Socialism the third most searched for term in 2008

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

well he still has enough money(resources) to keep on going... you know how many lottery winners use all their money(wealth) in an unsustainable manner and thus loose their wealth. same goes for celebrities, many end up with nothing and stay as nothing. that doesn't mean however that all people with money are intelligent, it does often mean that those who keep it, have others spend and invest it for them

How does this affect progression of medical technologies, again? Investing intelligently has nothing to do with skills which can be applied to aid one's society.

tell that to former socialist Von Misses.

I've never heard Misses called a Socialist, however, he doesn't seem to have an understanding of what Socialism actually is...

"If we were to regard the Soviet regime as an experiment, we would have to say that the experiment has clearly demonstrated the superiority of capitalism and the inferiority of socialism."

...As such, I wouldn't trust his accusations that Socialism must fail.

I also wouldn't consider price mechanism to be an accurate assessment of worth, as it it is determined by the bourgeoisie minority, rather than the proletariat majority.

Within a Socialist state economic calculation is derived through the importance of a process or product by the majority, rather than the minority.

Lol, Von Mises. The very fact that the soviet economy was centrally planned should have put an end to the idea that prices were unable to be calculated in a socialist society. I don't know why he was brought up(maybe to namedrop economists you've never read?), but alas...

Also, if poverty is the cause of ignorance, you must be pretty ****ing poor.

little known fact, von mises was pro-s0cialism before he concluded that "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."

again I want someone to prove me wrong when I state the following observations

1 pure democracy and voting based decisions are impossible as it's hard to truly judge the values of an individual or group of individuals based solely on yeses or nos(and even then if someone had a liking of say 4 for one item and 8 for another they would likely give the 4 a value of 1 while voting and the 8 a 10 when voting thus rending a 1-10 system inaccurate as well) furthermore results are not timely thus lowering efficiency

2 representative base democracy fails as when one person represents many and makes large profound descisions,


basically I think we'd all agree that we'd be much happier if we had unlimited resources... there would be none of this political debate.

since we have finite resources, they need to be distributed in some manner or another. The basis of this would be what is the most proper way of doing such. The super-capitalist approach is the most efficient(in theory), the communist approach is the most fair(in theory)

I'd rather get 1/3rd of 10, then 1/2 of 5. I don't care if it's less fair, I'm a greedy mofo, I want more and I don't care if others get more while they're at it, more power to them.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

little known fact, von mises was pro-s0cialism before he concluded that "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."

Yes, that's apparently very little known.

However, I've already refuted that claim. Perhaps now he can become Socialist again.

Unless, of course, you have something to add which might devalue my claims? If so, I'd recommend you post whatever that is, rather than quotations I had already posted and responded to.

since we have finite resources, they need to be distributed in some manner or another. The basis of this would be what is the most proper way of doing such. The super-capitalist approach is the most efficient(in theory), the communist approach is the most fair(in theory)

It's not about being fair, really. People tend to believe that equality is the sole principle of communism, and while it is definitely one that most socialists would concern themselves with, it is not the hallmark characteristic of communism, nor should it be.

The way I see it, communism is the next approach man must take as it can no longer develop off a capitalist basis. No new markets can be created, and of those that possibly could, it would involve a very major structural shift in regards to government and social policy, which could only have disastrous effects on society itself. The activities of the capitalist class have become obsolete as modern production no longer hinges on their services, nor does modern production need to be artificially regulated via the market.

We may have finite sources, but by increasing the sphere of production and developing our means, general want could be eliminated. Needless to say, this can not happen under capitalism.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

The way I see it, communism is the next approach man must take as it can no longer develop off a capitalist basis.

go back in time... to the dawn of mankind when we were running around beating our chests and chasing animals... during that time, a form communism was practiced by tribes and generalized reciprocity was the standard... there was no such thing as money and wealth was not worth thought. should one not contribute adequately, their status would go down, but not their wealth.

communism is nothing new.


and unfortunately, in a large society with hundreds of millions of people, it's hard for a stranger to note the contributions(and appropriate status) or the lack thereof of another should wealth be more or less evenly distributed.

Sorry, my Internet connection went down while I was editing in a response. (After I had noticed you had added more the your earlier response)

1 pure democracy and voting based decisions are impossible as it's hard to truly judge the values of an individual or group of individuals based solely on yeses or nos(and even then if someone had a liking of say 4 for one item and 8 for another they would likely give the 4 a value of 1 while voting and the 8 a 10 when voting thus rending a 1-10 system inaccurate as well)

The proletariat not only vote on, but also write bills. I would, however, augment the way we vote on bills today. Rather than select an option on a bill as the option you like, you would cross out every option you didn't like. Then, if there wasn't an option left which received over 50% of the vote (ie, was not crossed off by over 50% of the voters) then the option with the least 'anti-votes' is the popular choice. This is also assuming a bill recieves a minimum amount of voters.

furthermore results are not timely thus lowering efficiency

Not at all- a voting service designed fully online/through telecom systems to resemble a social networking structure like facebook, but with emphasis on voting, allowing a bill to automatically be passed as soon as a minimum number of votes is met would be far more efficient than the current system.

2 representative base democracy fails as when one person represents many and makes large profound descisions,

I would augment that as to say "representative systems in general fail".

basically I think we'd all agree that we'd be much happier if we had unlimited resources... there would be none of this political debate.

since we have finite resources, they need to be distributed in some manner or another. The basis of this would be what is the most proper way of doing such. The super-capitalist approach is the most efficient(in theory), the communist approach is the most fair(in theory)

Communism is both the fairest and most efficient method of progression. Communism promotes participation on an intellectual level from the entire community- thus, a larger portion of the population are able to participate intellectually, and our means of production and distribution improve as a result of their input.

I'd rather get 1/3rd of 10, then 1/2 of 5. I don't care if it's less fair, I'm a greedy mofo, I want more and I don't care if others get more while they're at it, more power to them.

Interesting anology, however, incorrect. Using the same analogy:

Fuedualism: You get whatever portion of 5 your dictator decides to kick down to you.
Capitalism: You get whatever portion of 10 you're able to take away from everyone else.
Socialism: You get whatever portion of 15 acurately represents the amount of work you have done, and how much good it has provided for society
Communism: There is no concept of ownership; you have 100% of 20, as does everyone else.

(The total number of units increases as you progress from system to system, as intellectualism, and as such, efficiency and production increase as you move forward, as explained earlier.)

and unfortunately, in a large society with hundreds of millions of people, it's hard for a stranger to note the contributions(and appropriate status) or the lack thereof of another should wealth be more or less evenly distributed.

How is that so? We remember people today, not by their wealth, but by their contribution to society. The only difference in a Socialist or Communist society would be that a man or woman who contributes little or nothing positive to society would not enjoy a significantly better life than someone who contributes a lot to society.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Fuedualism: You get whatever portion of 5 your dictator decides to kick down to you.
Capitalism: You get whatever portion of 10 you're able to take away from everyone else.
Socialism: You get whatever portion of 15 acurately represents the amount of work you have done, and how much good it has provided for society
Communism: There is no concept of ownership; you have 100% of 20, as does everyone else.

(The total number of units increases as you progress from system to system, as intellectualism, and as such, efficiency and production increase as you move forward, as explained earlier.)

then explain to me why the closest thing to communism the world has ever seen became more productive when it shifted to the right?

How is that so? We remember people today, not by their wealth, but by their contribution to society. The only difference in a Socialist or Communist society would be that a man or woman who contributes little or nothing positive to society would not enjoy a significantly better life than someone who contributes a lot to society.

explain to me what my best friend's cousin has contributed to society?
because I sure as heck don't know. With great numbers comes great obscurity.

achieving status on a wide scale is virtually impossible now, and it's usually not related to one's real contributions to society, since britney spears and justin timberlake aren't doing that much in terms of work.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

then explain to me why the closest thing to communism the world has ever seen became more productive when it shifted to the right?

The closest thing we've ever seen to Communism besides small communities are the French communes of the late 1800s.

However, I assume you're speaking of the USSR? The same USSR which, directly after revolting and becoming a workers state, jumped from mass poverty, and into the position of one of the most powerful nations on the planet? The same USSR that, when making the transition back to Capitalism, fell back into poverty, and faded from its position as a competing world power?

explain to me what my best friend's cousin has contributed to society?
because I sure as heck don't know. With great numbers comes great obscurity.

How about a name? Perhaps a facebook page, or other social networking page where one could easily publish their accomplishments to be viewed by the entire world?

I can, however, tell you aproximately how much people who I communicate with on a daily basis contribute to society, and how much people within the fields I'm interested in contribute. (assuming their contribution is at least somewhat notable.)

achieving status on a wide scale is virtually impossible now, and it's usually not related to one's real contributions to society, since britney spears and justin timberlake aren't doing that much in terms of work.

They wouldn't be in the positions they're in today if they weren't motivated by wealth, and the people who premote them weren't motivated by wealth.

Also, Timberlake is at least a somewhat decent DJ. I'm really not a fan of either, but you have to give him some credit for his mixing work, even if everything else he does is terribly shallow.

Originally Posted by 8bit

The closest thing we've ever seen to Communism besides small communities are the French communes of the late 1800s.

However, I assume you're speaking of the USSR? The same USSR which, directly after revolting and becoming a workers state, jumped from mass poverty, and into the position of one of the most powerful nations on the planet? The same USSR that, when making the transition back to Capitalism, fell back into poverty, and faded from its position as a competing world power?

The same USSR that had its popluation starve to death due to the extreme inefficiency of its economic policies? The same USSR that took ten times as long as the USA to produce an equivalent amount of a product? The same USSR that brutally removed rights from everyone?

The USSR started failing roughly the same time it switched to Communism, it simply managed to hide this fact until near the end, when a desperate attempt was made to fix the problem by switching to a capitalist system that had been observed to work elsewhere in the world; but the change came too late and the inevitable happened.

Originally Posted by John

The same USSR that had its popluation starve to death due to the extreme inefficiency of its economic policies?

Not at all. I'm referring to the USSR before Lenin died and the USSR began moving towards centralized capitalism under the Stalin administration. I assume you're referring to the USSR after the Stalin administration took control of the nation.

The same USSR that took ten times as long as the USA to produce an equivalent amount of a product?

Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're even referring to. You are familiar with the cold war, correct? How can you explain a situation where the USSR progressed and produced at a rate equivalent to a tenth of the rate in the US when the rate at which they progressed and produced rivaled the United States? Of course there was a slow down near the end- but it took Stalin and Gorbachev just that long to unravel what had been done under the guidance of Trotsky and Lenin, which seems to simply show how strong the system they set up was.

The same USSR that brutally removed rights from everyone.

No, like I've stated many times, the USSR before it became a centralized capitalist state. This USSR:

"13. For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen.

14. For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.

15. For the purpose of enabling the workers to hold free meetings, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers to the working class and to the poorest peasantry furnished halls, and takes care of their heating and lighting appliances.

16. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.

17. For the purpose of guaranteeing to the workers real access to knowledge, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic sets itself the task of furnishing full and general free education to the workers and the poorest peasantry.

20. In consequence of the solidarity of the workers of all nations, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic grants all political rights of Russian citizens to foreigners who live in the territory of the Russian Republic and are engaged in work and who belong to the working class. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic also recognizes the right of local soviets to grant citizenship to such foreigners without complicated formality.

21. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers shelter to all foreigners who seek refuge from political or religious persecution.

22. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, recognizing the equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their racial or national connections, proclaims all privileges on this ground, as well as oppression of national minorities, to be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Republic.

23. Being guided by the interests of the working class as a whole, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic deprives all individuals and groups of rights which could be utilized by them to the detriment of the socialist revolution.


25. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants).

Note 1: In case the provincial congress is not called before the All-Russian Congress is convoked, delegates for the latter are sent directly from the county (uyezd) congress.

Note 2: In case the regional (oblast) congress is convoked indirectly, previous to the convocation of the All-Russian Congress, delegates for the latter may be sent by the regional congress.

64. The right to vote and to be elected to the soviets is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes, irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc., of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, who shall have completed their eighteenth year by the day of election:

(a) All who have acquired the means of livelihood through labor that is productive and useful to society, and also persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to do productive work, i.e., laborers and employees of all classes who are employed in industry, trade, agriculture, etc., and peasants and Cossack agricultural laborers who employ no help for the purpose of making profits.
(b) Soldiers of the army and navy of the soviets.
(c) Citizens of the two preceding categories who have in any degree lost their capacity to work.
NOTE 1: Local soviets may, upon approval of the central power, lower the age standard mentioned herein.
NOTE 2: Non-citizens mentioned in Section 20 (Article Two, Chapter 5) have the right to vote."

"The Russian Communist Party effectively legalized no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality, when they abolished all the old Tsarist laws and the initial Soviet criminal code kept these liberal sexual polices in place"

Mind you, this was 1917.

The USSR started failing roughly the same time it switched to Communism,

I don't believe they ever 'switched to Communism'.

it simply managed to hide this fact until near the end, when a desperate attempt was made to fix the problem by switching to a capitalist system that had been observed to work elsewhere in the world; but the change came too late and the inevitable happened.

How long can you 'hide' something like that? 10 years? 30? 75 years? It seems incredible that the USSR was able to hide their mass poverty for three quarters of a century. It's also rather interesting that we only begin to see this invisible, well-hidden rashes of poverty and inefficiency shortly following Capitalist reforms by either Stalin or Gorbachev.

Originally Posted by John

The same USSR that had its popluation starve to death due to the extreme inefficiency of its economic policies?

I'm assuming you are referring to the holodomor. This is actually a very popular misconception, but one that is incredibly ridiculous, for it was actually through economic centralizing efforts that the mass famines ended.

Also worthy of noting is that Russia has always been subject to scarcity of food, so if the soviet bureaucracy is at fault for supposedly manufacturing a famine, why must the Romanov family be absolved of this guilt? Why must the excesses of authoritarianism be attributed to the communist, when it was the russian nobility who staunchly refused to even allow simple parliamentary action to direct social and economic policy?

The same USSR that took ten times as long as the USA to produce an equivalent amount of a product?

Yes, a semi-feudal nation which had yet to even build up a considerable workforce could honestly hold its own to a modernized industrial nation built on nearly a century and a half off the basis oc apitalism. This country, which had been held in low esteem by virtually all of the world, and consequently faced the stemming of the freeflow of material, must be held to the same standards as much of the western world. Going by this, why do third world nations produce much less than the first world when they too are capitalist? Should they too not be held in similar regard, what with their backwardness and perpetual immiseration brought on by the robber barons of the west?

That said, the soviet economy was actually very high above much of the world. They were slated to overcome the US economy, but as I said before, the dropping of oil and the stagnation faced under Brezhnev stopped this from becoming a reality.

The same USSR that brutally removed rights from everyone?

And who are these people? Most people lived a life that wasn't very much different from more liberal nations.

The USSR started failing roughly the same time it switched to Communism, it simply managed to hide this fact until near the end, when a desperate attempt was made to fix the problem by switching to a capitalist system that had been observed to work elsewhere in the world; but the change came too late and the inevitable happened.

This is so patently absurd I do not find it odd in the slightest degree it came from such a blatant apologist to capitalism.

The USSR was nowhere near communism, not after the liquidation of the kulaks, not after nationalization, not even after acquiring much of eastern europe. A necessary precondition to communism's fruition is worldwide socialism, and considering the USSR stuck completely to the policy of socialism in one country, your criticism absolutely trails nowhere - it's useless.

Furthermore, the USSR economy absolutely boomed after collectization, which was an unprecedented act and has yet to be paralleled even by modern industrialized capitalist nations. It stunned bourgeois economists who believed in the futility of centralized economic planning, and yet this monumental achievement is buried behind the likeness of Stalin's mug, painting a very unfair picture for those who fight vehemently against revisionist interpretations of history.

Lastly, perestroika was the death note for socialism in Russia. It was not a reform which attempted to save a failing Russia, or even to liberalize the government, but was meant to absolutely destroy nearly an entire century of progress. By the act of decentralizing the economy, virtually everything which was built by the hands of the russian workers was lost: socialized healthcare, a guaranteed job via the virtues of central planning, extensive welfare programs, affordable housing, etc al.

This was not an accident, nor was the rocky introduction of capitalism in russia merely a mistake. It couldn't have been, because those same KGB, communist party officials, and assorted government officers are the new bourgeoisie of russia.

Also, 8bit, the USSR was not entirely state capitalist. The means of production were held separate from the bureaucracy(what would be the need to dismantle a system which theoretically worked in their favor anyways?), though after stalin's death preparatory measures were taken, along with economic reform which ultimately led to perestroika. Stalin's successors were most definitely reactionary, but for all of stalin's faults he was infinitely better.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

well he still has enough money(resources) to keep on going... you know how many lottery winners use all their money(wealth) in an unsustainable manner and thus loose their wealth. same goes for celebrities, many end up with nothing and stay as nothing. that doesn't mean however that all people with money are intelligent, it does often mean that those who keep it, have others spend and invest it for them

No, he makes enough money to keep on going. He's not like a lottery winner where they make one lump sum of money once and that's it, he makes that much money every day. That does not mean that he uses his money intelligently, it simply means his income is massive.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Not as efficient? As a deformed workers state the USSR moved from a 3rd world poverty state to a world power- advancing in decades what took the US centuries, all while dealing with multiple wars and an internal counter-revolutionary movement.

Western cars > former Soviet bloc cars.

That is all.

This is like saying:

"Which is why yellow is necessary even in the color purple."

They are mutually exclusive. Authority can't be necessary in an ideology which states that authority isn't necessary.

Which is precisely why communism is a pretty contradictory ideal when we're referring to humans. In order to make it work, you need something which, in its perfect form, it cannot have.

Yes... and I think that still stands as... you know, he was a Socialist.

He was a social democrat, certainly, which essentially means socialist, but I more meant you indicated that the novel was pro-socialist, error in my wording.

Or he was referring to the Communist party, which was, at the time, prominently dominated by Stalinists.

That's a possibility, but nowhere in the novel does he make a distinction between communism and Stalinism.

As he claimed to be a Socialist, I tend to think he's a Socialist, yes. Not an Anarchist, no, but an advocate for pure democracy.

Which is, in essence, anarchy, since "pure" democracy would literally be "rule by the people" as opposed to "rule by representatives who are voted in by the people".

Yes, as Orwell saw the Capitalists, the Fascists, and the Stalinists all collaborating with each other to keep their places of power.

But they are all actually the same in the novel. The three ideologies are precisely the same thing, or at least that's the implication. Capitalism, Fascism, and Stalinism are effectively different. They are distinct. Plus, there was no side that was "capitalism" in the novel. They were all different forms of collective oligarchism.

I don't really see the difference here.

The Pigs used power as a means to an end, that is to be able to live their lives in luxury, the Party saw absolute power as an end in and of itself - they didn't care so much about being able to live their lives in luxury, although they did relative to the Outer Party, but rather they simply wanted to exercise control for the sake of exercising control. O'Brien says no less than that.

I think this is the point, no? That there is little difference between Stalinism, Fascism, and Corporatism?

Stalinism and Fascism I can see an argument for, but Corporatism compared to those two is pretty hilarious. But the point is that they ARE the same. It's not a case of the three ideologies in the novels being similar but with differences - the only differences are in name and location in which they are exercised. The point is to show how the Party have exercised absolute control in focusing everyone on hatred of these ideals, while still practicing the same ideal at home, an example of their absolute control and doublethink - hating one ideal while being devoted to the same simply because it belongs to their nation rather than the enemy's. Nationalism at its finest, and an aspect of fascism, or communism as it has been practiced up until today in communist states.

However, it seems apparent if only because of how well the cultures of Oceania reflect those of the USSR that Oceania is supposed to be a depiction of the USSR under Stalinist control.

It's supposed to be a depiction of absolute totalitarian control. It's an amalgamation of fascism and communism (in whatever form you choose to see it) which is then turned all the way up to eleven. Oceania was not specifically supposed to represent the USSR, if anything that would have been Eurasia.

The question is left open, whether or not he is a manifestation of the party, or whether control by The Brotherhood would be equally as despairing as control by The Party- a connection the the Bolshevikism shared by both Stalin and Trotsky even within their stark opposition.

As I say though, that doesn't really contradict my suggestion that Goldstein was meant to come off as an amalgamation of that which I stated.

It seems that The Brotherhood are given an image of generally offering a better arrangement than the party- it seems only to be the means through which they wish to create change which shine a negative light on the collective.

It's more that since the Party is depicted as everything bad with the world, those who rebel against the Party will initially be seen by the reader as good, simply because they oppose the evil that is the Party. The point being, that with later revelations relating to the Brotherhood and the novel as a whole, the Brotherhood are not meant to be viewed by the reader in a positive light once they've finished reading, but rather with equal scepticism. Meaning one can hardly interpret the Brotherhood as Orwell's rallying point against the representations of the Party.

However, more people who have played it have liked it than the people who haven't played it, yes?

I wouldn't be so sure given it's DMC 2. Chances are that you will like it UNTIL you play it.

I'm not sure where you get this out of my statement- it wasn't a correlation in anyway, simply a statement of what is true.

Most people haven't read the Communist Manifesto.
Most people are Capitalist.
The percentage of people who are Communist among those who have read the Communist Manifesto is higher than the percentage of people who are Communist among those who have not read the Communist Manifesto.

Therefore, it is more likely for you to be a Communist if you have read the Communist Manifesto.

But you have to be careful how to interpret that. Statistically, this is true - but the implication you're giving is that this is a direct result of reading the book, whereas I would propose that this is simply the case that the percentage of people who are communist among those who have read the Manifesto were communist before they even touched the book, and simply bought the book to better educate themselves about the ideology which they have already chosen. Not that they were capitalists until they read the book.

Therefore, one can assume that the increased sales of Communist paraphernalia (such as the Manifesto) points to an increase in Communists.

This point I disagree with, purely because of this particular recession meaning that people may be more willing to acquaint themselves with communism. So if there is an increase in people who support communism, it won't be the same percentage after the increase of those who read the book.

This isn't a valid comparison to Mein Kampf as I would be inclined to believe that the percentage of Nazis among those who have read Mein Kampf is less than the percentage of Nazis who have not read Mein Kampf.

This is because, as Mein Kampf has been painted as evil by historians, and is generally unavailable for purchase as far as I'm aware anyway, it's more likely that historians will be the main readers anyway.

Surely there are a great number of teens who walk around in their Wal-Mart sold Che t-shirts, however, in my experience they tend to not identify with Communism directly, where as those who vote Socialist Workers Party or Communist Party, or some other Communist political party and participate in pro-Communist protests tend to have read the Communist Manifesto and at least some other associated literature.

Well again, it's generally teenage rebellion. I was a self-proclaimed communist a few years back, possibly out of simple teenage rebellion, possibly out of general ignorance, but now I don't really consider myself on either side of the communist or capitalist debate, as I embrace an ideal I see as superior to political debates on economic systems.

Those who vote for socialism or communism are generally better informed, I'd imagine, but I don't doubt a fair share of them are those aforementioned rebellious teenagers.

Most crimes are committed in opposition to an authority or in an ordeal regarding capital. As these crimes would no longer exist, most crime we deal with today would also no longer exist.

To put it bluntly - that's bull****. All it takes is one look at my criminal law notes to see that very few crimes are opposition to authority. Yes, they're crimes against the state, but nowhere near as many crimes as you make out are basically "if you disrespect authority you will be punished".

An ordeal regarding capital in criminal law is damage to property. Whether that property belongs to the state, to individuals, or to everyone, criminal damage is still criminal damage. Theft would still be in placed in a communist regime, as you'd be taking something that belongs to everyone and attempting to take it for yourself, which would be unacceptable even in a truly communist regime without a state. Etc, etc.

Other crimes can be prevented with community developed propaganda, communal rehabilitation efforts, and, in extreme cases, exile by portions of or the entire community.

Lying to people is hardly acceptable and if it's developed by the community then people will KNOW it's propaganda and consider those who make it an "authority". The Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four didn't have "law" as such, and there were therefore no crimes as a result, but as you can clearly see there was still authority. Community-developed propaganda would therefore either be totally useless, or just as bad, if not worse, than a government that restricts certain actions but doesn't produce propaganda.

Again, those in charge of the rehabilitation would be regarded as an "authority".

And surely someone would have to be in charge of ensuring that the individual doesn't come back. Authority.

Of course, none of these actions would be regarded as crimes, rather, they would be regarded as actions which are detrimental to society. As few actions would remain both detrimental to society and beneficial to the individual the concept of 'crime' as it is now defined (a selfish act which is detrimental to society and acted out by an aware, sane human-being) will no longer be valid.

"Crime" as it is now defined is nothing more than "an action prohibited by law which justifies a sanction by the state". Being as there would be no government, crime would clearly not exist, as there could be no law which prohibits actions. However, the idea of actions which society deems unacceptable will still exist, and will still be punished, so what you have is effectively the same as criminal law.

Not as efficient? As a deformed workers state the USSR moved from a 3rd world poverty state to a world power- advancing in decades what took the US centuries, all while dealing with multiple wars and an internal counter-revolutionary movement.

congratulations, you discovered that serfdom is a highly inefficient economic system and that repressed economic growth can manifest itself when the barriers to such growth are removed and the technological advances of the rest of the world are allowed to carry over.


ITT, people who don't relate chaos theory as being valid to complex economic systems.

Those who vote for socialism or communism are generally better informed, I'd imagine, but I don't doubt a fair share of them are those aforementioned rebellious teenagers.

generally, high school drop outs and people with lower degrees tend to vote to the left. As do people who have very high up degrees... that said most people with such higher degrees tend to have jobs directly or indirectly funded by the state so they might be a bit biased there. The majority of people with bachelors degrees classify themselves as conservative. This is in the US at least, I'm not entirely certain of how it is internationally.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

generally, high school drop outs and people with lower degrees tend to vote to the left. As do people who have very high up degrees... that said most people with such higher degrees tend to have jobs directly or indirectly funded by the state so they might be a bit biased there.

So if you have such a high degree, you'll either go to work for the state, which makes you left-wing biased in your view, or a privately owned company. Who would probably want to vote conservative so that they don't have to pay so much tax. Or do you not allow for the possibility of conservatives being biased? UNTHINKABLE!

We're not going to become socialist, and we're not going to remain 'capitalist'. We aren't capitalist in the first place. We're mixed. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it'll stay. We're probably going to go for a bit more socialism right now to stabilize the economy, but you can bet your ass once the economy's running smoothly again people are going to want more capitalism. It's the way things have always been in America. Neither one is right or wrong, it depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Western cars > former Soviet bloc cars.

That is all.

Russia went from having no car manufactures whatsoever, the few cars- and the number was very few, mostly owned by the czar and his family- were imported from other nations. The USSR, on the other hand, established seven separate and globally successful manufactures, most of which are still making vehicles today.

Which is precisely why communism is a pretty contradictory ideal when we're referring to humans. In order to make it work, you need something which, in its perfect form, it cannot have.

You should look into Peter Kroptkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Richard Dawkins' Nice Guys Finish First, and Hamilton and Axlerod's The Evolution of Cooperation.

These publications, as well as the results of Axelrod's famous iterated prisoner's dilemma tournaments, point towards altruism which is both present in humanity and evolutionarily relevant.

The most obvious example of recent real world cooperation is peer to peer file sharing. Bit Torrent alone accounts for 35% of all Internet traffic; this doesn't include other popular methods of peer sharing- usenet, Gnutella, IRC, etc...

These networks offer an environment mostly untouched by Capitalism- they require very little external resource (besides the cooperation of it's users) and thus, are not required to succumb to the trade of capital for product.

Nonetheless, these networks do require a constant community from within a Capitalist economy. In a society which puts emphasis on altruism and community rather than individualist competition the productivity and popularity of peer transfer structures will increase, an incredible concept considering its dominance in transfer of intellectual property today.

He was a social democrat, certainly, which essentially means socialist, but I more meant you indicated that the novel was pro-socialist, error in my wording.

I suppose that's still debatable, then?

That's a possibility, but nowhere in the novel does he make a distinction between communism and Stalinism.

Ah, but if you concede that Goldstien is intended to represent Trotsky then you have a clear distinction between Trotskyism and Stalinism.

Which is, in essence, anarchy, since "pure" democracy would literally be "rule by the people" as opposed to "rule by representatives who are voted in by the people".

No, it is not anarchy. Pure democracy is rule by the people, yes, however, anarchy is a lack of rule.

But they are all actually the same in the novel. The three ideologies are precisely the same thing, or at least that's the implication. Capitalism, Fascism, and Stalinism are effectively different. They are distinct. Plus, there was no side that was "capitalism" in the novel. They were all different forms of collective oligarchism.

Not Capitalist, Corporatist.

The Pigs used power as a means to an end, that is to be able to live their lives in luxury, the Party saw absolute power as an end in and of itself - they didn't care so much about being able to live their lives in luxury, although they did relative to the Outer Party, but rather they simply wanted to exercise control for the sake of exercising control. O'Brien says no less than that.

Not on an individual level, no. Yes, the party seeks only control- the individuals who make up the party can be assumed to seek luxury, longevity, etc... everything any human would seek. The same can be said of the pigs of Animal Farm, the difference being that the pigs were only just establishing themselves while the inner party of 1984 was pre-established.

Stalinism and Fascism I can see an argument for, but Corporatism compared to those two is pretty hilarious. But the point is that they ARE the same. It's not a case of the three ideologies in the novels being similar but with differences - the only differences are in name and location in which they are exercised. The point is to show how the Party have exercised absolute control in focusing everyone on hatred of these ideals, while still practicing the same ideal at home, an example of their absolute control and doublethink - hating one ideal while being devoted to the same simply because it belongs to their nation rather than the enemy's. Nationalism at its finest, and an aspect of fascism, or communism as it has been practiced up until today in communist states.

Not at all- while the structures formed by the ideologies are identical, all three are crafted to appeal to their regional base.

I wouldn't be so sure given it's DMC 2. Chances are that you will like it UNTIL you play it.

It was alright. The third game was admittedly better, and, in my opinion, the best of the three.

But you have to be careful how to interpret that. Statistically, this is true - but the implication you're giving is that this is a direct result of reading the book, whereas I would propose that this is simply the case that the percentage of people who are communist among those who have read the Manifesto were communist before they even touched the book, and simply bought the book to better educate themselves about the ideology which they have already chosen. Not that they were capitalists until they read the book.

Not at all; your argument is contained within my own. If the sales are rising due to Communists wanting to educate themselves about Communism, does this not denote an increased number of Communists?

This point I disagree with, purely because of this particular recession meaning that people may be more willing to acquaint themselves with communism. So if there is an increase in people who support communism, it won't be the same percentage after the increase of those who read the book.

And as I have stated, it is reasonable to assume that the percentage of Communists is higher among those who have read The Communist Manifesto than it is among the general population, therefore, when a larger portion of the general population has read The Communist Manifesto it is reasonable to assume that the number of Communists have increased.

No, all of these sales do not translate into new Communists, or Communists at all. However, it is reasonable to assume that they point to an increase.

This is because, as Mein Kampf has been painted as evil by historians, and is generally unavailable for purchase as far as I'm aware anyway, it's more likely that historians will be the main readers anyway.

There's a still a Nazi/Fascist/white power population whom Mein Kampf still might apply to, however, it seems, in my personal experience, that the piece has been referenced primarily by those who oppose these movements, where the opposite seems true among leftist movements.

Well again, it's generally teenage rebellion.

I take no issue with teenage rebellion. I am a teenager, and I hold views which are obviously rebellious, effectively making me a member of this group. It's uninformed rebellion, from any age, or rebellion for the sake of rebellion which irks me.

I was a self-proclaimed communist a few years back, possibly out of simple teenage rebellion, possibly out of general ignorance, but now I don't really consider myself on eiher side of the communist or capitalist debate, as I embrace an ideal I see as superior to political debates on economic systems.

The system you support, as you explained it to me, is the most correct, flawless system possible. It is also the most idealistic and unrealistic. It does not require fail-safes which protect the rights of its people because it ignores the possibility of failure and corruption.

As I have said, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself, in his perfection, lowered himself from the great buffet in they sky, and came down to rule us directly, I would fully support your system. However, unless you have a perfect, god-like ruler, such as the FSM, a pure dictatorship will quickly fall into disarray, human rights would whither, and industry would slow.

Not to mention, you lack the ability or technology to even monitor all goings on and respond to it as you describe.

Those who vote for socialism or communism are generally better informed, I'd imagine, but I don't doubt a fair share of them are those aforementioned rebellious teenagers.

We are of all ages, sexes, colors, sexualities, religions, etc...

To put it bluntly - that's bull****. All it takes is one look at my criminal law notes to see that very few crimes are opposition to authority. Yes, they're crimes against the state, but nowhere near as many crimes as you make out are basically "if you disrespect authority you will be punished".

While some are direct disregard for or protest of authority, most are an attempt to gain authority within a system where an authority structure is presented.

An ordeal regarding capital in criminal law is damage to property. Whether that property belongs to the state, to individuals, or to everyone, criminal damage is still criminal damage. Theft would still be in placed in a communist regime, as you'd be taking something that belongs to everyone and attempting to take it for yourself, which would be unacceptable even in a truly communist regime without a state. Etc, etc.

How do you steal what does not belong to anyone? Stealing property from within a commune is as absurd as stealing someone's laughter. While you could propose operations which would rob people of the ability to laugh, however, there is little reason to execute a reform such as this, and one would have trouble gaining the support necessary to execute something like this.

Lying to people is hardly acceptable and if it's developed by the community then people will KNOW it's propaganda and consider those who make it an "authority".

Of course they'll know it's propaganda! A poster which states that "Eating babies isn't really conducive to progress within our community. Please don't." would be equivalent to a poster within a Catholic church which states that "Jesus really doesn't like it when you rape little boys." These are both messages which will generally be supported by the community, for obvious reason. Propaganda does not equate to a lie- propaganda is simply a message which, fairly obviously, promotes a specific concept.

The people who develop this propaganda are the entire community. The purely democratic council would carry over from the Socialist state, except that it would hold no power, and only exist to set production and consumption standards and requests, none of which are legally binding- rather they only exist to offer uniformity to those who wish to subscribe to it.

The Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four didn't have "law" as such, and there were therefore no crimes as a result, but as you can clearly see there was still authority.

Community-developed propaganda would therefore either be totally useless, or just as bad, if not worse, than a government that restricts certain actions but doesn't produce propaganda.

It seems all organizations, governments included, create propaganda- it is almost inherit in the concept of organization- the organization must develop a specific stance in which to organize around.

Again, those in charge of the rehabilitation would be regarded as an "authority".

I'm not sure how this is true. If you were to visit a consoler would you consider that consoler an authority figure?

And surely someone would have to be in charge of ensuring that the individual doesn't come back. Authority.

Not at all. This process would occur on an individualist basis. Let's say, you have, for example, a guy named Ron who enjoys the occasional baby eating session. The initial response from his communal suppliers would be "Oh, that Ron guy is a dick. I'm going to stop supplying whatever I supply to him." if Ron continues to eat babies those who know about his baby eating would respond by bringing the issue to council. Council could then take a vote on whether or not to send a warning to Ron about his baby eating habits which explains to him why the Community disagrees with his actions, and what the response will be if he does not stop, alternate suggestions to his actions (perhaps he could eat tofu babies?) and what rehabilitational efforts are available to him. Finally, if Ron still doesn't quit eating babies council can vote on a request asking all of the producers within the Community to stop supplying Ron with their products. At this point Ron will be effectively exiled from the Community. He will still be free to execute all freedoms, however, the products normally supplied to him by the Community would no longer be supplied to him.

"Crime" as it is now defined is nothing more than "an action prohibited by law which justifies a sanction by the state". Being as there would be no government, crime would clearly not exist, as there could be no law which prohibits actions. However, the idea of actions which society deems unacceptable will still exist, and will still be punished, so what you have is effectively the same as criminal law.

It will never be punished. These actions do not remove rights from Ron, they simply separate him from the community. (and do so at the discretion of each individual community member.)

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

ITT, people who don't relate chaos theory as being valid to complex economic systems.

I'm not sure if you understand what chaos theory is, as the ability to find easily recognizable patterns within all mathematical systems not only hardly applies, but really doesn't help your argument at all.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I'm not sure if you understand what chaos theory is, as the ability to find easily recognizable patterns within all mathematical systems not only hardly applies, but really doesn't help your argument at all.

read up a little bit before making statements as the above
chaos theory economics - Google Search

chaos theory dictates that many systems are so complex and hyper sensitive that certain outcomes will come off as seemingly random. Try coming up with an accurate, long term mathematical equation for production will you... actually come up with around 20 billion of them and make sure that their variables affect one another. At your disposal you have all the world's super computers, and 1,000,000 years worth of time. you have to pay for your own electricity and cooling though. I'm sure your working people will be glad to pour all their resources into your project, because their great great great great.... grandchildren will inherit all the information you've analyzed for your planned economic system...

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

So if you have such a high degree, you'll either go to work for the state, which makes you left-wing biased in your view, or a privately owned company. Who would probably want to vote conservative so that they don't have to pay so much tax. Or do you not allow for the possibility of conservatives being biased? UNTHINKABLE!

how many people have you provided jobs for?

You should be the last one to insult another's intelligence or lack of knowledge on certain subject matters, nighthawk.