seem a little more moderate than you were when we were jumping down each others throats about two months ago... Or it could be that E.C. is just extreme enough to make you look moderate and I am slipping in my freemarket/republican/libertarian extremism.

I couldn't believe it when that political quiz thing labeled me a libertarian. I was a republican... now I'm just confused.

Arvedui

11-09-2002, 12:43 PM

I'll jump into it with both of my feet. I do not think communism is such a great idea, because as long as everybody is simillar, it does not stimulate the individual to make an extra effort. By not doing so, the world continues, but doesn't move forward.
I find it hard to believe that someone can name Sweden as the country in the world which is closest to communism. IMO Sweden is just an other capitalistic nation. Sweden is a kingdom, where some people are born to a higher class than other. To be a really socialist state, no such thing can be allowed.
Communism was perhaps a good idea when it was founded, but it has proved not to work, because of man. There will always be someone who will use his chance to take power, and from that moment, it is not communism anymore. And if noone takes the lead, what do we have then? Anarchy.
As the swedes can guess from my sig. I do not live in a perfect world either......

LadyGaladriel

11-09-2002, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Even if they are not pushed to make business I think that people would do their best if not for anything else for the success itself. About this questionmark of Parrot's I would like to say that America is conservative because none really can get in without fitting the shoes. Has there ever been a non-white, female, non-christian or not upper class president in America? I should think not!

Elen

Im sure there was once a black man that run for office and won it but gave it up because of the threat of his safty concering assignations.
Anyway if Colour, sex, religon and persoanl background didn't matter then why are you even questioning why there hasn't been a president like that? If america can vote a president in then its obvious that it doesn't matter about his creed ect but his policies and if he makes a good President.

Communism is a very good Theory but in pratice it just doesn't work because you need a strong leader for a country (no Im not saying a dictator but leader.)A person who with the opion of his country makes Laws and creates an atmostphere of peace.

Everyone is Equal but some more equal than others

Think about the quote. There is always someone who wants to better themselves in the world of Politics or surroundings. There will always be a fight for power. Aso you need someone to make sure everyone is equal.
As Aredui said it also doesn't make the indivial persons want the move on. Whats the point if your a refuse collector and getting paid the same as someone with a thousand degress and saves a life with brain surgury everyday.
There just isn't the drive or the need to better yourself and get yourself in a better posistion.
There is also always a greedy person who wants more

Húrin Thalion

11-09-2002, 07:53 PM

Since there seems to be no other communists here I'll have a lot to answer to later. Anyway I'll write after eating my diner!

By the way I didn't actually think you'd hate me, HLGStrider!:)

Elen

HLGStrider

11-09-2002, 09:32 PM

Considering you posted that before I posted I knew it wasn't directed at me... I just felt you were feeling hated with no cause... or I didn't get the joke, which isn't so unusual.

I also think it is morally wrong to take from people. The idea of communism is "It doesn't matter what you do or what you can do you can't have more than someone else." They may not say it that way, but it is true.

People want to own land. This is not wrong. They don't want it because they are greedy but because with land comes security, with security comes prosperity, with prosperity comes a better life. A person is entitled to get what he works for. No government has a right to say "Yes or no" to his buying anything (unless it happens to be drugs or something against the law for obvious reasons). Why would they? Some people have a dream to be rich, and only a few of them will succede. Some have smaller goals... perhaps to send their kid to the school they couldn't afford when they were younger or to own a car... maybe it's too go to Austrialia or Disney Land.

Communism does not encourage dream following.

When the government is deciding where resources go and if it is trying to do it equally there is no way it is going to say "Well, since you're greatest dream is to go to Austrialia will give you a little more than the other people..." That doesn't happen. In a capitalist country if a person really wants it they will save for it. They will work hard to achieve it... and one day they may find themselves in Sydney.

Also it doesn't encourage the arts. There are many people out there who would like to be artists. Most don't have the talent they'll need, so no one is willing to pay to see their work and they go do something else or endure suffering... which normally makes them better artists and makes their autobiographies a whole lot better... don't ask me why. However, when the government decides who gets money (or food or whatever) for what how will they chose which artists get it? Have some sort of board that decides what is good art or not? Everyone has a different opinion on that.

Public opinion is not the best way to decide things, but it sure as heck beats government censorship. Also if one rich man happens to like an artists work he doesn't need the public behind him, just that one fellow's sponsorship.

Húrin Thalion

11-09-2002, 10:38 PM

Nah I did not think that anyone of you'd hate me. I've written a litle about that earlier but it's really pointless, forget about it. Let's get to the topic at hand

Well, well, well... Where do I start?

Of course the government will not direct everything by itself, I'm not that stupid. Instead all should be directed and decided by people from the communities and the business, preferably selected by some higher state organ. I may not be very learned in modern economy, I wrote an essay in 1920-30s British economy but that's my only experience so you may correct me if I'm wrong. Since there would be no economic crise right now without the stock market one of the most important things we must do is to increase governmental control in that area. That means that corporations (state owned) would have to rely on state funding. That would in itself mean large numbers of state employees to take the bank employees' places. This large reconstruction would have to take several years.

Concerning unequal pigs I would like to ask LagyGaladriel if she knows the background of her quote? It is about the pigs on animal farm which is an allegory on the Soviet Union which we all know was not a Socialist country. Orwell (the author) was himself a Socialist and fought (partly as a war journalist) for the red side in the Spanish civil war.

It seems that you think that I want to create some Big Brother system with a gigant state that controls everything. That is not the point of any real communist. You can call it an Utopia but you must admit that it is the ultimate goal of humanity.

If there is a greedy person that wants more then let us all help that person to realize that there is no gain in chasing riches desperately. I know that LadyGaladriel has rejected these kinds of arguments in another discussion on this Forum but I still think I am right in this.;)

About Sydney I would like to suggest a system that is very like the capitalist one: Everyone gets BNP per Capita and if they wish they can save for a trip to Sydney. By the way I think that Artists would be better of in a Communist country where they can get money from the state and support for their work.

Elen

HLGStrider

11-10-2002, 04:51 AM

The more responsibility you take away from people the more freedom you take from people. Taking care of yourself and your family is responsibilty.

Also the government will have to control things because of human nature... people won't go willingly into this.

What gives the right to take away? What gives the right to say "No, we're going to do it this way?"

If everyone in the world got together and voted to take your stuff and divide it up among them would it be right? If the haves were less than the have nots they could be voted against and their stuff confiscated. Would that make it right?

Truthfully it is all an issue of right and wrong.

And there aren't enough resources to do what you want to do. If you spread it around we'll come up pretty thin. Left on their own, people will force themselves to be resourceful. If we put them into any sort of system they will be stiffled.

I'm personally against government control economies. We've tried to institute them, but they don't work well... When you put controls on a system it alters the natural status and you get either a false sense of prosperity built on politics and inflation or a very tangible set of problems. Normally these problems give way to more government controls. That was the case in the Great Depression, though that was started by bad private policies. The entire stock system of the time was based on buying on margin, basically debt. When people realized that they were being paid with credit that wasn't worth a red cent they panicked and hence the crash. However, it was not allowed to recover through natural processes.

FD Roosevelt, while commonly proclaimed as a hero, introduced many socialistic "reforms" into the economy. Some are still in place today. Others were dropped by Truman after WWII. It is a little known but still very true fact that America was in worse shape at the begining of WWII than it was when Roosevelt was elected. The war caused a false boom of prosperity then deregulation brought about by Truman and his followers allowed this to become reality. The New Deal was disasterous for America. It not only came close to destroying our economy forever (instead of the maybe ten years it would've taken to get out of the mess without FDR... Probably more like five) but it introduced a massive wellfare state, the burden of which we are still staggering under.

The government can not give without taking away. It always takes away more than it gives. You can make up as many Utopian societies as you want, but if they violate the laws of economics they won't work. It's like trying to make an airplane with plans that deny the existance of gravity.

Eliot

11-10-2002, 05:41 AM

Referring to the statement saying that only white men have ran as President:

That's not true. Jesse Jackson ran as the Democratic candidate in '88 against GHW Bush.

About Communism: Of course I don't support it, but I think if the US leaves a Communism country alone for a while, it slowly starts becoming like a Republic -which the US is- and starts economic reforms and giving more freedom to the citizens.

Look at China for example. They have started giving more rights to the people and started to get their economy going good. Sort of :D

Húrin Thalion

11-10-2002, 10:05 AM

What freedom and rights have I wanted to take away from the people, HLG?

Elen

LadyGaladriel

11-10-2002, 06:09 PM

Concerning unequal pigs I would like to ask LagyGaladriel if she knows the background of her quote? It is about the pigs on animal farm which is an allegory on the Soviet Union which we all know was not a Socialist country. Orwell (the author) was himself a Socialist and fought (partly as a war journalist) for the red side in the Spanish civil war.

George Orwell's book animal Farm is also about the struggle for POWER between Trotsky (snowball) and Stalin (Napoleon)
in the soviet union and how in the end it was just the same when they had Farmer Jones (Tsar Nicolas Romunus (sp))
Socialism is a political system where wealth is shared equally between people and the main industry and Trade are Controlled by the Goverment.
It is however only a Idea. The theory behind it is excellent and almost creates an utopian world but in Reality there is always a greedy person who wants more. You will always have one in Society who wants to have something more. Its human nature and part of our instict. Im not saying thats good but that almost the fabric of our being.
Concerning Freedom, you would be resticting people into bettering themselves. Whats the point if you only get paid the same as before?
Communism is a very good idea but you will always have these people in society.

Húrin Thalion

11-10-2002, 07:02 PM

So you say that you cannot better yourself without money? I said that you should give these greedy people help. Of course the book was also about the struggle of power in the Soviet Union but I did not see it fit to write down the whole story. What you mean by highlighting the word power I do not know but I'd like to hear an explanation LG.

Elen

HLGStrider

11-11-2002, 12:08 AM

You aren't taking away freedoms directly, but you are taking away responsibility which is freedom.

What exactly do you mean by communism? Normally that means abolition of private property. The ownership of private property is a freedom in a right. The confiscation of large industries at first then smaller businesses until everything is owned by the government has also been on the project list. That is also the loss of freedom. The spreading out of wealth... the idea that someone who tries hard deserves the same as someone who doesn't try... or will you force them to try? In which case you've taken away their right to waste their life... which is a basic right no matter how lousy the results are.

You are opperating under the basic assumption that money is bad and that anyone who works to earn it is bad. That anyone who has money is greedy.

Most people who are rich have earned their money. Some start from barebones.

Most of our rich people of the last twenty-five years or so got rich in the tech business working 16 hour days. This was their choice. They chose to make their businesses their top priority. They probably wasted a lot of their early life doing that, but it was their choice, their freedom utilized the way they wanted to use it. Or you have the old fashioned millionaires who invented something, bought out the right company...

all in all few wealthy people did not earn their money. You can put in a lot of arguments that they earned it "oppressing" their employees, but their employees chose to work for them (with the exception of slavery which is a totally deplorable system which doesn't exist in most countries at the present). The picture is often painted of an industrial revolution fellow who couldn't escape the capitalist system... however, at the time conditions were improving on their own (partially because of labor unions, partially because of new technology, and partially because people started to work to get ahead of it). Employers hire employees because no one man can do all the work themselves. If they didn't hire them the employees would end up divided into groups that wouldn't really accomplish much and everyone would end up worse.

Arvedui

11-11-2002, 06:52 AM

From Elen Carnë:Of course the government will not direct everything by itself, I'm not that stupid. Instead all should be directed and decided by people from the communities and the business, preferably selected by some higher state organ.
Do you know where they actually tried that idea? Germany, 1930's!
I may not be very learned in modern economy, I wrote an essay in 1920-30s British economy but that's my only experience so you may correct me if I'm wrong. Since there would be no economic crise right now without the stock market one of the most important things we must do is to increase governmental control in that area. That means that corporations (state owned) would have to rely on state funding. That would in itself mean large numbers of state employees to take the bank employees' places. This large reconstruction would have to take several years.
Movements in the stock market is a matter of trust. Why? Because it's someones money. One normally invests such an important aspect of ones life somewhere where you trust to get some of it back. Therefore you go for the company that you trust will give you most of it back. If there is a company that you do not belive will be prosperous, then you don't invest in it. that is why we experience what you call crisis. A lot of people thought that dot.com companies would be the new up and coming branch. When they discovered that the companies didn't make money, they sold out. The trust vanished.
I do not believe in government control in any economic area. IMO a government is unable to run even a Hot-dog stand with profit, because governments are normally run by more than one person. This means that it would take too long time to make decissions, and those would be compromises.
When you have a lot of state employees, how would the government get the money needed to pay those employees? Through taxes. Why? Because a government does not produce anything. It can therefore not sell anything.
I understand that both you and I live in countries where they try to move along those lines. 35% of the working force in my country is employed by the government. That means that the remaining 2/3 of the working force pays their pay-check, together with the companies. No wonder why we have taxes on everything from birth to death.

LadyGaladriel

11-11-2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
So you say that you cannot better yourself without money? I said that you should give these greedy people help. Of course the book was also about the struggle of power in the Soviet Union but I did not see it fit to write down the whole story. What you mean by highlighting the word power I do not know but I'd like to hear an explanation LG.

Elen

Most people haven't the motivation to get a better job if they are going to get paid the same as if they say the same. I sorry dear but thats life.
Say you went to universaity /collage and you worked like mad and recived a degree and got a job as a brain surgeon and a person just like you fell out of school became a bum and then got a job working as a waitress (Im not disrepecting Waitresses at all ) and got paid just the same as you. Do you think thats fair?

If the whole of Animal Farm is in 3 lines then George Orwell is a pretty easy read. I actually pointed out the power struggle because thats what you will always get . You will always get someone wanting more power than someone else. Its human nature. Also when I used Russia as an example, I pointed out (which I dont believe you replied about) thats in the end Russia became just like before the revolution. There was no change at all. People were being repressed and killed if stalin or any person in power thought that they were a threat. Do you think it is justified that Millions of people died because of the effects of Communism? What sort of help do you think these Greedy people should have?? How can you stop someone being greedy?

Parrot

11-11-2002, 05:55 PM

I had intended to come back to this thread sooner and apologize if my last post seemed a little caustic towards Elen. It seems the "hate" thing was intended tongue-in-cheek and I did not pick up on it. My Bad!

Húrin Thalion

11-11-2002, 07:53 PM

Nah never mind. I'm also nasty sometimes as some of you may have experienced if anyone was insulted I beg for an apology. It's because I feel strongly about many things and I am very excited to debate these issues. Sorry to my good friend LG!;)

Wow this came to a crying party, let's get back to the topic...

HLGStrider

11-11-2002, 08:55 PM

You are all giving the bad side of human nature which makes it impossible. I'd like to discuss the good side that has the same result.

You put a lot of stock in "people working to better themselves." However, most jobs do not exist for the purpose of bettering the employees. They exist to provide vital services. My dad, for instance, has a job that is in no way intellectually stimulating, not exactly spiritually or physcologically up lifting, and while not a bad job, has it's moments of montony. However, it is a necessary job (He delivers bread to local stores.). Someone needs to do it.

Dad does not do this to better himself. He does it because it is a paycheck and because with the hours it gives him most of his afternoons free. Those afternoons are where he "betters himself." He spends them with his family and teaches a band of homeschool kids to play instruments. Bettering himself is not working.

My own idea of bettering myself would be sitting at home reading and writing all I could to improve my mind and skills... If it wasn't for needing to earn a living I would do just that. I personally believe I can do more for the good of society by being a writer than an office assistant or waitress... however, I haven't had much financial success as a writer yet... but I will use my spare time to "better myself" and get there.

This is the case in most jobs. Some, such as being a doctor or teacher can be their own reward, but we only need so many doctors and teachers. What we really need is people to make the food we eat, the cars we drive in, or to provide us with clothes, shelter... etc.

You can try to lecture people on "the good of society," but if you tell the average man on the street to do something for the good of society chances are he is not going to think "I'LL GO TO WORK!" He's going to think find a new vaccine, invent something, become a poltician and change the world, save a little old lady from a fate worse than death.

If people were told to do their jobs for the good of society they won't accept the humble work that seems so unimportant.

There are some jobs that are unpleasant people do because they have to do them. Unless you force people into these jobs they won't get filled.

I believe there was that Upton Sinclair dream of totally automated farming and dishwashing.. but that hasn't happened... and I doubt it would. It is more economic to do it by hand at this point (and will be until my idoitic state raises minimum wage to twenty dollars and hour...).

Húrin Thalion

11-11-2002, 09:27 PM

Wel then your father has chosen to have the afternoons free. If you do not wish to study at all and become a street cleaner (a job without obvious benefits) you have made that choice and it is not good for neither socirty nor you but you aren't worth less money for it. THis is my point and has been all the time.

Arvedui I haven't answered you but I would like to say that the German republic in the 1930 was not democratic and therefore they were not appointed by a legal government. The government would of course not controll hot dog stands but why should they? Of course the Prime minister does not sell hot dogs he chooses someone else to do it, though not directly. About the stock market it is the mass rushes and trends that cause the crises and to prevent this let the state controll the stock market. Of course that is taking freedom from people but in how much would that affect you?

You could say that I mean to abolishing private property in a way. Through taking from the ones with great amounts of money and giving it to the poorer it would be needed a great reduction or "equalization". Im going on some kind of students council course for two days but when I am back I promise to write an exact description of my ideal system and answer questions. It'd be nice if you described your favourite systems in the same way.

Elen

HLGStrider

11-11-2002, 09:37 PM

So we should abolish the trade of bread delivering because it is not a trade that betters someone? Your first paragraph doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying we should have the choice to be that and do less good on it? In that case you are making street sweeping look attractive... No reason to challange myself... more time to do what I want... However, my dad's work, which is physically hard, would not be attractive, and I wouldn't do it. So that is still unfulfilled.

My system would be what America started with (with the exception of no slavery and some more voter equality.).

aka Government provides an army to protect from foreign invasion, a court system to prosecute evil doers, and a few other amenities, such as a road system. In return they take taxes and some terrifs. Other than that they live people to be what they would be otherwise. If someone is keeping their agreements and not harming others they should not have to be bothered with the government other than on ellection and tax day... or if a crime is commited against them in which case they should get justice by jury.

You may say that this system has been abused, but with the amount of abuse your system has endured, it would do no more than amuse me.

You have no right to take away from them. It is theirs. They worked for it. So, we turn the government into a position of robbery. Taxes are basically payment for government provided services, so I do not count them as robbery until they get excessive. Taking what people have earned to give to other people is robbery.

Equalization gives no point to getting ahead.

LadyGaladriel

11-11-2002, 10:59 PM

The whole Issue of Equalisiation is wrong in this day and age.
Ok I agree to some part with equalistion in Russia because you did have people dying with children on the streets while one man lived in a 14 roomed house but Now those who are homeless have some set of choices. They can go to the Council and get a flat or whatever then build up from there.

Equalistion makes no one want to do anything about their situation. Why work when you can easiy get it off someone else?

I am very excited to debate these issues. Sorry to my good friend LG!

No apology needed at all elen

HLGStrider

11-12-2002, 01:51 AM

I finally found out that LG meant Lady G... I've been going by Elgee so long I wasn't sure which E.C. meant... Elgee=LG as in HLG...

In Russia that situation was caused by a very out of date fuedal system. The peasants were basically property and not allowed to own land. Sometimes they would work on that land for generations, giving away all but a small precentage of it's produce. It was a lousy system. However, most peasants didn't want communism. They wanted land. They wanted it badly. After the fall of the Czar some of them managed to grab land and became highly successful farmers... then Stalin had the farmer's land confiscated and shot a lot of them.

Arvedui

11-12-2002, 08:12 AM

EC:
Arvedui I haven't answered you but I would like to say that the German republic in the 1930 was not democratic and therefore they were not appointed by a legal government.
Excuse me! I would urge you to search for the German election results from 1933, and give me an answer as to which party won that election and as a result from that, seized power. No matter how much we detest the Nazi's, we must not bring ourselves to forget that they were elected by the people in the first place. This is why protest voters are dangerous. If enough people are protesting against something, they might win the election.
The government would of course not controll hot dog stands but why should they? Of course the Prime minister does not sell hot dogs he chooses someone else to do it, though not directly.
The naming of hot dog stands was just to point out that no government can run any business with profit, which is needed to pay the workers.
Why should anyone agree to take the extra burden of leadership, when he could just as well be selling hot dogs and make the same money? Why even consider the extra responsibility and extra hours needed to make a business running, when you could do rather less and make the same amount of money. It's the money you earn that pay your bills.
About the stock market it is the mass rushes and trends that cause the crises and to prevent this let the state controll the stock market. Of course that is taking freedom from people but in how much would that affect you?
Actually, quite a lot. I can see no reason whatsoever why any government should be allowed to take any sort of freedom away from it's people. I believe all men and women have a right to make their own choises. We are free individuals, not slaves. For that is what you obviously want us to be. We are the government.

Then of course, I'm a supporter of liberalism.
That's not LIBERAL, as americans understand it.

Gloer

11-12-2002, 08:59 PM

1. Sweden is closest to a socialist state we ever have had. remarks on having a king and an upper class are not valid since the country is essentially lead by a sosialdemocratic party elite. The election system is such that the votes are directed to a party list, not the candidates. The parties can therefore preselect professional politicians to represent the party and it's supporters. The people have no direct influence on which candidates rule the parties. The capital of swedish owners are tied to strategical holdings in large multinational corporations such as volvo, abb, ericsson and astra. The deal is that those multinationals that have been growing and benefitting the 200 year peace time (and war in rest of the world). A large capital has been gathered in those corporations but it cannot be released. The deal is that the corporations try to make money abroad and then provide jobs in Sweden. It worked as long as Swedish companies are competetive abroad and the corporations didn't need to touch the local industry. In the long run it has really stagnated change and developement.

2. Franco was the best thing to happen to Spain in 30's. The communist regime that took over the republic was intolerable. The country was in chaos and people were starving while utopianidealists were arguing and terrorising people at will.

Franco was a genious:
- he created order and stability to a collapsing country, dictatorship was neccessary to continue
- he did not join the axis dictators in a futile and stupid war
- he is ONE OF THE FEW dictators in the whole human history to manage TRADITION OF POWER to an able successor and A DEMOCRATIC RULER, King Juan Carlos. the king was hand picked from the bourbon family by Franco and raised by him to his job.
- franco was ruthless, merciless but in the end good for Spain, sorry Hemmingway and Orwell

HLGStrider

11-12-2002, 11:31 PM

If I had a choice between Facism and Socialism in my country I'd leave... Unless that was also not an option in which case I'd make myself invisible...

Sweden is what my economic book called a Market Socialist country, as opposed to a government socialist country which would be more what USSR was.

Then of course, I'm a supporter of liberalism.

Not all Americans are devoid of historical knowledge. Liberalism was a hub of freemarketry until Woodrow Wilson.

Húrin Thalion

11-13-2002, 09:51 PM

Ok I'm back! I'm just gonna tell you something about the leftists in Sweden while I'm still mad at them. At this course only stereotypical pretension leftist were. It was about students influence and they were all middle class kids that have Che sweaters and Palestine scarfs. Their forgetting the message of equality and peace when their all shouting about the evil of U.S.A and all capitalists. Those persons were at the Gothenburg EU summit and ruined it. I am myself against the American governments' politics but I do not think that all Americans are evil.

Ok then:
Seems that you've kept yourselves busy which is wonderful for me to see that people at least see it able to debate a Marxist system.
Of course the German election results are partly true even though the campaign was not fair. My point is that Hitler took the authority and profession of Führer or dictator and held no new elections which means that the governments mandate has expired. And it is said but not proved that he cheated in the election.

On Sweden I'd like to thank Gloer for his excellent points. Arvedui could you give me an example of a nation more like the communist ideal state? On our constitutional monarchy I'd like to say that I am against it because it's undemocratic and our king is an alcoholic and a very incompetent and stupid person. D'you know what our incompetent former financial minister said in 1999 when Norway refused to join Telia and Telenor? (Swedish and Norwegian state owned phone companies that were supposed to be partly sold out). "Norway is the last Soviet state." Now I hear that Telia and Sonera (Swedish and finnish Phone companies) will make a fusion.

On communism I'd like to ask you if it's easy to be a street cleaner? Being out cleaning everybody's **** all day? Of course all are not good as politicians or other things. I mean if you are not good English it's hard to change and I think that they cannot have jobs were great skills English are required. That is sad but I think they can be happy with some other job. It was already known to Homer who let Poulydams say: Though you are great in the art of war O, Hector, I can hardly believe that you have been given all of the gifts that the Gods distribute. For some are better in dancer while others have been given the talent of speaking..." And so on. That's one of my favourite quotes. If there's anything else I sjould have answered to remind me and I'll do it tomorrow when I'm free (took birthday leave, even if it's not allowed usually;)).

Elen

LadyGaladriel

11-13-2002, 10:04 PM

Of course being a street cleaner is hard but then what about unemplyed people should they get as much money as a brain surgeon? If they are gettig paid then y go out and do hard labour?
This kind of equalization of economy is bad news . It lowers the value of money.
Communism is a good theory but it just doesn't work because of Human Nature and greed.

Húrin Thalion

11-13-2002, 10:11 PM

How do you know that? Have you ever tried? Of course I am naive and utopian but I 'd like to re write that as development and change friendly.
Why does it lower the value of money? Explain to me and I'll figure sometjing out and write it in my description tomorrow.

E.C

LadyGaladriel

11-13-2002, 10:20 PM

I myself am certainly not a ecomonist.
I have heard that the decrease in the Value of the Money in a side effect of Communism however I may be wrong.

Húrin Thalion

11-13-2002, 10:52 PM

THats got to do with the many incompetent communist leaders AND U.S.A. embargoes. gotta go!

E.C

by the way what's best, Elen or E.C (as sig.)

HLGStrider

11-14-2002, 07:03 AM

Happy Birthday, by the way...

I happen to study economics in my spare time for the fun of it, though I normally forget the terms. What I mean by study is I read Ideas on Liberty, a magazine basically on economics. Don't agree with everything they say, but enough of it. I won the subscription in an essay contest along with five hundred dollars.

Every job has its ups and downs. There are some jobs which I'm sure are incredibly easy... because of that they will also get monotonous after awhile.

You still haven't answered my question about what gives governments the right to take away? It doesn't exist and more than the right to curtail free speech or lock you in prison without trial.

Your idea has been tried, no matter how much you protest that their hasn't been communist states. There have been states that tried to become communist and failed.

America's political state was very good until the early 20th century. Then it slowly went down hill, went shortly up hill, and has gone sort of zig zagged since then. The problems are that the government is now a huge, unwieldy beast (Leviathon is one term). No one can understand the entire thing and no one can control it. It needs to slow down.

I'm thankful for the two party system if only for the way it has slowed down radical policies. If they can't get anything done at least they aren't harming anything.
As Will Rogers said "There is nothing more dangerous than a legistlature when it is legislating." Though he was no gem when it came to political ideals either.

Are you from Swe., EC? Just out of curiousity.

Again, Happy B-day.

Húrin Thalion

11-14-2002, 09:00 AM

Thanks for the greetings, that was very nice of you HLG.

About your question I'd say that I wouldn't take any rights away because that would make my state illegal, and of course if another party wins the next elections I'd have to step back. The American two party system allows radical politicians because your parties have not got the strict policies that many European countries. Still I think it's better with many cooperating partys that'll give every citizen a voice.

I am from Stockholm the Swedish capital. We in Sweden are seen as arrogant big brother by many in scandinavia and in Sweden people think that Stockholm's inhabitants are arrogant against people from not so densely populated areas. So I am double arrogant according to some people. It has to do with that Sweden and Stockholm has been largest, mightiest, most powerful and richest in scandinavia since 1631 (some say 1621, 1645 1648) when we smashed the Holy Roman empire's (Germany's)
army in the field as the first nation ever. If anyone wants to know more ask me to start a thread.

Thanks again for the greetings, now I'm watching my extended DVD for FotR again! :D

E.C

Arvedui

11-15-2002, 01:00 AM

From EC:
D'you know what our incompetent former financial minister said in 1999 when Norway refused to join Telia and Telenor? (Swedish and Norwegian state owned phone companies that were supposed to be partly sold out). "Norway is the last Soviet state."
Well, he actually said "The last Stalinist state". What is worse is that I think he is right. I do not like the political system in neither Norway nor Sweden. The government is involved in too much, which limits personal responsibilty. I believe socialism/communism to be hostile towards individuals, since they put the state first and foremost. I see no reason why the government should take care of every one of us from the moment we are born, till the moment we die. And every aspect of our beeing is influenced by the government, even church.
BTW, Elen, I envy you: You live in a wonderful city. I have been there a few times, and I always want to go back.
We in Sweden are seen as arrogant big brother by many in scandinavia
I know about that. I advice you not to take notice of such bull.;)

HLGStrider

11-15-2002, 05:52 AM

If any amount of people voted to put a person behind bars without trial or limit is free speech it wouldn't be right. How did Jefferson put it? "It's ridiculous to believe that a thousand people are any more right than one."? Something like that
Shere numbers and votes do not make laws or right. Often they vote themselves or others into slavery.
That's why America was not founded as a Democracy (though two or three amendments have sent it more towards Democracy, it is still basically a republic). The founders were afraid of:
Monarchy and Tyrany: Hence the limitations on the executive branch (removed by FDR, Clinton... etc)
Oligarchy: Hence the limitations on the Supreme Court (removed by the Warren court of the last century)
Mob rule, anarchy, and democracy: hence the electoral college, constitution, and a union of states instead of one big country.

The parties I like because they allow you to know what you are voting for.

If you see "democrat" you normally can bet he/she is pro-choice, normally in favor of bigger subsidies and taxes, normally in favor of strict environmental policies, and normally a bit of a watered down socialist.

If you see "republican" you normally can bet he/she is pro-life, in favor of tax cuts and less subsidies, more in favor of businesses, and a watered down free-marketer.

If you see Libertarian or Green Party or Independant, etc, you can't count on the above, they are a mix of both and you'll have to check up on those parties or that person a little harder.

On the local level you can vote by the person, but on the national level this is incredibly difficult (you mostly see what they want you to see) so it is best to go by party... unless you can arrange to meet or read heavily about the poltician.

Húrin Thalion

11-15-2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Arvedui
I believe socialism/communism to be hostile towards individuals, since they put the state first and foremost.

But the people is the state Arvedui! We have all got the right to participate in the state by which means they see fit.

Eliot

11-15-2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Originally posted by Arvedui

But the people is the state Arvedui! We have all got the right to participate in the state by which means they see fit.

Well, the way they see fit is usally not the greatest.

Húrin Thalion

11-15-2002, 06:55 PM

Oh sorry! I meant we!

E.C

Gloer

11-15-2002, 08:28 PM

And much more.

That you should never forget E.C.

People are ste state, but they are much more. If you truly want to help your state you never work for the state but ern for yourself and pay taxes.

Swedens most valuable socialists have come from Wallenberg family, Percy barnevik was one and even more so Per Gyllenhammar.

These people c r e a t e d wealth by achieving more efficient means to produce and make profit.

More people work on private sector, the better.

Húrin Thalion

11-15-2002, 09:44 PM

I did not mean that the people are the state (that too) but that the state is the people, that post was in a hurry.

Elen

Arvedui

11-18-2002, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Originally posted by Arvedui

But the people is the state Arvedui! We have all got the right to participate in the state by which means they see fit.
Which is my point exactly. I do not want to participate in any government that does not trust me to raise my children, that do not trust me to get myself knowledge and a living, that do not trust me to take care of my parents when they get old, and so on, and so on.

I believe a government should be of the people, by the people and also for the people. Communism as an idea hinges on the fact that it should come as a result of armed revolution. That would probably mean by and of the people. Then why hasn't this happened? Because we don't want it!

Húrin Thalion

11-19-2002, 04:26 PM

I thought I had gone through this but I'll say it again: Armed revolution is not acceptable and Marx and Engels opinion was that it was only to be started if the prople is oppressed and murdered. Sorry if I haven't posted any description of my ideal state, we are going to start a Quenya course and I am traking my end of term tests now. If you wanna join our Quenya course PM me.

EC

Arvedui

11-20-2002, 07:53 AM

I thought that communism according to Marx & Engels were supposed to come as a result of people beeing oppressed?
If people aren't oppressed, there is no need for revolution and consequently no need for communism.

Húrin Thalion

11-20-2002, 04:50 PM

There would be equallity and I count that as communism.

E C

HLGStrider

11-21-2002, 07:20 AM

Equality before the law and the ability to "better yourself" through legitimate means, yes... that's not communism. Communism is the government taking a trowl to the country and flattening everything to the same level...

Arvedui

11-21-2002, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
There would be equallity and I count that as communism.

E C
I'm sorry, but I'll have to stick with Elgee on this one. Equallity is not something that counts just for communism. In the theorethical sence, it should apply to all the different political ideas. In practice, it is never so. It cannot be equallity in communism because to get there, you have to treat the ruling class un-equal, that is kill them.

tom_bombadil

11-22-2002, 02:59 PM

Communisum in theory is great but as we saw in the soviet union it was a disaster it would be great if it worked but every one cant be equasl for there has to be a leader to control the people hence forth that true communisum is anarchy

HLGStrider

11-23-2002, 12:48 AM

I personally disagree with your reasoning because I believe in a limited gov... also I don't think Com. is a good theory at all. It is a theory of gov. endorsed stealing.

Lhunithiliel

11-23-2002, 08:49 AM

Well, well, well!
I am not sure about all the participants in this thread, but I doubt it that ANYONE of you has EVER REALLY LIVED in Socialism > Communism circumstances!

I, for change, come from Bulgaria - a state that for 45 years was socialist and I know what it is like!
Besides, I have lived for 6 years in the USSR and for 2 years in Cuba.
Oh, I have definitely seen what socialism > resp. communism is! ;)

Social policy > Excellent! And I do not exagerate! The social policy of a socialist state is actually where one can see "equality". It doesn't matter whether you're a Manager of a large plant or a street-cleaner (your favourite "socialist icon" ;) :) as I see ) - you have the same opportunity to use any existing social <> state institution with EQUAL rights... A simple example: The child of a doctor and the child of a street-cleaner used to have here the same education, FREE of payment, which gave both of them the EQUAL chance of getting a good education and later, based on individual qualities the child of the street-cleaner could become a very important person in the society.

Economics > Planned! For 5 years ahead! Therefore, secured production, secured markets, secured incomes... 5 years ahead!
This was national stability that used to lead to respective full stability in the "little economy" of each family... Meaning that we used to know we had jobs secured, incomes secured >>> So, my parents, for example, could easily take a loan from a bank (at a very suitable interest!) and buy the state-owned flat they used to rent. They also could provide for my and my brother's education, too.... although I studied at elite schools and then at the English Language High School (super-elite educational establishment, too) and later - I could go to the Soviet Union and study at a university there, because they had a better quality of University education than in my country.... ALL this was possible because of the socialist planned economy.

individual development > Now, this issue did not work too well. On one hand, the economic and social security at the beginning (when my parents were still young) combined with the enthusiasm of the first years of the socialist state led to a system of non-material but moral reward for people's endeavors to develop and improve. But, on the other hand, the state busied itself with the process of individual development of the people. I can't describe you here about the numerous establishments for cultural, sports, crafts, interests, arts etc. - activities - FREE of any payment whatsoever! So, people used to feel more happy to receive the praise of the whole society and some kind of a medal or sth. simillar for their achievements, rather than any money-prize! A LOT used to be done for the education of people's minds to look for the moral satisfaction for their achievements. And it worked great!
But, on the other hand, this same economic stability made a lot of people lazy and not willing to take responsibilities. A lot of people used to say: "Oh! I have a secured job! Why would I want to improve?!" THIS was the flaw!

Now, I could speak for hours on this topic, but it's not possible, of course! :p

So, anyone has questions and/or comments on my post - you're welcome to ask! :)

HLGStrider

11-23-2002, 10:03 PM

FREE of payment
Nothing is free... what happened was that everybody started paying for everybody else as well as themselves.

Equality to me means that when someone goes to court it doesn't matter who they are it matters what they did (if they are guilty or not). It does not mean everybody having the same things. I am from a "blue collar" American family. I have a heck of a lot less than white collar families and a heck of a lot more than poor families. Actually with my mom's budgeting abilities I have a lot more than I should have. That woman can make something out of nothing...

It's so nice to live in a safe environment where the government guarenties everything... wasn't it B. Franklin who said "Anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither."? It's true.

People are not children, the government has no right to go in and plan the economy. That is the job of the citizens...
I'd like some specifics about the economy.
Who decides what goods the stores are stocked with?
Exactly what is your import export status?
How about luxery items?
With the security about jobs how do people decide who works were? I mean you can't fire someone so is there a line where people have to retire? Otherwise where would new workers work? Or do they just start a new business whenever there are enough people needing employed? If so how do they decide which business?

How is your medical system set up? Is there a waiting line for getting treatment? Do certain things have priority? Who decides when to give up on a probably terminal case or to keep trying to save this person? (for instance how long to keep someone on life support, when to stop chemotherapy if the cancer is not regressing at all?)
What about small businesses? Do you need permission to start them up? How much? How does one employ people in small businesses? Do they have special rights over large businesses?

That government housing? How many people are allowed per building? Are there any housing shortages? How are they maintained? What are the caps on rent? High or low?

Is the money fiat money or does it have a gold standard (I wish with all my heart America had a gold standard, but they got rid of it in the seventies). How much is printed and what is it's value?

Who decides the price of consumer goods?

Who decides what goods are luxery?

What items come free?

How many people have relatives send in money from foreign countries?

What is the status of religious freedom?

What is the status of private charities?

Is being a pastor considered a legal job? Who pays pastors?

If education is free who decides who goes onto medical school and who stops after getting a basic education? Are there quotas on certain forms of education? If not are there teacher shortages for the type of education that is the most popular? Also if not what is to stop a person from just continuing his/her free education for as long as possible, studying literature or whatever interests them? What about someone who decides to switch degrees in their third or forth year? How would this be accomplished? What if they have to go back to their first or second year in order to switch? Is it still free (aka is the government still paying for it)?

The money that pays for all this comes from where?

I have thankfully never lived in a Communist country. I will be voting next year and plan to vote away any government intervention in economy or lifestyles that come forward.

Arvedui

11-25-2002, 08:43 AM

Elgee, you just put it so right, in my mind.
No idea stand above the idea of personal liberty. But that is in my mind, as well as yours and a couple of others.
Believing in that, we also must allow for some to have different views than we have.

IMO, your post hit right on mark.:)

Lhunithiliel

11-25-2002, 12:51 PM

HLGStrider, WOW!
I shall have to find some time as to try and answer your questions, although I'm not politics-addicted, and neither am I some expert.

Fist, however, let me clarify that my country WAS socialist and now for 12 years already we have been in a transition period to democracy...
These are HARD times for all of us and if some of the things you are talking about ever come to my country and to my personal life, then I'll know for sure what true democracy is. :)

HLGStrider

11-25-2002, 09:22 PM

I'd advise a republic. It's safer than a democracy which can be swayed by public opinion.

I'm not quite a politics addict, but I dabble a bit. I am not even sure of my party. I'm somewhere in between Republican and Libertarian... I'm not sure which, so I'm a crossbreed.

HLGStrider

11-27-2002, 04:27 AM

Another question:
What about being a home maker (parent who stays home with kids)? Is that a recognized job or is the person considered unemployed? I'm assuming you need recognized employment or a REALLY good excuse not to work in order to get benefits including food... otherwise a lot of people would make a lame excuse and not work.

So, it is reasonible for one parent to want to stay home with their kids. In fact in America having a stay at home mother (it is usually the mother) can save a family money (No child care price. That parent can budget better and can also save money on processed food.).

So... is this accepted?

and what about private schooling or homeschooling?

Eriol

11-27-2002, 08:39 PM

Oh my... this thread has the feeling of my old college discussions. I think I will (again!) be on the minority. I will post some of my ideas very reluctantly, especially because in my experience it is VERY hard to convince someone else of the error in their conceptions just by words.

I strongly disagree with the many comments that said that 'Communism is great in theory, but doesn't work'. I think Communism is morally wrong (please note -- I'm not saying communists are morally wrong). That, for me, is the clincher, and even if it worked perfectly, it would still be wrong. I could say (a lot!) more about this, but only if E.C. promises that there is a chance, even if very small, that I will convince her. Of course, I will promise the same thing ;) . Of the opinions posted so far, I feel closer to HLG. Main arguments against communism are:

Metaphysical and moral:

Metaphysical assumptions, mainly about the essence of individuality;
The argument for private property;
The argument against egalitarianism;
The argument against taxation;
The argument on behalf of nature (environmentalism, if you like);

Practical arguments:

'the scum rise to the top'
the impossibility of economical planning in a communist society
The argument of bureaucratic inefficiency

There may be some others, I have to go now. And by the way, I greatly admire your enthusiasm E.C. You have met your match :D . I can write about this for hours, but only if you REALLY want me to.

See ya!

HLGStrider

11-29-2002, 06:19 AM

You know I think I like you, Eriol... :D

Anyway, I don't know if I have stated communism to be morally wrong yet, unless you take my arguement that there is no right for a government to start mixing and matching things, but I agree that it is.

Basically the premise is "Thou Shall Not Steal" if you want to derive the meaning from my own religion... but that principle is in most world religions...

Húrin Thalion

11-30-2002, 03:44 PM

Ok then let's continue this: I will assemble my best arguments for communism (you could say extremely developed socialism to) in a half an hour and I promise that I will change my mind if I cannot dispell your arguments Eriol!

Húrin Thalion

EDIT: I have chosen to do it like this because I don't wanted to double post. Anyway I have a little hard to follow you on communism being morally wrong but I'll write my arguments anyway:

1: The fact that I am good in school and can get a good job does not make me worth a higher salary than you.

2: We are all born with an equal worth, shall we not be treated thereafter?

3: If we all are allowed to participate in the governing of the state as today injustice would be diminished.

4: One of the necessary factors is that we all treat eachother as equals, communism would help in that work through giving none an illusion of superiority. I live in an area called Birkastaden, it's kind of flashy and trendy to live here and this has created a feeling. Everyone is judging you with their eyes when you step onto a subway train. I am usually ok to most but my friends from the suburbs are really disliked. Many of them are foreigners and I can hear people thinking: "That's one of the disgusting boys from the suburbs." It is hard to put down in words bu there is a feeling and it is based on the mentality of "We are smarter and better than those vulgar idiots that we had to go to school with, now look what has become of them." This attitude would be eliminated if all earned as much money.

5: Our society would be more prosperous if all felt that they were working for a common good and not some high executive director's salary.

6: Equality would vitalize humanism and humanity.

These are but few of the arguments but I hope you are content.

Húrin Thalion

Eriol

12-02-2002, 02:36 PM

Good... I was fearing we would end up in a shouting match (as did my old college discussions on that, only the other guy(s) were doing the shouting and I was doing the leaving ;) ). This can be a delicate subject. By the way, I really appreciate your new name, Húrin, I have always been a fan of him ("Day shall come again!").

Let me answer your arguments, and then explain a bit more about the 'morally wrong'.

1. You are right. What makes me worth a higher salary than you (IRL, highly doubtful :( ) is that my work is more productive to the society as a whole. I think that higher salaries based on a (subjectively) better education are an abomination. Unfortunately, the only place where an unproductive (but highly educated), well-paid job exists is in a bureaucracy. And we both know where bureaucracies are most abundant. In ordinary conditions, a well-paid job means an important work for society.

There are two underlining issues here: FIRST, the idea that everybody is 'worth' something, in money. Now, I would be the first to agree that anyone is worth a lot, more than all the riches in the world. But it doesn't follow that any of us is to decide the amount of money (remember, money is a means of measuring wealth -- it would be better if we focused only on wealth and forgot about monetary issues) that other people would get, since there is NOT enough for everybody. This was Marx's first, and perhaps greatest, mistake. Yes, if we divided all the wealth of the world equally, there would not be enough to cover everybody's wants... mainly because we develop new wants as the old ones are satisfied.

There are only two ways to do this: a) divide the wealth in the world equally. This could work as a starting point (though massive injustices would be done by it, as we will see in the end of the post), but after that, if we kept continually dividing everything equally, people that contributed less would be getting the same amount as people who contributed more. This would lead to what the economists call a 'disincentive' to work, resulting in a lessened productivity and in a worse quality of life. This is not just theory -- it has been observed in many societies, since Sparta. b) the other way to do it is to set up a commission to decide who gets how much. But then, of course, you have the problem of selecting that commission...

SECOND, how much is anybody really worth to society? There are people with incredibly high salaries that 'produce' (in the sense of increasing material wealth) almost nothing. Famous sportsmen, and actors/actresses, for instance. Is that unjust? As I said above, well-paid jobs usually mean an important work for society. Are football matches important? Again, we must wait until the end of the post.

2. See above. The 'worth' of people in a metaphysical sense is infinite, but their 'worth' in a material sense (how much wealth they should get) is finite, since the material resources in this world are finite. How big a piece of the cake should they get? The capitalist answer is 'proportional to their input to the cake', the communist answer is 'an equal share'. Which is more just? Again, we slip to moral considerations...

3. Agreed, though that is an argument for democracy and not for communism. But you use the word 'injustice'. See? If we don't have a common theory of justice, we will be beating at corpses (is there such an expression in english?).

4. Also agreed. But human prejudice is surely not to be blamed on capitalism (or on communism). It has been with us since we were but a kind of nobler monkey. I wish as much as you to rid the world of it, but education is the weapon for that, not economy. Are you sure that this attitude would be eliminated with similar incomes? I have not seen it in my own country among people with similar incomes. We really need the opinion of people who lived in communist countries. Lhunithiliel, where are you?

5. This the first objective argument that you offered, a statement of fact: society would be more prosperous if everybody worked towards the common good instead of private good. And my answer is, quite simply, no. But you must not take my word for it. Nowhere and never in the world this has happened. Prosperity is objective -- we are not discussing social health, quality of life, or other hard to define concepts. Even in the same society, sectors of the economy that are 'unfettered' are more prosperous than their 'common good-minded' counterparts. As one example among many, think about the Post Office and the private companies that offer the same service.

6. A noble wish. I don't think you are correct in your conclusion, but the ends are surely great. I just don't think equality is the way to do it.

1,2,3 are subjective, and dependent on a theory of justice. 4 is objective, but not relevant to communism. 5 is objective, but wrong. 6 is a (good) wish.

Now on to the morality and the common theory of justice that we must have before we embark on this journey. I will offer you a few ideas, and wait for your comments.

Justice is symbolised by a scale, balance, equilibrium. A nice definition is: the equal treatment of equals; the unequal treatment of unequals. (Aristotle; he must have had some reason for that ;)). And the question we must answer is: would it be just for a state to take wealth from some and give it to others? If the state were the owner of the wealth, certainly. If he isn't, surely it's not just. And we fall on the question of private property. This is still on an ethical and moral level, so I will not bring the (many) arguments about the greater efficiency of private property in producing, sustaining and (yes, that's right) distributing wealth.

I need to hear from you about the definition of justice. I will post a text shortly about the morality of private property. But as I leave, I ask you some questions:

what, exactly, IS the state?
from where comes the right of private property? Is it granted by the state?
(as a teaser) do you own yourself?

See ya!

Húrin Thalion

12-02-2002, 04:22 PM

Good post and well argumented Eriol, You know I wouldn't shout at you, don't you? I chose Húrin as a name because I admire his self-sacrificing attitude at Nirnaeth Arnoediad and for the sadness in his family.

Wow that is a lot of things to answer to and I must admit that I was not concrete enough in my post.

Let me first say some things I should have said earlier: The system I was talking about would not yet be a project for the world, I was describing a rich capitalist country and why it should be communist. An important point would be that before the world equalization the developing nations in were made prosperous enough to support themselves. After this we could share the resources between all who inhabite the world.

Another main theme that I did not fully employ is that all have not got the same starting conditions. I mean, look at today's owners of companies, most of the directors and owners are borne in academich homes with a stable background and support for education at home. They don't necessarily have to be the best or the smartest by nature, they happened to be borne into a throne, like George W. Bush was. A great benefit with communism would be that all had maybe not academic background, but at least stable homes. This would benefit society since all the best people could be put where they could do most good.

And most importan of the explanations: The most basic point is that all agree upon that this is the best and will work for the system. This is unachievable today but it is a not all too distant goal. I think that if all saw that they worked for their own benefit as well as for others they would work as hard as they do today.

Then there is the issue of prejudice which I think would diminish with equal incomes but I will give you right in that anyway.

Ahhh (stretching back a little and yawning).

To your question if it would be right to take from some I must answer with the question: Is it right that some have a larger share of the common wealth than others?

The capitalism system where you get as large a proportion of the wealth as you bring in is injust in many ways. I value the work higher than the results and to me a streetcleaner or waitress works as hard as an executive director. Moreover you could not contribute with this much wealth if it was not for other people who work just as hard!

About your questions: Historically seen the state has been two things:

1 The (in exchange for taxes) protector of the people and their property. This is more usually referred to as the crown for it was often in the ages of Monarchy. During the times of feudal states this place was often taken by local noblemen.

2: The people and the protector as it is today. All state's take care of it's citizens interest and protects them. In a communist state the people would be the state and the state would be the people in greater extent than today. Elections should be held more often and politicians should not sit longer than 8 years to prevent a political class to emerge.

Of course I own, you cannot avoid owning in today's society. This is as said only a distant vision that I feel we should work towards.

Húrin Thalion

P.S: Congratulation's on your new head of state, he sounds great! He has even been compared to Göran Persson, politician of the year 2001. (Sweden's minister of state).

Eriol

12-02-2002, 05:21 PM

Hello again my friend, and thanks for the reference to our new president. We are all hopeful... Hope is a great commodity. My expectations (as opposed to hope) are not that great though :( .

To begin at the end of your post: my teaser question was badly formulated. What I meant was: Do you own YOURSELF? Are you (your body, your mind, your spirit) the property of yourself? Hard to explain, but an interesting trend of thought. Are your hands your property? (this is what I meant at my first post about the 'essence of individuality'. Not a simple subject...). I'm still waiting for your comments about the relationship between the state and private property -- is the state the sponsor of private property? Think of it as a question of origins: who comes first (historically), the state or private property? Your explanation about the nature of the state is well written and diametrically opposed to my own thoughts :D. That's why we are still dancing... One small thought though: you said the people are the state and the state is the people. If that is so, well, why do we need the state apparatus? The people are out there, always has been, regardless of our own thoughts. Why do we need organizations, bureaucracy, etc., if the state is simply 'the people'? And if I disagree with the state, am I disagreeing with myself? Really, what is 'the people'?

Regarding your goals, it is as you said, we mostly agree on them. Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men. But then if the goals are the same, we have to examine the means, right? Whether they are a) moral and b) efficient. It is not enough to name laudable goals, if we agree on them :) .

You said that 'the capitalism system (...) is unjust in many ways'. Well, while we don't agree on what justice is, this is a tough topic. What did you think of Aristotle's definition?

Ahhh (stretching back a little and yawning).

I hope this is not a sign of diminishing enthusiasm, my friend, I told you I am an enthusiastic guy! But we don't have to finish this in a rush. Take your time, I will be waiting. And please note, my questions are not some kind of 'history exam', I am trying to establish a bit more of a common ground between us
;) .

See ya!

Húrin Thalion

12-02-2002, 05:41 PM

Oh no don't misunderstand me: I was just yawning after a hard day at school. I will comment that private property thing after diner but I had to leave early from my last post unfortunately.

So seeya friend Húrin Thalion

HLGStrider

12-02-2002, 08:43 PM

Elgee's here... have no fear.. here's a beer...

My brother used to go around saying that (with his name instead of Elgee). Drove me a little batty.

If we don't have a common theory of justice, we will be beating at corpses (is there such an expression in english?).

In English it would be "beating a dead horse," I believe.

Some basic points...

The capitalism system where you get as large a proportion of the wealth as you bring in is injust in many ways. I value the work higher than the results and to me a streetcleaner or waitress works as hard as an executive director.

Rarely, at least in Capitalism (Though I prefer the term free market as Capitalism is a mythical system invented by Marx to describe free markets which he very well didn't understand... he didn't believe they existed) do you meet waitresses for life and we have replaced street cleaners with machines... given they are driven by people, but it isn't like people are going around with shovels... at least not in my town, we have this cool looking thing with sweepers that does that.

Capitalism is a system of working up. You start as a waitress. You amass capital. You work well and you are appointed to manager. You work well and you get to be partner. You work well (and save) and you get to buy your own diner. Even waitresses are making more than enough to live on.

Also that E.Director didn't just become what he is (under most circumstances). He also worked up and probably devoted at least ten years of his life to schooling. Schooling which took him time and money. It was an investment.

They don't necessarily have to be the best or the smartest by nature, they happened to be borne into a throne, like George W. Bush was.

Yes... and the degree from a prestigous business school didn't hurt. Bush is not a dumb man, though he definately plays it. He has various degrees, a lot of political experience, is a vetren, and while he may have started up a few rungs above he's held his own. I personally don't agree with many of Bush's policies, but for different reasons than you probably do. However, I think it is obvious that he did some work to get where he was.

Also, you make it seem as if only rich people can get into college around here... Not true. I think I've mentioned my families financial status before and I am attending, on a scholarship which I believe is private. Scholarships exist all over this country. Some depend on being able to write well (Cascade Policy Institute will give you 1,500 if you can write a good essay and are a highschool student.. I got third... but that was still 500)

I mean, look at today's owners of companies, most of the directors and owners are borne in academich homes with a stable background and support for education at home

If you think Billionaires, yes... but if you think millionaires no.

For instance, Dave Thomas, founder of Wendys, a pretty goodsized company, was adoupted and is a highschool drop out.

A lot of people in the entertainment business are very rich and come from broken homes... probably why a lot of them are so messed up.

I don't think communism could mend the broken home part unless it were to redistribute the children as well as the money and outlaw divorce and show up everytime the family sat down to dinner to make sure it was a nice environment. That comes from people and there is nothing the government can do about it...

More later.

Húrin Thalion

12-02-2002, 10:33 PM

Come on Elgee don't gimme that, I'm tired and feeling terrible after a long day at my school with people running, screaming and fighting all around me and then teachers who hate me coz I know their subjects better than they do. Those are few and unrepresentative examples, how many waitresess get to be partner. Not many I should think. I will not dispute about Bush being a dumb man but I can only quote him.

Most of our export comes from foreign countries.

and: ... We will all unite in a crusade against terror...

See my point?

And also that Wendy's thing, couldn't he with his obvious organizatoric capabilities become a billionaire with a good education. And also what does it matter if there are learning institutions around your corner if you can't support yourself when there? Those people who have invested ten years of their lifes at education doesn't risk anything. A study in Sweden showed that you get 5% higher pay when for each year you study at a university.

And much of the home trouble has a simple background: Money (or lack of it).

So please no more of that Elgee, answer to my arguments instead.

Húrin Thalion

Edit: I'm sorry I said I'd answer to private property today, I just can't do it.

Tar-Elenion

12-03-2002, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Húrin Thalion
I will not dispute about Bush being a dumb man but I can only quote him.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of our export comes from foreign countries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... We will all unite in a crusade against terror...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See my point?

No, I don't see your point.
Or rather your point seems to be that Mr. Bush is not well spoken/articulate, and because he is not he must be dumb. If that is what your point is, it is absurd.

Eriol

12-03-2002, 02:56 PM

WARNING: We are in danger of turning this thread into a shouting match.

As I said Húrin, take your time and think about the questions in my last post.

I don't know if Bush is dumb, but the quotations are surely funny...

Seriously, 'dumbness' is very elusive. I don't think it is easy to say that someone is dumb, only that they have said (or done) a dumb thing. Hate the dumbness, not the dumb ;) . Thanks Elgee for the 'beating at a dead horse' thing. And now for something completely different...

back to communism (sounds like Back at the U.S.S.R...)

Húrin Thalion

12-03-2002, 07:09 PM

My only answer to that this would be taking the right to private property from people is: It is still your property only that you share it with others. The right to own is not taken from you, only the right to say: "This is mine and you cannot have it."

This is my point. And Tar-Elenion, I wish to quote a friend of mine: Only because he is your elected leader you do not have to defend him."

Eriol would you kindly answer to my arguments in the three last posts now, I'm getting anxious.

Húrin Thalion

Eriol

12-03-2002, 07:52 PM

Oh! Sorry, I thought the 'anti-Bush' post was in response to Elgee. Do you really want me to answer that? I don't think it is too relevant though... And the first post (after my last) did not have any argument, was just a friendly post :) . So I guess you mean the last post. Well, to see if the concept of private property can be maintained in a society that FORCES you to share what you have with others (after all, nobody forbids you to share voluntarily in a capitalist society -- and by the way, I share Elgee's concerns about the word 'capitalist', I am only using it to avoid an even longer discussion), we have to define it, and see where it came from, and whether it is just to break it if it cannot be maintained in such a society. Really, the big point is: who has a higher claim, the individual or society? I think your instinctive response would be 'the societý, OF COURSE'. That's the turning point, and I want to show you that that is wrong. (now the cat is out of the bag ;) ). But in order to do that, we have to examine (at least) the concepts of justice, individuality, society, and the state. Please note, these last two are not synonyms.

So, putting the cat in the bag, let me summarize my (unanswered) questions:

what, exactly, IS the state?
from where comes the right of private property? Is it granted by the state?
(as a teaser) do you own yourself?

Why do we need organizations, bureaucracy, etc., if the state is simply 'the people'? And if I disagree with the state, am I disagreeing with myself? Really, what is 'the people'?

What did you think of Aristotle's definition?

Ok, you answered the first one, but we must still examine your answer (the state is the people, correct me if I'm wrong). The others are still waiting.

Oh, and by all means, get anxious! Anxiety is not always bad. These arguments (when they reach anywhere) can be really exciting.

'The best is yet to come, and babe won't it be nice...'

HLGStrider

12-03-2002, 11:22 PM

The right to own is not taken from you, only the right to say: "This is mine and you cannot have it."

What exactly is ownership then?

Ok... it's mine meaning I can move it around, hold it, and use it... However, I cannot tell someone else that they cannot move it around, hold it, and use it... so under that definition wouldn't it be their's as well...? And if it is theirs how is it that I own it? If I don't own it it isn't my private property...

I don't know how much Dave Thomas has, but he started from zip and made up for it... so you are saying that because he didn't get as far as the person who started from something we should outlaw starting? Yes, it is much better for everyone to be miserable than a few people to be uncomfortable. I see your point... :rolleyes:

Let's bring out some Dan Quail quotes too. We can have some real fun with those!

HLGStrider

12-03-2002, 11:27 PM

Also, how come you don't think you deserve a bigger salary than someone for being smarter than them but you are willing to deride Bush for being dumber than you?

Kind of a mixed message...

Tar-Elenion

12-04-2002, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Húrin Thalion
This is my point. And Tar-Elenion, I wish to quote a friend of mine: Only because he is your elected leader you do not have to defend him."

What makes you think I am 'defending' him _only_ because he is my elected leader?
I am 'defending' him because your assertion about him is wrong. I am more than willing to 'attack' him on those things he does that I disagree with.
Of course you are more than welcome to continue in your belief that Mr. Bush is 'dumb' as do so many others such as his political opponents here in the USA (of course that does not say much for their intellect considering how he continues to beat them) and so many abroad as well (and he has outmanoeuvred them as well, witness his handling of the UN). If Mr. Bush is dumb, the rest of the world is dumber.

Húrin Thalion

12-04-2002, 08:51 AM

What I meant was that you could as well have let the discussion go on and if I am stupid enough to think Bush is dumb you could have let me, that ok to you, Tar-Elenion.

Húrin

HLGStrider

12-05-2002, 10:59 PM

Brother... majorly off topic...

Húrin Thalion

12-20-2002, 07:14 PM

Good post and well argumented Eriol, You know I wouldn't shout at you, don't you? I chose Húrin as a name because I admire his self-sacrificing attitude at Nirnaeth Arnoediad and for the sadness in his family.

Wow that is a lot of things to answer to and I must admit that I was not concrete enough in my post.

Let me first say some things I should have said earlier: The system I was talking about would not yet be a project for the world, I was describing a rich capitalist country and why it should be communist. An important point would be that before the world equalization the developing nations in were made prosperous enough to support themselves. After this we could share the resources between all who inhabite the world.

Another main theme that I did not fully employ is that all have not got the same starting conditions. I mean, look at today's owners of companies, most of the directors and owners are borne in academich homes with a stable background and support for education at home. They don't necessarily have to be the best or the smartest by nature, they happened to be borne into a throne, like George W. Bush was. A great benefit with communism would be that all had maybe not academic background, but at least stable homes. This would benefit society since all the best people could be put where they could do most good.

And most importan of the explanations: The most basic point is that all agree upon that this is the best and will work for the system. This is unachievable today but it is a not all too distant goal. I think that if all saw that they worked for their own benefit as well as for others they would work as hard as they do today.

Then there is the issue of prejudice which I think would diminish with equal incomes but I will give you right in that anyway.

Ahhh (stretching back a little and yawning).

To your question if it would be right to take from some I must answer with the question: Is it right that some have a larger share of the common wealth than others?

The capitalism system where you get as large a proportion of the wealth as you bring in is injust in many ways. I value the work higher than the results and to me a streetcleaner or waitress works as hard as an executive director. Moreover you could not contribute with this much wealth if it was not for other people who work just as hard!

About your questions:

1 The (in exchange for taxes) protector of the people and their property. This is more usually referred to as the crown for it was often in the ages of Monarchy. During the times of feudal states this place was often taken by local noblemen.

2: The people and the protector as it is today. All state's take care of it's citizens interest and protects them. In a communist state the people would be the state and the state would be the people in greater extent than today. Elections should be held more often and politicians should not sit longer than 8 years to prevent a political class to emerge.

Of course I own, you cannot avoid owning in today's society. This is as said only a distant vision that I feel we should work towards.

Private property is not forbidden, it is only that you are not able to say this is mine adn not yours. We all share everything.

Húrin Thalion

Eriol

12-20-2002, 07:28 PM

I will not be able to answer to your last post soon, as I will be away for a while. Happy holidays again!

HLGStrider

12-20-2002, 11:03 PM

Is it right that some have a larger share of the common wealth than others?

What is common wealth? According to my dictionary it means the people of a nation... and I'm not sure how anyone would divide that up. When we divide it up I have a few cute boys I would like to own... Think we could work it that way? I'd also like to have my portion of the common wealth include three or four editors, one actor, and someone to do my housework.... gosh, this idea of dividing up the common wealth is great...

Seriously, the idea that the wealth belongs to the people is not true. All the earth's resources are Gods or nobodies, depending on your belief system (well, they will always be Gods even if you don't believe they are, but... whatever...). If they are Gods we should distribute them as he sees fit. If they are nobodies, its grab what you can get...

God sees fit for us to expand our holdings and multiply them, to give them to our children, and let them expand them and multiply them... Both inheritence and private property are Biblical.

That's called Dominion theology and is based mostly on the book of Genesis, I believe, though I am always a little shakey on theology.

So, if God exists things should be divided up in this way.

If He doesn't, grab what you can because if you don't someone else will... and without Him you can't have a moral basis for dividing things up, because morality springs from a higher authority... or the state in which case it would change with changes of government.

People don't start at equal places, but even if they did they would move up differently. This is where inheritence comes in. One reason people move up is for their children. Inheritence is actually a noble, even righteous, cause. It won't go well with your system. The state will become the parents deciding who gets what...

People deserve to make their own way. This means without the state. It has no business in their lives.

Húrin Thalion

12-21-2002, 11:02 AM

Elgee that was a very strange post in my eyes. As I have stated earlier I do not think that we should bring in neither God nor the Bible in this. Also if they are nobody's why should we just take all that we want? Why shouldn't we share the resources equally? Do you really think that we humans are that egoistic? Makes no sense to me. And why should you own people? They are as free as you are.

Húrin Thalion

P.S. I liked your last avatar better, why did you change it. Oh well I maybe think so cause I think garfield looks and is funny.

Eledhwen

12-21-2002, 04:28 PM

Hurin Thalion, you said exactly the same thing to me in the thread entitled "War".

It seems to me that you are prepared to hear the views of anyone and quotes from any source, so long as it's not The Bible.

The funny thing is that major world changers for (IMO) the worst, eg: Marx and Hitler, were both brought up in the Christian religion, the refusal of which turned the course of their thinking and ultimately the world.

Whether you like it or not, the teachings of the Bible are highly relevant. Many of what you call "ideals" (such as Marxism) are religions without a god, or ones where the god is oneself. One OED definition of a religion is "A pursuit or interest followed with devotion". So, perhaps we should move this whole communist thing across to the "Belief of Religion" thread. Or maybe you should try countering the arguments presented instead of trying to rule them inadmissible.

Húrin Thalion

12-21-2002, 05:25 PM

Eledhwen, you must please understand that it is not so that I hate your religion at all, it is only so that I don't want to vring religion into this. I have said that I will try to avoid to answer to arguments from the Bible for two reasons: 1. There is no God, at least not to me. To you there is a God but you must still leave him out of your logical reasoning for you cannot count on his intervention. You cannot expect me to believe that a divine being wants us to divide the resources if I don't think that there is a God. 2. The Bible is so old that you cannot even be sure of what the writers meant with what they wrote, all is mixed up with their beliefs and they are not proved to be true. This goes for any writing of that age, I don't quote Platon unless it is a discussion about his works, no matter how much i admire him I do not know what he meant when saying something.

Also for your accusation that I only face arguments by "ruling them admissable" I would firstly like to say that I am waiting for someone to counter my arguments and if you read your own post, is that not what you jsut tried to do?

And of course the Bible have influenced many people, but then you quote them and not their source of inspiration.

Húrin Thalion

Ciryaher

12-21-2002, 08:02 PM

I beg to differ. The age of a work of writing does *not* make any difference. Does the fact that the origin of Beowulf is unknown mean that the story has no meaning? Or Arthurian legends? Or Tacitus? Or the Iliad? Torah? Bible? Upanishads?

The answer is no. The meaning of a book as it was written never changes, only the minds of the people that read these books. The books upon which the great religions of the world are not only sacred to each of those religions, but something can be learned from all of them. Human nature, life's path, how to treat others...these are not just things for individuals belonging to a specific religion, but all people can learn from them. If everyone would see that, then the world would be a much better place and you wouldn't have these evil individuals like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Vlad, etc. etc. You don't have to be a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindi, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Baha'i, Confucianist, Taoist, or any other belief/religion to take those teachings to heart. Compassion, forgiveness, love; these are not just for religious people, they are for *all* people.

Don't be so quick to say that religious works are totally inadmissable. I think that they were being used incorrectly in the War! thread, but seeing as Communism is a system of beliefs, I think that opposing beliefs and their doctrines are perfectly admissable in this discussion.

Húrin Thalion

12-21-2002, 08:52 PM

I heartily disagree Ciryaher. For if the age of something does not matter because the meaning has not changed, the there will have to be different interpretations and no certain answer. If there cannot be a certain answer to this I think it is irrelevant as an argument to simply quote the Bible and say: "Think of that one." Of course age doesn't have to diminish the potency of a scripture but especially people's beliefs have changed. I mean that no religious writings should be quoted since belief is something highly personal. If you choose to see communism as a system of beliefs that is up to you, but there is a large difference between the argument and what you argument for.

Húrin Thalion

Ciryaher

12-21-2002, 10:30 PM

In a hundred years, the works of Karl Marx will be even less relevant then they are today. Already the system of communism is obsolete; there is no proletariat, and there burgeosie is not oppressive. Communism was a nice idea at the time, but it's an idea that is past its time. The world was not made for communism, which is why no nations have truly adopted it with any success. The closest one can come is socialism, and that is as close as we will ever and should be.

Believing that communism is still a viable system of economic government is about as reasonable as believing that people will willingly give up their wealth and power. It will never happen.

Húrin Thalion

12-21-2002, 10:53 PM

And your point is that communism is just a belief? I have never quoted Karl Marx in this thread since much of what he writes is now not very relevant or up to date. It is only the basic idea that attracts me. How do you know it would not work, have there been any serious, democratic attempts? Wouldn't think so.

Húrin Thalion

Ciryaher

12-21-2002, 11:17 PM

I know it would not work because I comprehend human nature. Humans are programmed to be better than others; some can overcome that, but not many and certainly not all.

Gloer

12-21-2002, 11:51 PM

It need the etchics, the religion that turned the holy aeschetism into a daily virtue of an ordinary man, and sanctified his simple work and the earhly earnings as glory not to the man himself but God.

Where is the etchic that rised the work above all, efficiency as high virtue and idleness as deadly sin?

Protestants do have their monks in entrepreneurs.
They praise God in this world by working hard not for greed or gain but for it is God's law and will. It is the only virtuous way to live not to throw away opportunities God presents and not to lay idle when one can work.

Everytime I hear words "retirement", "holiday", "burn-out", "unemployment" I getr shivers. Worst is the times when I hear young able and educated professionals idleing in dreams of making enough money to just retire in full working age of 40. Making a windfall...
I say these men are the killers of the capitalist spirit. They do not value ethics but are full of short sighted exploitation.

Capitalism can only survive if the working ethic be it based protestant or any other faith is there. Work must be perse the best way to spend ones time on earth.The money gained must be means to evaluate if work is efficient or not, nothing else. Capitalist does not work to gain money. he works to work better. Money is a mere consequence.