The idea of Communism is that all workers have equal 'shares' of the company for which they work, so that wealth is spread and all people become equal in status. However a company begins with the construction of a premises, and this must lead to builders having a monopoly of shares within all structures. Is this not a problem that leads once again to a monopolized 'state'?

The idea of Communism is that all workers have equal 'shares' of the company for which they work, so that wealth is spread and all people become equal in status. ....

No! Communism is NOT about "equal" shares for everyone. It's about providing the worker in accordance with his abilities and work efforts. Lazy workers don't get the same "share" as those who work hard and efficently.

I don't understand the remainder of your post, but I'd suggest that you do some research on "communism" before you make public assertions about it.

Baron Max

I'd suggest that you do some research on "communism" before you make public assertions about it. Could you provide me with any good links that might help me expand my current interest? I've read parts of the Communist manifesto which is from where I have drawn my assertions, but I have some problems understanding exactly how communism would (or does) work.

it will never work in our current society because every time there has been a communist revolution, their has been a power hungry capitalist ready to use communist as a guise for employing slaves to keep them wealthy.

communism is nothing more than an ideal because of the corruption in our society. as long as people continue to believe that they are better than everyone else, communism but a far off dream. equality is not in the nature of man, so until we can change man, we will be doomed to spend our lives living in this capitalist shithole corporate dictatorship.

The idea of Communism is that all workers have equal 'shares' of the company for which they work, so that wealth is spread and all people become equal in status. However a company begins with the construction of a premises, and this must lead to builders having a monopoly of shares within all structures. Is this not a problem that leads once again to a monopolized 'state'?

What do you mean by "premise"?

People, could we improve our writing skills a bit? Thanks.

...every time there has been a communist revolution, their [there] has been a power hungry capitalist ready to use communist as a guise for employing slaves to keep them wealthy.

My current conclusion is very similar: I conclude that communism will not work because people's motives will always be monetary.

What do you mean by "premise[s]"? I mean a place of work; a building. Someone must construct such a thing, and since a builder's produce is the company itself, he must have partial ownership of it and it's produce, unless he agrees to build simply for a fee.

no, following your line of thought, a builder would have not more ownership over a building than a factory worker would over a machine produced there.

The idea of Communism is that all workers have equal 'shares' of the company for which they work, so that wealth is spread and all people become equal in status. However a company begins with the construction of a premises, and this must lead to builders having a monopoly of shares within all structures. Is this not a problem that leads once again to a monopolized 'state'?

If the 'builders' own part of what they construct, then more they construct, the less they need commodities or the land portion as fixed assets if you think about it fromt the perspective of "from whom according to his ability, to whom according to his need."

I am not sure on how you define the monopoly of the state, but yes, since the Aristotelian definition of the state is the proletariat base (the "dictatorship") in communist theory, then yes everybody owns every single piece of property.

Implementing this is not realistic for today's socially immature conditions.

...a builder would have not more ownership over a building than a factory worker would over a machine produced there. But they should have revenue from what is produced?

If the 'builders' own part of what they construct, then more they construct, the less they need commodities or the land portion as fixed assets... Exactly. But 'builders' will not need to construct more because they will have an income from what is already constructed.

I mean a place of work; a building. Someone must construct such a thing, and since a builder's produce is the company itself, he must have partial ownership of it and it's produce, unless he agrees to build simply for a fee.

The government owns everything, there are no shares, and the term monopoly dosnt apply either; thats a term used in the capitolist system.

No! Communism is NOT about "equal" shares for everyone. It's about providing the worker in accordance with his abilities and work efforts. Lazy workers don't get the same "share" as those who work hard and efficently.

The actual system for communism is you work as much as you want for as much money as you want. so basically people work for personal growth, or out of patriotic thought, as income dosnt exist, everything is free. Hence a powerful propoganda machine is needed as the one in the days of the USSR, so people become patriotic enough to accept the system.

And again "share" is inapplicable to the situation.

The government owns everything... It is my understanding that Marxist theory predicts Communism should lead to the abolition of government, since there will not be any private property.

But they should have revenue from what is produced?
...'builders' will not need to construct more because they will have an income from what is already constructed.

In capitalism, it works that way.

In communism, the builder is a volunteer for constructing edifices. That means he/she asks for nothing in return, so they don't necessarily get the revenue that is produced, and willingly so because their passion is not in the revenue, but in construction. This is the concept of the liberation of productivity; a man can paint, farm, or research without ever having to become a painter, farmer, or researcher, respectively.

As you can easily see, most people don't think that way today. This is why communism, in the present, will not work. The implementation of communism requires a shift in perspective and material conditions.

It is my understanding that Marxist theory predicts Communism should lead to the abolition of government, since there will not be any private property.

This is true. However, a government is almost always necessary to efficiently mobilize large-scale efforts. Until the time when a non-conscious computer system can effectively suffice as an artificial substitute, humans will continue to rely on government.

It is my understanding that Marxist theory predicts Communism should lead to the abolition of government, since there will not be any private property.

1. Thats marxism

2."Communism should lead to the abolition of government, since there will not be any private property"

that statment is almost an oxymoron, it makes no sence.

your mixing socialism and anarchy into one.

Originally posted by Facial:
In communism, the builder is a volunteer for constructing edifices. That means he/she asks for nothing in return, so they don't necessarily get the revenue that is produced, and willingly so because their passion is not in the revenue, but in construction. This is the concept of the liberation of productivity; a man can paint, farm, or research without ever having to become a painter, farmer, or researcher, respectively. So to view this theory from a starting perspective everyone must become a farmer and a builder first (so they may eat and have somewhere to live), and then they may follow their passions? Is this correct?

Originally posted by Odin'Izm:
That[']s marxism Well Marx co-wrote the Communist Manifesto so I'm guessing the two are closely linked.

Originally posted by Odin'Izm:
that statment is almost an oxymoron, it makes no sence. [sense] In what way?

Originally posted by Odin'izm:
you[']r[e] mixing socialism and anarchy into one. Am I???

yep

in that way

yes

So to view this theory from a starting perspective everyone must become a farmer and a builder first (so they may eat and have somewhere to live), and then they may follow their passions? Is this correct?

You are correct.

The basis sustenance of living is essential. Therefore, some people must volunteer to collect the garbage, some people must milk the cows, some people must supervise the power stations.

Nobody really has a passion for any of those menial jobs (maybe with the exception of farming for a few), but the fact remains that they have to be done. Science and art are accessory, but most people's passions will lie in these fields.

I believe the central tenet of communism is:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx
Which sounds good on its face, but leads to starvation, misery, oppresion, and death whenever it is applied. Communism is contrary to human nature and is, in practice, simply an excuse for brutal dictatorships.

Are you people still talking about communism?!!

Jeez. Wake up people.
We won!!!
The commies are in the past.

We are all now free to work for minimum wage, dream about getting rich while our life passes us by and all we manage is to own a home and a couple of cars, which we have to work long hours to maintain.

We are living in Capitalisms promised utopia. As we were told, the resources necessary to defeat them pinko-Commies, can now be used for the benefit of the Corporation so that we can feed off of their trickle-down saliva, and praise the Lord, God almighty, that we were so blessed so as to defeat them heathen Russians before they took our freedom and property away.

All we freedom-fighters should be proud that we participated, in some small way, in maintaining the forces that are now leading us towards Globalization and liberty.
All we working-men should pat each other on the back and congratulate ourselves for resisting Communism so that we can now enjoy the freedom to buy chips, and Coca-Cola, and we can idly wallow away our lives in front of the T.V. dreaming of a better tomorrow where we can all be rich and famous.

We are living in Capitalisms promised utopia. As we were told, the resources necessary to defeat them pinko-Commies, can now be used for the benefit of the Corporation so that we can feed off of their trickle-down saliva, and praise the Lord, God almighty, that we were so blessed so as to defeat them heathen Russians before they took our freedom and property away.
Sadly, the utopia only lasted about ten years. The resources once used to defeat those commie, pinko bastards must now be used to defeat the Islamofascists. As Jefferson said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

Posted by Facial

You are correct.

The basis sustenance of living is essential. Therefore, some people must volunteer to collect the garbage, some people must milk the cows, some people must supervise the power stations. So a lottery of sorts (such as drawing straws) would decide who must do these jobs, or else a rota system whereby the jobs are exchanged weekly or even daily. This last system however will lead to less skilled labour.

Nobody really has a passion for any of those menial jobs (maybe with the exception of farming for a few), but the fact remains that they have to be done. Some jobs have to be done but who's to say who has to do them? Someone stuck with a menial task may refuse and set off to build their own house, farm their own food, and raise their own family. Could they not find a more meaningful and passionate existence in that way? Eventually the children may come to do the menial work while the parents may experience science and art.

Posted by madanthonywayne
[I] "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Karl Marx
Is that quote really a communist sentiment?

No! Communism is NOT about "equal" shares for everyone. It's about providing the worker in accordance with his abilities and work efforts. Lazy workers don't get the same "share" as those who work hard and efficently.

I don't understand the remainder of your post, but I'd suggest that you do some research on "communism" before you make public assertions about it.

Baron Max

That's what I thought as well when I read the original post. What was it again... "For each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Something like that.

Okay, but if you don't work you don't eat? What about unemployment rates?

So a lottery of sorts (such as drawing straws) would decide who must do these jobs, or else a rota system whereby the jobs are exchanged weekly or even daily. This last system however will lead to less skilled labour.

Some jobs have to be done but who's to say who has to do them? Someone stuck with a menial task may refuse and set off to build their own house, farm their own food, and raise their own family. Could they not find a more meaningful and passionate existence in that way? Eventually the children may come to do the menial work while the parents may experience science and art.

Is that quote really a communist sentiment?

Jobs will be conducted and performed in rotation. However, rotation after only a few days may lead to poor efficiency, since not much time is devoted to the acquisition of skills in that particular menial task. A person may develop more skill in a job if rotation is done over several weeks to a month. It is like timing of traffic lights for the optimization of traffic flow. People will become multi-skilled unlike today's worker. Everybody essentially agrees with everybody else on who and when to pick the garbage, clean the sewers, and sweep the streets, as well as when to rotate.

Children can labor, but it is imperative that they do not strain themselves for more than say, at most, several hours because of health concerns. That being said, adults will inherently perform the vast majority of menial work. Child labor and child abuse is not tolerated under communism.

And yes, the quote posted by madanthonywayne does reflect communist sentiment, although it is subject to great pessimistic criticism.

My problem is this Facial: why must we spend a lifetime working for a household, simply because someone else has claimed the land? In reality a suitable building could be constructed relatively cheaply and relatively quickly, and more time could then be devoted to other tasks.

What do you mean by "someone else has claimed the land?"

The idea of Communism is that all workers have equal 'shares' of the company for which they work, so that wealth is spread and all people become equal in status. However a company begins with the construction of a premises, and this must lead to builders having a monopoly of shares within all structures. Is this not a problem that leads once again to a monopolized 'state'?
Ah, no. :eek: Communism isn't all that great. I'm not a fan of Capitalism either. Socialism is the way to be. It's WAY more equal then communism. I would never want to live in a communist country.

Socialism is the way to be. It's WAY more equal then communism.

What does a socialist nation do if/when all of the workers just decide not to work and begin to take their sustenance from the state? Who pays for it all then? And surely you don't believe in forcing people to work if they don't want to work, do you? Yet you seem to believe that they should be given the necessities of life even when they don't work. How do you reconcile that in a socialist nation?

Baron Max

Pardon my joining mid-conversation, but this is a really interesting topic to me and I would like to present another point-of-view, if I may.

It seems that those who would advocate socialism and/or communism do not fairly acknowledge the nature of humans (maybe even the entire animal kingdom?). It may be a different discussion, but it seems that the nature of man is much more... darwinistic than socialists/communists care to admit. In the animal kingdom, there are always those who are stronger or faster getting a larger share of the zebra, bison, etc. This is the very basic philosophy of capitalism as I understand it: those who work harder, smarter, or faster are rewarded more than those who work weaker, more foolishly, or slower. I make no claims about the moral correctness of such a position, I'm just saying that maybe the reason socialism/communism fails is due to human nature?

Of course that isn't the only reason, just one perspective that people don't really like to examine since it places blame on our very nature as humans.

Unrelated, but it is my understanding that a correct analogy is: socialism is to capitalism as communism is to democracy; that is, socialism is an economic philosphy and communism is a political one. Or have those meanings been superceded by new ones?

-C.

What does a socialist nation do if/when all of the workers just decide not to work and begin to take their sustenance from the state? Who pays for it all then? And surely you don't believe in forcing people to work if they don't want to work, do you? Yet you seem to believe that they should be given the necessities of life even when they don't work. How do you reconcile that in a socialist nation?

Baron Max

What if people in a capitalist nation decide to all stop working?

What if people in a capitalist nation decide to all stop working?

leading to occult and surrendering thoughts which trigger political chaos.

regards,

loki

Okay, since I've yet to see it expressed accurately:

Communism is a theoretical social system where the means of production are commonly owned or, more expansively, a social system with no private ownership at all.

Of course, pure communism has never actually been implemented, most societies who have tried have only been able to accomplish varying degrees of socialism.

The main failure of communism, in practice, is that you merely replace the function of capital with political clout. You therefore wind up with the same economic disparities (or often worse) as a capitalistic society.

The secondary failure (as Chryso mentioned) is that it does not account for basic human nature. The simple question is; why should I work harder, longer, faster, better, etc. when I don't get compensated for the extra effort?

~Raithere

Succinctly put Raithere, which is roughly why I am more of a socialist. As for why work faster, harder etc, do we not see that in times of total effort during war, eg WW2?

We worked harder in WW2 because most of our armed forces, people's family members, were stuck overseas. If we hadn't worked harder, we probably wouldn't have gotten them back alive. They were in a position similar to hostages, actually. On top of that, if we really screwed up, we would suddenly find ourselves speaking german or japanese overnight.

Thats correct, so, exactly how much is that different from working harder at building roads, making more cars, building houses that your friends will be buying, etc etc?

Or in other words, it is possible. But leftie liberal though I am,I am not convinced it is possible to create a society where it happens all the time. We shall see though.

Posted by Facial
What do you mean by "someone else has claimed the land?" One could not simply find a space of land and begin to build upon it because all land is owned by somebody or some organisation.
Posted by Chryso
...the reason socialism/communism fails is due to human nature? Precisely my point. Even under 'communism' the harder worker receives more financial reward, which is a Capitalist notion.

It's about providing the worker in accordance with his abilities and work efforts.

Have you a clue? It is a promise of socialism, not communism.
Communism is a dream of idiot, that is all you must know about it.

e :D s

If you lock the doors of your home you're neither a true socialist or a true communist.

If there are no people whom you don't know living in your home you're neither a true socialist or a true communist.

If you have a software/hardware firewall, an anti-virus scanner, or an adware/malware/trojan scanner on your computer you're not a true socialist or a true communist.

If you have to steal from someone else to make up for your own inadequacies, or rely on someone else to steal it for you, you're a true socialist and/or a true communist.

If you break into my home on the pretense of being a good socialist or a good communist, you'll at best lose to a convergence of applied physics, chemistry, metallurgy, psychology and sport.

If you have to steal from someone else to make up for your own inadequacies, or rely on someone else to steal it for you, you're a true socialist and/or a true communist.

If you break into my home on the pretense of being a good socialist or a good communist, you'll at best lose to a convergence of applied physics, chemistry, metallurgy, psychology and sport.

This makes a good sense too ;)

es

And, more directly, bloodloss.

there is only one problem with Communism... it wants to force its way onto people... and so.. crush Capatilism..

there is only one thing wrong with Capatilism... it wants to force its way onto people... and so.. crush communism..

i say we can have both... side by side.. in all cities across the world.

thus.. allowing the free market... and yet preventing the poverty that it allows by allowing for the security and unity of communes for the benefit of the poorest of the poor... and some of the slightly poor who are leftist.

-MT

Indeed, and there are already cities in this world that have this. Let's wait for the rest to see the light. No, wait...they won't.

Viva la revolution!!

Communism, if you want to apply the term to these examples, only worked well in cultures like Native American and Shaker communities.

The Native Americans had very low population densities and a very benign environment. Combine that with a mobile hunter-gatherer type lifestyle, small-group dynamics and low technology. They had no impetus to develop the ideas of production ownership, class division or money. The system was stable for thousands of years until the Europeans showed up and destroyed them.

The Shakers pursued a communal life through ideology, not circumstance. Their religious outlook matched up with the general tenets of communism, but was very clearly not for everyone. Nor was their culture sustainable, what with the celibacy and all.

Early Indo-European life was quite probably communistic - I'm talking prehistory, Stonehenge-era people. Similar in some senses to Native American existence but likely to resemble more closely the Shaker life on a technological and animal-husbandry basis. The question arises - what was it that prodded those cultures into the capitalist way of life?

I suggest (and it's not my original thought, of course) that Europe and the Middle East had a geography and a climate that provoked change. Limited fertile areas, easily-navigated interior waterways and seas, and other stressors propelled the culture into the capitalist mode.

Or attack mode, depending on your perspective.

well its really very simple... there are 3 million homeless people in the USA..

thats 1%....

as it is today, they are just left to die..... in the gutter.. eating trash..

so whats wrong with forming a vast commune system to prevent that?

nothing... all we need to do is redifine Communism... literally...

as i do for you, now.....

I would here by Re-define Communism..: ready?... ok....

Communism: (1) "Pertaining to those who choose to, of their own accord, form commune's.. designed for mutual support and security, and activily pursues the efforts to eleviate all suffering, as such are the directives of Love." (2) "A point of view, or political opinion which dictates that is it better for people to live and work together, organised as one big family, who shares and cares, rather than trades and profits off each other."
(3) A phylosophy which dictates : "We need not force the wealthy to become poor to help the poor... We need only organise the poor together in love, sharing and compassion, such that with large numbers and continued effort, there shall be no need for poverty any more, I.e... the reason people are poor and homeless, is because no one fucking cares about them, and of all people, the Communist does."
(4) Commune-ism is clearly founded in the ideals of forming Communes for mutual benefit, and in the establishment of, in this way, socialist pockets of paradise, and which functions to eliviate the suffering and drawback of the free/ fair markets world.
(5) An ideal wherein people organise themselves for love, security, and long term survivability. Such as, the basic Tribe mentality.
(6) An ideal that just so happens to be the way Jesus said to live, as well as many other world religions in many different ways.

-MT

...
Get a clue, communism is an idea of fools that is bound to become murderous as it does not work being totally idiotic.

e :D s

yes... that is why i had to redefine it.. to remove the conflict and hate part..
and add the love and compassion part.

get it.

-MT

yes... that is why i had to redefine it.. to remove the conflict and hate part.. and add the love and compassion part.

You apparently think that shit can be redefined in a way that it tastes good for you

e :D s

the idea is simple... if you dont like commune living.. thenn you dont have to....

simple.. you are free in the free world..

but if you fall into the gutter... then wouldnt it be nice if there was a socialist paradise in each community which cared enough about its fellow human as brothers and sisters that it would take you in.. treat you like family..
feed, house, educate, train, and assist you in many ways to return to the free world...

or simply allow for your long term continued existance in the commune.

in this way... only those who want to... have communism..
and those that want capatilism have it .... both at the same time...

and all we need to do is take the revolution out of communism...
and the oppression our of capatilism....

just build communes... communes dedicated to Love and compassion as all our world religions teach us to do.. generally.... thus communism becomes a religious thing.

-MT

just build communes... communes dedicated to Love and compassion as all our world religions teach us to do.. generally.... thus communism becomes a religious thing. May I ask, where the commune members are going to work? Just kiss each other all the day? Who will protect them against thieves ?

e :D s

just build communes... communes dedicated to Love and compassion as all our world religions teach us to do.. generally.... thus communism becomes a religious thing.

And what do we do about human frailties and faults ...just suck 'em out of people so they feel nothing but love and compassion? No feelings of jealousy? No feelings of lust? No feelings of greed? ....etc?

You paint a nice picture, but then you fuck it all up by putting humans in it!

Baron Max

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51045

see that thread... as it answers most of what you two asked.

-MT

a brotherhood dedicated to following Jesus, by doing as Jesus said to do. Loving, caring, sharing and living as one giant family.

You do not have a slightest clue what Jesus has taught. Your 'interpretation" is even more idiotic than Marx's.

e :D s

Who pays for it all then? And surely you don't believe in forcing people to work if they don't want to work, do you? Yet you seem to believe that they should be given the necessities of life even when they don't work. How do you reconcile that in a socialist nation?

Baron Max

Good point, but it's been working pretty well for most countrys. I just like that everyone seems to be on the same level as everyone else. I mean with Capitalism it's sort of like every man for themself sort of thing.

Good point, but it's been working pretty well for most countrys.

Name a few where it's been working pretty well.

I just like that everyone seems to be on the same level as everyone else.

And where, exactly, would such a place be? Please give me a list of such places.

Baron Max

You do not have a slightest clue what Jesus has taught. Your 'interpretation" is even more idiotic than Marx's.

e :D s

oh please... educate me... what did Jesus say? hummmmm???

-MT

Name a few where it's been working pretty well.



And where, exactly, would such a place be? Please give me a list of such places.

Baron Max

It's working quite well here in Germany.

Yes, there maybe problems with Socialism. But Capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Communism may work, but I don't see how anyone would be happy with it. What's the point of having communism if your not happy with it? I wouldn't like someone telling me how to run my life.
Capitalism can be really great. You can get yourself too be a rich person, but what about the other people who aren't as fortunate? Not everyone can be rich and we should have care for everyone, not just the big wigs in our nation.
How many people get as lucky as Paris Hilton? (And don't even tell me she worked for what she got) Not many!

socialism.. is half communist, and half Capatilists...

the problem then... is it forces all to be Socialist.

if we had... the free market capatilism, and communism at the same time in the same cities... then we have both... and there is no need for conflict.

in this communist take on the role of social charity... not by giving handouts..
but by offering a socialist paradise to live and work in... key word.. work.

and no one is forced into anything.. and yet we can all live as we choose..

-MT

if we had... the free market capatilism, and communism at the same time in the same cities... then we have both... and there is no need for conflict.

in this communist take on the role of social charity... not by giving handouts.. but by offering a socialist paradise to live and work in... key word.. work.

Work? But why work when everything is free for the asking? And, if it's free for the asking, then who pays for all those things?

and no one is forced into anything.. and yet we can all live as we choose..

And no one forces anyone to work? ...and everything is free? ...and the money just grows on money trees?

Baron Max

Communism is a collective dumbing down. No wonder it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Communism is a collective dumbing down. No wonder it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Yeah, but the same is true of socialism! Humans simply need to strife, to work hard to gain something that their fellows don't have ...it's our natural competitiveness. And capitalism simply works best with "animals" like humans!

Capitalism, however, will go completely overboard if allowed to run it's natural course .....and Bill Gates or someone like him will control every single thing on the entire planet! So there must be some controls ....what kind and to what extent is open to question/debate.

I'd also like to suggest that the mix of socialism and capitalism is a very poor mixture ....it's much like oil and water -- you can attempt to mix 'em, but in the end, they'll separate into their component parts.

Baron Max

since nothing is forced... those who refuse to work...

and who want to live in the gutter and beg for change.... can do so.

but when they get tired of it, they would then have an option. a commune..

one that is religious... but doesnt force any views on anyone... and has only one requirement.. everyone works, as they are able...

and said commune doesnt provide all you want... only what you need...

and it is paid for... with hard labor.. and buisness profits..

buisnesses it would own... and use to employ its members.

-MT

You guys you still have to work! If my dad decided to stop working today, and we weren't making any money we'd end up homeless. Soicalism doesn't do *everything* for you.

exactly... the point of the commune.. is that it acts like a loving Uncle...

who gives you a job, and helps you no matter what...

and if you fuck it up... he will find you another job..
it may not be what you want... but it is better than the gutter.

-MT

the point of the commune.. is that it acts like a loving Uncle... who gives you a job, and helps you no matter what...
Where from the job that "commune" gives come? If the commune does not produce anything as a whole, who is going to support it? If if does participate in the larger society, how can it afford more parasites than the larger society already has?

You are fishing for fools, as all communism preachers are, in order to parasite on them.

e :D s

Im not fishing for anything....

I know for a fact... that 999 out of 1000 wont even think about biting.


most civilized men are weak and small...

-MT

Im not fishing for anything....
I know for a fact... that 999 out of 1000 wont even think about biting.
most civilized men are weak and small...
Sure, not biting in the old fashioned way. But contemporary commie parasites are eager to suck blood through straw of help.

e :D s

Communism is a collective dumbing down. No wonder it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Thats why it still exists in some form in 12 countries

I say we can have our cake and eat it too.... but both sides dont want to...

they want it all or nothing....

hence the problem.

-MT

I say we can have our cake and eat it too.... So you are lying

we can have our cake and eat it too, if we have more than one cake.....

-MT

we can have our cake and eat it too, if we have more than one cake... What you mean really: if you steal the cake again

e :cool: s

no... but when we get to baking... we should simple plan for twice as many cakes...

so we can all eat one and have one...

likewise... we should build and have the free market... but also at the same time build communes for those who fall from the free world...
in this way they dont hit the gutter... they hit helping hands...

in this way, we have both.. capitalism and communism...
and everyone is happy, and we have sovled the economic problems of every society.

simply by incourageing the free market, but for those who dont fit in, or dont have the means... they can survive and prosper accordingly to their pariticipation is group efforts put forth in the communes.

thus we have made two cakes... and one we can pig out on, and the other we keep preserved for emergencies.. and we simply make more cakes as needed.

-MT

no... but when we get to baking... we should simple plan for twice as many cakes... Plan? I knew you into stuff..

So you are saying you will steal flour for tree cakes, one give to commune members, one eat yourself, and still have a cake to show around?

e :D s

uummm.... no... i dont like cake.
-MT

i dont like cake.
Your commune is called asylum, and communists - inmates and guards

Pardon my joining mid-conversation, but this is a really interesting topic to me and I would like to present another point-of-view, if I may.

It seems that those who would advocate socialism and/or communism do not fairly acknowledge the nature of humans (maybe even the entire animal kingdom?). It may be a different discussion, but it seems that the nature of man is much more... darwinistic than socialists/communists care to admit. In the animal kingdom, there are always those who are stronger or faster getting a larger share of the zebra, bison, etc. This is the very basic philosophy of capitalism as I understand it: those who work harder, smarter, or faster are rewarded more than those who work weaker, more foolishly, or slower. I make no claims about the moral correctness of such a position, I'm just saying that maybe the reason socialism/communism fails is due to human nature?

Of course that isn't the only reason, just one perspective that people don't really like to examine since it places blame on our very nature as humans.

Unrelated, but it is my understanding that a correct analogy is: socialism is to capitalism as communism is to democracy; that is, socialism is an economic philosphy and communism is a political one. Or have those meanings been superceded by new ones?

-C.

Good post. What you say here basically exposes the heart of the matter : what human nature exactly is. As for your second question - socialism, communism, and capitalism are basically systems of economy, but it is almost always entails how society operates itself. Democracy pertains to a system of government. It appears to me that the three socioeconomic systems of the former 'compete' for the most robust social implementation of democracy. So far, capitalist and socialist systems make good democracies. The self-proclaimed communist democracies (N. Korea) are generally out of league, but I'll have to do more research before I can say more.

There are motifs that are found for both sides in nature : what you envision is that of lions competing for the kill and the pack of wolves competing for the title of alpha male. It is true that a significant portion of human nature mirrors this type of Darwinism.

But then what about other animals such as ants, dolphins, gorillas, etc? These don't have a clearly defined hierarchy, and they work primarily through efforts of the group. Again, humans also exhibit certain aspects of this type of communal effort (i.e. the family), although I do admit that at present, evidence does suggest that the former concept seems to dominate individual consciousness.

Cognitive research also suggests the same at present, but I am faily confident that the stages of research are primitive enough to be inconclusive. The very fact that we can already anticipate a higher society than what currently exists is, in itself, provocative.

Originally posted by Mosheh Thezion
everyone works, as they are able... Sounds like a good idea; a commune that lives off it's produce and trades it's excess for other necessities. However some form of authority would be needed within the commune to maintain order. Perhaps a 'police force' of sorts, but then this commune may be defined as a prison.

Sounds like a good idea; a commune that lives off it's produce and trades it's excess for other necessities. However some form of authority would be needed within the commune to maintain order. Perhaps a 'police force' of sorts, but then this commune may be defined as a prison.

Well, you don't have to call it a "prison" ...it would be just another form of society that needs laws and rules and some form of enforcement of those laws and rules. And the minute you have those laws and rules, it becomes the same/similar as all other societies that have ever existed.

Whenever people think or consider any form of "utopia", they always fail to take into account people who might not be just like themselves! Or worse, they fail to take into account the reality of human nature and human weakness and human greed and human selfishness ...which are the things that make us all human!

Baron Max

I just read through the last 2 pages or so.

Basically, I have 3 issues w/ communism - which IS an economic AND political system [as defined by Marx & Engels] - where the workers own the means of production.

Here are the issues:
- How exactly does the system transform from, "each according to his work" to, "each according to his needs."?
- How does the state, "wither away"?
- Is anyone else troubled by the central act of bringing the system into being, namely the liquidation of the Bourgeoisie? Sure, they're exploiters and all but it seems odd to found this "just" system on what is basically a premeditated atrocity.

Would any actual communists care to respond?

Barkhorn.

I- How exactly does the system transform from, "each according to his work" to, "each according to his needs."?

Basically, the system needs a non-hostile response from capitalism (which hasn't happened) and a shift in perception for a majority of the population to realize the material conditions of society. This might happen once the gradual transition to a euro-socialist system is realized, but the political status quo in America leads me to doubt its immediate implementation.


- How does the state, "wither away"?
The state withers away in one of two ways compatible with what I have seen as human nature thus far - 1. Electronic replacement of governmental functions to regulate large-scale human needs 2. The reduction of the state as a source of authority to one of voluntary representation.

- Is anyone else troubled by the central act of bringing the system into being, namely the liquidation of the Bourgeoisie? Sure, they're exploiters and all but it seems odd to found this "just" system on what is basically a premeditated atrocity.

The premeditated atrocities have come as a result of serious mistakes in the implementation of communism. The main mistake was going too fast.

Most communists have good intentions and good optimism. Lenin realized he was going too fast from the rural protest, so he set up the NEP, but then came Stalin. Mao also had good intentions in the early 1950s, but his optimism was soured after the Hundred Flowers campaign, and thereafter never realized he was going too fast and resulted in the deaths of millions.
Pol Pot and Kim Sung Il never understood communism.

I just read through the last 2 pages or so.

Basically, I have 3 issues w/ communism - which IS an economic AND political system [as defined by Marx & Engels] - where the workers own the means of production.

Here are the issues:
- How exactly does the system transform from, "each according to his work" to, "each according to his needs."?
- How does the state, "wither away"?
- Is anyone else troubled by the central act of bringing the system into being, namely the liquidation of the Bourgeoisie? Sure, they're exploiters and all but it seems odd to found this "just" system on what is basically a premeditated atrocity.

Would any actual communists care to respond?

Barkhorn.

ummm.... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51045

also..


you do know i redefined communism to solve for these things...

and why does the state need to whither away...? i know.. i know...
but im not telling you that... marx and mao maybe... but not me.

we can trust our leaders... be them communist or capatilists...

all we need do, is ask them to... do one simple thing...

TAKE A VOW OF RELATIVE POVERTY FOR LIFE.

that means lower middle class is as high as you can ever go...
you will as such be maintained or assisted in maintaining that basic level..

only in this way can we trust our officials with all our money... and lives.


'cause if they fuck up... they dont get to hide away with riches..
they arent allowed to ever have any.... ever.
-MT

The premeditated atrocities have come as a result of serious mistakes in the implementation of communism. The main mistake was going too fast...Most communists have good intentions and good optimism. .
You do not understand, that communism is a dream of an idiot. It CAN NOT be implemented in a reasonable way. ANY implementation of it is and can only be a disaster.

e :cool: s

I figured I would get the following types of responses:

- Gibberish:
Basically, the system needs a non-hostile response from capitalism (which hasn't happened) and a shift in perception for a majority of the population to realize the material conditions of society.


- Feeble attempts to “rework” the model:
we can trust our leaders... be them communist or capatilists...

all we need do, is ask them to... do one simple thing...

TAKE A VOW OF RELATIVE POVERTY FOR LIFE.

- Apologetics:
Mao also had good intentions in the early 1950s, but his optimism was soured after the Hundred Flowers campaign, and thereafter never realized he was going too fast and resulted in the deaths of millions.
Pol Pot and Kim Sung Il never understood communism.

…and I was not disappointed.


The brainwashed Utopian can never admit that a perfect society absolutely presupposes perfect people – and this world has precious few of those – if any.


“From each according to his needs?” OK, what does one do about the lazy, the criminal, those that don’t fit in? They will still “need”, but they will refuse to contribute. How does the communist model cope with these people? Short answer = it cannot, as it totally misreads human nature and assumes some sort of super altruism expressed by everyone, always. Sure.

“The state will wither away?” OK, what does one do about entrenched bureaucracies that know better than everyone else? How does the communist model cope with dictators? Short answer = it CREATES them as – again – it totally misreads human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“Liquidation of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a ‘just’ society.” I want to stress this point as it goes to the core flaw of the communist model. A “new” society based on a premeditated atrocity cannot lay claim to any moral high ground. Further, precedents, once set, tend to perpetuate. First it is the capitalist bloodsuckers that are liquidated, then those who cling to their pitiful patch of land, then intellectuals who would corrupt the revolution, then those who don’t evince enough revolutionary fervor. It never ends, as – again – you cannot build a Utopia with inferior human material.

You people who actually believe this nonsense scare me as much as any Islamist - as you share so much in common – especially the infallible righteousness of your belief system.

Extrasense is right and you people really should get out more.

Barkhorn.

Bark... your still stuck on having one or the other...

why cant we just have both...?

-MT

why cant we just have both...?
YOU CAN NOT HAVE COMMUNISM, period

ahhh..... but we can have communes.... same thing.. just smaller scale.
and so.. there is no need for conflict.

-MT

ahhh..... but we can have communes.... same thing.. just smaller scale. ... and so.. there is no need for conflict.

Wherever there are more than a few humans, there will be conflict. It's unavoidable, it's in our nature to be selfish and greedy and individualistic. And as such, the conflicts arise over the simplest, most foolish issues.

Mosheh, if you want to change things, you first have to face the realities of the human animal ...you can't just dream up a loving, compassionate, caring, helpful human to show how things COULD be. Anyone can dream pretty dreams, but making realities work with the dreams or to change human nature is a bit more difficult.

Baron Max

Wherever there are more than a few humans, there will be conflict. It's unavoidable, it's in our nature to be selfish and greedy and individualistic. And as such, the conflicts arise over the simplest, most foolish issues.
.... if you want to change things, you first have to face the realities of the human animal ...you can't just dream up a loving, compassionate, caring, helpful human to show how things COULD be. Anyone can dream pretty dreams, but making realities work with the dreams or to change human nature is a bit more difficult. This is actually an attempt to cheat, and so make things better for the crooked propagandist - not for those who suffer.
Even Christ does not ask to love your neighbour more than yourself, just as much, as yourself.

The communists are crooks and parasites, nothing less nothing more.

e ;) s

Baron.... you are mislead... and i fear for your immortal self.


Extra... only the communists in charge have been so...
they have allowed high standards of livings for themselves...

but the ideal socialist man in the ranks.... he is not a criminal, nor your enemy.

there is no conflict..... soon you will understand.

-MT

Communist radicals are a pain in the neck!

The communists are crooks and parasites, nothing less nothing more.e ;) s
Communism is an ideology, and any ideology becomes oppressive when it is applied forcefully on the others. The problem with ideologies is that they are often far removed from the reality.

tell that to the capitalists.

Them too!

Buddha (the real one!) suggested to take the middle path.

.....without worrying too much about the ideologies and isms or getting bound to them as our identities, we should take what is helpful and positive, and reject the rest.

ahhh... the middle path....

both capatilist and communist... but not socialist.

-MT

The brainwashed Utopian can never admit that a perfect society absolutely presupposes perfect people – and this world has precious few of those – if any.

Barkhorn, how do you define a perfect person???

And how do you define human nature? This is the core of the argument here.

Communism is an ideology, and any ideology becomes oppressive when it is applied forcefully on the others. The problem with ideologies is that they are often far removed from the reality.

One should take note that capitalism itself is an ideology. A businessman sells a product under the consent of the consumer, and they both benefit off the transaction. A win-win situation, right?

But how does this devolve into class divisions, exploitation, corporate abuse, U.S. imperialism, and lobbyists who shift the perspectives of science and reality? In other words, capitalism is a system that is lovely on the outside and quite rotten on the inside. That is not to imply that communism is the opposite, since it has never been implemented.

it/communism/ has never been implemented.

The dream of the village idiot Marx could not ever and will not ever be implemented.
It is like quantum computing, a way to cheat you out of your pants.

e :D s

how do you define human nature?. You do not define human nature. Like nature of the World around us, it is given and must be understood. Get it?

e :D s

You do not define human nature. Like nature of the World around us, it is given and must be understood. Get it?


No, I don't get it. Care to explain more?

No, I don't get it. Care to explain more? Which part do you not get, human or nature ?

One should take note that capitalism itself is an ideology. A businessman sells a product under the consent of the consumer, and they both benefit off the transaction. A win-win situation, right?

But how does this devolve into class divisions, exploitation, corporate abuse, U.S. imperialism, and lobbyists who shift the perspectives of science and reality? In other words, capitalism is a system that is lovely on the outside and quite rotten on the inside. That is not to imply that communism is the opposite, since it has never been implemented.
All ideologies start with a good intention and then start rotting as they get powerful (take communism and violent religions for instance).

Capitalism is not good from the outside. It sucks. It is totally uncaring of nature and our enrionment. It is only concerned about making profit.

The freedom, after a point of time is not real freedom --- and money starts buying everything.

I don't think communism has not been given a chance. It was given a chance, but it turned out to be a disaster. They were only interested in implementing their ideology without caring for how it was affecting people (sounds like Islam?)

Capitalism is not good from the outside. It sucks. It is totally uncaring of nature and our enrionment. It is only concerned about making profit. Do you know any economical system, whuich is more concerned about environment than capitalism?

e ;) s

Do you know any economical system, whuich is more concerned about environment than capitalism?

e ;) s
driving out nature from amidst your living areas, and marginalising them into small pockets of 'reserves', and then patronising them, doesn't really qualify as being truly concerned about environment.

I know how in my country ancient forests are sold by the govt (on the sly) to companies to produce papers.

I know how in my country ancient forests are sold by the govt (on the sly) to companies to produce papers. See: government!
It is not capitalism, that might be in fault here. It is government selling you out. And it will rob you anyway, capitalism or not.

e :) s

See: government!
It is not capitalism, that might be in fault here. It is government selling you out. And it will rob you anyway, capitalism or not.

e :) s
The govt is only helping the capitalist forces. The multinationals have little regard for the ecology of the place they want to produce and sell their goods in.

The multinationals have little regard for the ecology of the place they want to produce and sell their goods in. Why they should? It is up to the governments of those places to take care through regulations.

You must oppose corrupt government, not the economy.

e ;) s

Why they should? It is up to the governments of those places to take care through regulations.

You must oppose corrupt government, not the economy.

e ;) s
Extrasense, hug-a-tree, and Mosheh Thezion are right. Extra-sense & hug-a-tree understand that communism isn't perfect, but Mosheh Thezion understands that communism isn't all that bad either. To find the truth is very wise.

The only way to understand the problems with communism is with FAQ's that I asked myself.

1. What is communism??:confused:

This IS a VERY good question. The basic definition is this: An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production, advocating a society where each person works according to his or her needs and abilities, seeking to establish a classless society, and says that the means of production should be owned and controlled by all of society (common ownership); Also advocates replacing competition with association.

2. Why is communism so repressive in communist countries?

The answer to this is dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the government where, to keep capitalism from regaining control of society, the proletariat and communist party must push the capitalists down. In Communist Theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat should "wither away" & be replaced by a communist society. The party ruling the nation will not be willing to give up power, since absolute power tends to attract those hungry for power while corrupting those in power. Anyone who thinks that an all powerful centralized government will voluntarily legislate itself out of existence probably owns a flock of flying pigs. Communism is like a car that needs some light repairs.

3. Why do communist countries restrict freedom of religion?

While dictatorship of the proletariat is partly the reason for the restrictions on religious freedom, I know it's more than just that. The reason communism has failed in the USSR is due to the fact that free will cannot be suppressed. Thought is free and independent and, no matter how hard anyone tries, can never be fully controlled.

4. Why do communists despise Capitalism?

To communists, Capitalism is The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour. Here's why:

The workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek employment in order to make a living. They get hired by a manager and work for him, producing some sort of goods or services. These goods or services then become the property of the manager, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. Part of this money is used to pay workers' wages, another part is used to pay production costs, and a third part is kept by the manager in the form of profit (or surplus value). Thus the manager can earn money (profit) from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Communists argue that new wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else" is exploited. Thus, communists argue that capitalists make a profit by exploiting workers. Communists also want to replace managers with workers' councils (self-governing workers without bosses).

Capitalism has made USA, Germany, Japan, and many other countries very prosperous, but it does have faults. To find Capitalism's problems, just type in ''Problems with Capitalism'' on google. 1 problem I can find that's wrong about capitalism ist that, since a small segment of society owns the means of production, capital needs to accumulate before a nation can become prosperous. This process could take decades to accomplish.

5. It's found that classes are evil to communists. Why?

Communists find it stupid that society always has one bunch of people at the top & the rest at the bottom, with a few in the middle. In other words, They find it absurd for society to consist of social classes. Therefore, if the means of production are owned by the masses (common ownership), everyone has an equal amount of the means of production, and therefore, wealth. Of course, the income is different in every job, and individuals become richer or poorer, but the distribution of wealth does not change.

Communism is like a car that needs some light repairs.
ROFL! That is utterly absurd. To describe a system of government responsible for more death and misery than any other as in need of "light repairs" is akin to describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a little unusual" or Adolf Hitler as "a bit predjudiced".

The workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek employment in order to make a living. They get hired by a manager and work for him, producing some sort of goods or services. These goods or services then become the property of the manager, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. Part of this money is used to pay workers' wages, another part is used to pay production costs, and a third part is kept by the manager in the form of profit (or surplus value). Thus the manager can earn money (profit) from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Communists argue that new wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else" is exploited. Thus, communists argue that capitalists make a profit by exploiting workers. Communists also want to replace managers with workers' councils (self-governing workers without bosses).
To minimize the importance of the manager is absurd. He does a million little things that make a place run properly. If you've ever held a job, you should know the difference between a good and bad manager. He deserves his higher pay because he is more important.

And running things by commitee? Ha. The IQ of a commitee is usually less than that of its dumbest member. Committees can't accomplish squat.
Communists find it stupid that society always has one bunch of people at the top & the rest at the bottom, with a few in the middle. Again, ridiculous. What society better fits that description than a communist one? A bunch of government fat cats, and everyone else is a peasant.

Problems with Communism?

It's extremely difficult to accomplish due to human nature.

Since dictatorship of the proletariat comes before a true communist society, communism as told by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels has never been implemented into modern society. If you don't believe me, go to Barnes and Noble and read "The Communist Manifesto" written by Karl Marx & "The Principles of Communism" written by Frederick Engels.

ROFL! That is utterly absurd. To describe a system of government responsible for more death and misery than any other as in need of "light repairs" is akin to describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a little unusual" or Adolf Hitler as "a bit predjudiced".

1. Good statement.:)

2. I am sorry for those who died from countries which call themselves communist, & I wish none of the violence occured.:( Today, almost everyone no-longer lives barbarically; it's time that communists stop relying on revolution and start leaning on revisionism.

3. Since dictatorship of the proletariat comes before a true communist society, Dictatorship of the proletariat, not communism itself, is responsible for the violence, since the ruling communist parties, during the period of dictatorship of the proletariat, became corrupt and therefore wanted to preserve their absolute Power. If you don't believe my statement, you need to read the essays, books, and articles written by both Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

To minimize the importance of the manager is absurd. He does a million little things that make a place run properly. If you've ever held a job, you should know the difference between a good and bad manager. He deserves his higher pay because he is more important.

And running things by commitee? Ha. The IQ of a commitee is usually less than that of its dumbest member. Committees can't accomplish squat.
:rolleyes:
Why not hire someone who can do the accounting then? Besides, Many people doing 1 job gets the job done faster.

If you don't believe me, go to Barnes and Noble and read "The Communist Manifesto" written by Karl Marx & "The Principles of Communism" written by Frederick Engels.I've read it. Also, a bit of Das Kapital. Why don't you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead?

Why not hire someone who can do the accounting then? Besides, Many people doing 1 job gets the job done faster.
Sure you can hire someone to do accounting. But the manager is still critical to a companie's success. If a manager is sitting around doing nothing, his company will lose out to a company with a more competent manager.

Look at Chrysler, they were going out of business until Lee Iacoca came along. He saved the company. Without him, all the workers would have been out on their ass.

Look at Microsoft, look at Apple. What makes these companies great? Their leaders. The proletariat consists of a bunch of interchangable cogs. The best of them rise to become managers themselves.

I've read it. Also, a bit of Das Kapital. Why don't you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead?
Sure you can hire someone to do accounting. But the manager is still critical to a companie's success. If a manager is sitting around doing nothing, his company will lose out to a company with a more competent manager.

Look at Chrysler, they were going out of business until Lee Iacoca came along. He saved the company. Without him, all the workers would have been out on their ass.

Look at Microsoft, look at Apple. What makes these companies great? Their leaders. The proletariat consists of a bunch of interchangable cogs. The best of them rise to become managers themselves.

1. You, madanthonywayne, are being very smart & discerning with this conversation.

2. Atlas Shrugged & The Fountainhead, both written by Ayn Rand; sounds like good books.

3. madanthonywayne said, "If a manager is sitting around doing nothing, his company will lose out to a company with a more competent manager."

Well, not if the workers within a workers' council are willing to work hard. In a workers' council, working together & determination is the key, not leadership.

4. madanthonywayne said, "Look at Microsoft, look at Apple. What makes these companies great? Their leaders. The proletariat consists of a bunch of interchangable cogs. The best of them rise to become managers themselves."

Well put, but you WILL SOON see these financial and economic leaders become corrupt, because power is focused into such a small spot.
Bill Gates hadn't had a week vacation for the first 15 years ( or something like that) while building up Microsoft. Sure after the hard work, he could get the benefits.
All the robber barons worked very hard in the first 10 years of their carrier, or even longer.

Marx's point is that after a while they tend to be a leech on the working class. Also, for profit they missuse their advantages. (this could be argued that it isn't a bad thing)
Both Carnegie and Gates finally figured that there is such a thing as too much money. THEN only they started to give it away. When Carnegie started his free public library system, workers said: Yeah, but after 10 hours of hard work, who wants to read? Why can't we get just better salaries or better conditions?
Although this quote by Syzygys is from another thread, this is exactly my point! Managers tend to become corrupt & merely become exploitive drones rather than hard-workers.

Ridiculous. What society better fits that description than a communist one? A bunch of government fat cats, and everyone else is a peasant.
Have you forgotten that the masses, NOT the state, in true communism, own the means of production? So, in this case, how could there be quote-unquote, "government fat cats"?

Have you forgotten that the masses, NOT the state, in true communism, own the means of production? So, in this case, how could there be quote-unquote, "government fat cats"?
Ah, but there never has been a "true" communist state. Has there?

Meanwhile, in real world communism as seen in the Soviet Union......Members of the government had their own lanes that the peasants weren't allowed to drive in (of course none of them had cars anyway). The dictators never wore a suit more than once, while the masses wore rags.

Nothing but the best for the government officials. All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Never has there been a class stratification in a capitalist society that equaled that in the "worker's paradice".

Well, not if the workers within a workers' council are willing to work hard. In a workers' council, working together & determination is the key, not leadership.
Thought occurs in the mind of an individual, not in a commitee. To get things done, power and responsibility should rest in an individuals hands. This is why we have an executive branch. The legislative branch is there to keep the executive in line. But we need an executive.
you WILL SOON see these financial and economic leaders become corrupt, because power is focused into such a small spot.
See above. Also, the beauty of capitalism is that when the leaders of a particular coorporation become corrupt and lazy, another company can move in and take over. Competition keeps people in line.

1. I love economic & political conversations! ;)

2. Ah, but there never has been a "true" communist state. Has there?

Meanwhile, in real world communism as seen in the Soviet Union......Members of the government had their own lanes that the peasants weren't allowed to drive in (of course none of them had cars anyway). The dictators never wore a suit more than once, while the masses wore rags.

Nothing but the best for the government officials. All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Never has there been a class stratification in a capitalist society that equaled that in the "worker's paradice".

Very true on that statement, but this society was prosperous after capital accumulated.

3. Thought occurs in the mind of an individual, not in a commitee. To get things done, power and responsibility should rest in an individuals hands. This is why we have an executive branch. The legislative branch is there to keep the executive in line. But we need an executive.
See above. Also, the beauty of capitalism is that when the leaders of a particular coorporation become corrupt and lazy, another company can move in and take over. Competition keeps people in line.
The Beauty of Capitalism? Here; I'll show you beauty of capitalism.

Problems with Capitalism

Excluded Parties: The biggest problem with capitalism is that its solutions are based purely on short term economics, how to provide a given service most cheaply to the consumer. Only producer and consumer are involved. However, in the process of providing that service, many others may be adversely affected, especially in the long term. They have no input into the decision making process. Examples would include such things as cars that pollute, boom boxes that can be heard for blocks, snowmobiles designed to harass wildlife, harsh chemicals that kill fish when improperly disposed of, or in an extreme case, atomic weapons. Capitalism fails to consider the big picture. It is sort of like looking at the world through gold-coloured glasses. It has no way of considering non-economic factors in decision making.

Foolish Actions: The producer always acts to maximise his profit. This sometimes leads him to do things that are wasteful or irritating to the consumer, e.g. nylons than deliberately run, razor blades that deliberately go dull quickly, or light bulbs that burn out quickly. He may kill millions of dolphins in order to catch tuna for one cent less a can.

Allocating Costs: There are costs that are hard to allocate, e.g. the costs of recycling an automobile. Since the original producer does not pay these costs, he has no incentive to make his automobiles easy to recycle.

Market Leader Advantage: The market leader has a huge advantage over his competitors. He has capital to buy them up. He can use Microsoftian strategies to lock customers into his products. He can use huge advertising budgets to persuade customers to pay more for inferior products. He can buy off politicians to rig the laws in his favour.

Short Term: Capitalism has a short term outlook. It difficult to attract money for example to develop a new antibiotic that may not be needed for another decade, but which will take seven years to create. We may even know that such an antibiotic will be desperately needed in a decade. There are too many other projects competing for capital with a faster payback. We will run out of fossil fuels in a mere 30 to 60 years, yet capitalism is incapable of getting on with the long range preparation needed. It tends to only look ahead about a year.

Speculative Drones: Capitalism turns productive citizens into drones who do no useful work. All they do is buy and sell stocks and live off the interest. An entrepreneur who creates a business does useful work. Someone who investigates businesses to see which deserve capital invested in them does useful work. However, the person who just sits back and earns a living off interest, or plays all day buying and selling stocks is not producing anything useful. He is just engaging in respectable form of gambling. These people are little better than welfare bums in terms of the way they are investing their time.

Ecomomic-only Focus: Profit becomes the only motive for business decisions. This leads us as a species to do some very odd things. For example, we as a species have now developed the technology to totally wipe out the AIDS plague. However, we refuse to use it, because our capitalist mentality insists that every person taking a medication must pay equally for it. It does not matter that the cost would be trivial to produce the medication to wipe out the plague now that the difficult work of developing the drugs has been done. Further, we don't wipe out AIDS because that would be unprofitable. Maximum profit demands keeping the virus around infecting new customers. And finally we don't wipe out AIDS because we don't have a way of allocating costs of projects that benefit every world citizen. We have spent about 4 billion on researching new AIDS treatments but only 0.1 billion on finding a vaccine to prevent new infections.

Ecological Concerns: Capitalism is overheated. It aims for constant growth. It ignores the biological imperatives that all systems must be closed and self-sustaining. In biology, constant growth is called cancer. We can't keep expanding the economy on a finite planet. You can expand quality of life, but you can't (and I mean can't not shouldn't) do it by ever expanding consumption of natural resources. This problem is a side effect of capitalism's narrow focus rather than considering the big picture. Capitalists pushed the Newfoundland cod stock right to the point of extinction before they would pay attention to what nature was telling them. Even then the capitalist fishermen rioted demanding the right to kill off the last few fish. The glamour of capitalism makes people ignore the harsh biological realities of life on planet earth.

Conspicous Consumption: With capitalism as religion/life philosophy, those whose consumption is most conspicuous, have the highest status. Waste as a positive value conflicts with the biological practicalities of a sustainable human population on the planet.

Gravity Of Money: Consider the problem of the gravity of money. Money tends to flow toward those who already have a surplus of money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why is this? Because of interest, those with more money tend to get more money and those without tend to get even less, everything else being equal. The human mind gets into greed spirals where no amount is enough. To feel good, not only must you have more than everyone else, you must also push everyone else down as far as possible. The more money you get, the more powerful you get. The more powerful you get, the more you can bully or exploit others into handing over their money to you. This creates a greed-power-money spiral. Unless there are checks, this will concentrate nearly all the wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. In Canada one man, Conrad Black, controls nearly all the newspapers, TV and radio stations, and dictates their conservative editorial view. No politician dare challenge him. A TV station toppled a socialist government by showing police arriving at the premier's back door, over and over and over for months even though there were never any charges. Capitalism, by itself, tends to concentrate wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. This same gravity of money principle works between countries as well. Rich countries tend to get richer and poor countries poorer. The elite control the education system and convince the masses that the gravity of money is a Good ThingTM, and should be encouraged, not compensated for.

Instability: In a stable system, the relative numbers of people at each income level remains constant. Individual people, of course, become richer or poorer, but the distribution of incomes does not change. In the early days of man, pretty well the only factor in production was labour and all labour was supremely valuable. However, in our modern society, labour is much less important. Technology, capital and knowledge overshadow labour. Unskilled labour is increasingly less valuable. Further, computers take over a greater proportion of skilled labour every year. This leads to an instability, since labourers no longer have the clout they once had. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Monopoly: Capitalism falls apart when a monopoly forms. One theorist said you need 26 independent competing companies to avoid monopoly or collusion. This is often hard to achieve in practice. We have a schizophrenic attitude to collusion. If companies collude to fix the price of gasoline or bank interest rates, there is much screaming and gnashing of teeth. However, if they formally merge first, or if the leader buys out all its competitors, there is not so much as a peep of indignation.

Toothbrushes: Capitalism works spectacularly well and handling the needs of individual consumers. Go to your supermarket and marvel at how many types and colours of toothbrushes there are. On the other hand, it has no mechanism for funding global projects, like eradicating malaria or dealing with the effects of global warming. Even though a nation like the USA could raise 100 billion dollars in six weeks to deal with terrorism, it was able to pledge only 200 million (1/50 as much) to deal with AIDS in Africa. The only problems that get tackled with any enthusiasm are the ones that directly affect the rich.

All Economic Activity Is Good: Economics seems to value all econonomic activity equally. The Exxon Valdiz was great for the GNP. Funerals count toward the GNP. Intensive care for lung cancer helps the GNP.

Sinking Below the Event Horizon: If a person in the third world sinks below a certain level of poverty, it is impossible to get back out. He needs capital, even if just to buy some feed, chickens and chicken wire to get started in the poultry business.

No Accounting For Finite Natural Resources: If a manufacturing process consumes a finite natural resource, capitalism considers such resources free. Their only cost is the cost of labour extracting them. Though these resources are our true capital, they don't even enter into the financial equations. Therefore there is no incentive to conserve such resources. For example, we see a wild race to consume the last of our oil reserves at an ever accelerating rate, without any concern for a smooth transition to some alternate energy source.

Economics isn't Everything: Men don't pick their wives purely on economic grounds. It seems odd that we make all important global decisions that way. Capitalism reduces life to a silly game something like Monopoly where the goal is to get all the money and prevent anyone else from having any. It is based on the myth of scarcity. There is plenty for everyone if we just stopped playing it so fiercely.

1. I love economic & political conversations! ;)

2.

Very true on that statement, but this society was prosperous after capital accumulated.

3.
The Beauty of Capitalism? Here; I'll show you beauty of capitalism.

Problems with Capitalism

Excluded Parties: The biggest problem with capitalism is that its solutions are based purely on short term economics, how to provide a given service most cheaply to the consumer. Only producer and consumer are involved. However, in the process of providing that service, many others may be adversely affected, especially in the long term. They have no input into the decision making process. Examples would include such things as cars that pollute, boom boxes that can be heard for blocks, snowmobiles designed to harass wildlife, harsh chemicals that kill fish when improperly disposed of, or in an extreme case, atomic weapons. Capitalism fails to consider the big picture. It is sort of like looking at the world through gold-coloured glasses. It has no way of considering non-economic factors in decision making.

Foolish Actions: The producer always acts to maximise his profit. This sometimes leads him to do things that are wasteful or irritating to the consumer, e.g. nylons than deliberately run, razor blades that deliberately go dull quickly, or light bulbs that burn out quickly. He may kill millions of dolphins in order to catch tuna for one cent less a can.

Allocating Costs: There are costs that are hard to allocate, e.g. the costs of recycling an automobile. Since the original producer does not pay these costs, he has no incentive to make his automobiles easy to recycle.

Market Leader Advantage: The market leader has a huge advantage over his competitors. He has capital to buy them up. He can use Microsoftian strategies to lock customers into his products. He can use huge advertising budgets to persuade customers to pay more for inferior products. He can buy off politicians to rig the laws in his favour.

Short Term: Capitalism has a short term outlook. It difficult to attract money for example to develop a new antibiotic that may not be needed for another decade, but which will take seven years to create. We may even know that such an antibiotic will be desperately needed in a decade. There are too many other projects competing for capital with a faster payback. We will run out of fossil fuels in a mere 30 to 60 years, yet capitalism is incapable of getting on with the long range preparation needed. It tends to only look ahead about a year.

Speculative Drones: Capitalism turns productive citizens into drones who do no useful work. All they do is buy and sell stocks and live off the interest. An entrepreneur who creates a business does useful work. Someone who investigates businesses to see which deserve capital invested in them does useful work. However, the person who just sits back and earns a living off interest, or plays all day buying and selling stocks is not producing anything useful. He is just engaging in respectable form of gambling. These people are little better than welfare bums in terms of the way they are investing their time.

Ecomomic-only Focus: Profit becomes the only motive for business decisions. This leads us as a species to do some very odd things. For example, we as a species have now developed the technology to totally wipe out the AIDS plague. However, we refuse to use it, because our capitalist mentality insists that every person taking a medication must pay equally for it. It does not matter that the cost would be trivial to produce the medication to wipe out the plague now that the difficult work of developing the drugs has been done. Further, we don't wipe out AIDS because that would be unprofitable. Maximum profit demands keeping the virus around infecting new customers. And finally we don't wipe out AIDS because we don't have a way of allocating costs of projects that benefit every world citizen. We have spent about 4 billion on researching new AIDS treatments but only 0.1 billion on finding a vaccine to prevent new infections.

Ecological Concerns: Capitalism is overheated. It aims for constant growth. It ignores the biological imperatives that all systems must be closed and self-sustaining. In biology, constant growth is called cancer. We can't keep expanding the economy on a finite planet. You can expand quality of life, but you can't (and I mean can't not shouldn't) do it by ever expanding consumption of natural resources. This problem is a side effect of capitalism's narrow focus rather than considering the big picture. Capitalists pushed the Newfoundland cod stock right to the point of extinction before they would pay attention to what nature was telling them. Even then the capitalist fishermen rioted demanding the right to kill off the last few fish. The glamour of capitalism makes people ignore the harsh biological realities of life on planet earth.

Conspicous Consumption: With capitalism as religion/life philosophy, those whose consumption is most conspicuous, have the highest status. Waste as a positive value conflicts with the biological practicalities of a sustainable human population on the planet.

Gravity Of Money: Consider the problem of the gravity of money. Money tends to flow toward those who already have a surplus of money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Why is this? Because of interest, those with more money tend to get more money and those without tend to get even less, everything else being equal. The human mind gets into greed spirals where no amount is enough. To feel good, not only must you have more than everyone else, you must also push everyone else down as far as possible. The more money you get, the more powerful you get. The more powerful you get, the more you can bully or exploit others into handing over their money to you. This creates a greed-power-money spiral. Unless there are checks, this will concentrate nearly all the wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. In Canada one man, Conrad Black, controls nearly all the newspapers, TV and radio stations, and dictates their conservative editorial view. No politician dare challenge him. A TV station toppled a socialist government by showing police arriving at the premier's back door, over and over and over for months even though there were never any charges. Capitalism, by itself, tends to concentrate wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. This same gravity of money principle works between countries as well. Rich countries tend to get richer and poor countries poorer. The elite control the education system and convince the masses that the gravity of money is a Good ThingTM, and should be encouraged, not compensated for.

Instability: In a stable system, the relative numbers of people at each income level remains constant. Individual people, of course, become richer or poorer, but the distribution of incomes does not change. In the early days of man, pretty well the only factor in production was labour and all labour was supremely valuable. However, in our modern society, labour is much less important. Technology, capital and knowledge overshadow labour. Unskilled labour is increasingly less valuable. Further, computers take over a greater proportion of skilled labour every year. This leads to an instability, since labourers no longer have the clout they once had. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Monopoly: Capitalism falls apart when a monopoly forms. One theorist said you need 26 independent competing companies to avoid monopoly or collusion. This is often hard to achieve in practice. We have a schizophrenic attitude to collusion. If companies collude to fix the price of gasoline or bank interest rates, there is much screaming and gnashing of teeth. However, if they formally merge first, or if the leader buys out all its competitors, there is not so much as a peep of indignation.

Toothbrushes: Capitalism works spectacularly well and handling the needs of individual consumers. Go to your supermarket and marvel at how many types and colours of toothbrushes there are. On the other hand, it has no mechanism for funding global projects, like eradicating malaria or dealing with the effects of global warming. Even though a nation like the USA could raise 100 billion dollars in six weeks to deal with terrorism, it was able to pledge only 200 million (1/50 as much) to deal with AIDS in Africa. The only problems that get tackled with any enthusiasm are the ones that directly affect the rich.

All Economic Activity Is Good: Economics seems to value all econonomic activity equally. The Exxon Valdiz was great for the GNP. Funerals count toward the GNP. Intensive care for lung cancer helps the GNP.

Sinking Below the Event Horizon: If a person in the third world sinks below a certain level of poverty, it is impossible to get back out. He needs capital, even if just to buy some feed, chickens and chicken wire to get started in the poultry business.

No Accounting For Finite Natural Resources: If a manufacturing process consumes a finite natural resource, capitalism considers such resources free. Their only cost is the cost of labour extracting them. Though these resources are our true capital, they don't even enter into the financial equations. Therefore there is no incentive to conserve such resources. For example, we see a wild race to consume the last of our oil reserves at an ever accelerating rate, without any concern for a smooth transition to some alternate energy source.

Economics isn't Everything: Men don't pick their wives purely on economic grounds. It seems odd that we make all important global decisions that way. Capitalism reduces life to a silly game something like Monopoly where the goal is to get all the money and prevent anyone else from having any. It is based on the myth of scarcity. There is plenty for everyone if we just stopped playing it so fiercely.I'm liking this person more by the hour!

Madanthonywayne.

Trying to have a discussion with you is useless.

I atleast read and consider what all people have to say, you only see it your way, and every other way is wrong.

Madanthonywayne.

Trying to have a discussion with you is useless.

I atleast read and consider what all people have to say, you only see it your way, and every other way is wrong.I've noticed ALL rightwingers are like that. The Right has NEVER done ANYTHING wrong but the Left is to blame for everything, even though the US has no Left! They are trembling in defeat now and insecure as ever. They need a scapegoat. Clinton is STILL their favortite, even though he's been out of office 7 years. They point at gays, Mexicans, Muslims ANYONE to take the spotlight off their own corrupted party. They are even unable to debate the war in government! That's what democracy is supposed to be about, but they can't even defend their disastrous war on the Senate floor after 7 years of running Washington! If you're out of step with King George and Emperor Cheney you are a turrorist, commie, veil lovin, fag!
The elections in November shocked their arrogant asses and they still can't look at the camera and defend their criminal war on Iraq. Pathetic. And they say Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to our country??

Did you write all this yourself? I mean, that's a long post.
Excluded Parties: The biggest problem with capitalism is that its solutions are based purely on short term economics, how to provide a given service most cheaply to the consumer. Only producer and consumer are involved. However, in the process of providing that service, many others may be adversely affected, especially in the long term. They have no input into the decision making process. Examples would include such things as cars that pollute, boom boxes that can be heard for blocks, snowmobiles designed to harass wildlife, harsh chemicals that kill fish when improperly disposed of, or in an extreme case, atomic weapons. There are mechanisms for dealing with these issues. Capitalism is part of a system of government that includes freedom. So when people in a capitalist country see an injustice, they can do something about it. In a communist dictatorship, you have no way to redress any problems.
Foolish Actions: The producer always acts to maximise his profit. This sometimes leads him to do things that are wasteful or irritating to the consumer, e.g. nylons than deliberately run, razor blades that deliberately go dull quickly, or light bulbs that burn out quickly. He may kill millions of dolphins in order to catch tuna for one cent less a can. In capitalism the consumer is free to buy a product or not. He has choices. I, for one, don't buy those damned incandescent bulbs that burn out right away. I buy the compact flourescent ones that last for years. You can buy dolphin safe tuna. We have choices. Peasants living under a dictator do not.

Allocating Costs: There are costs that are hard to allocate, e.g. the costs of recycling an automobile. Since the original producer does not pay these costs, he has no incentive to make his automobiles easy to recycle. Again, freedom to choose. If you're concerned about these things, buy products that fulfill these goals. If they don't exist, create them. There's probably a market for them! Freedom is great.

Market Leader Advantage: The market leader has a huge advantage over his competitors. He has capital to buy them up. He can use Microsoftian strategies to lock customers into his products. He can use huge advertising budgets to persuade customers to pay more for inferior products. He can buy off politicians to rig the laws in his favour.
Yet.....mighty empires fall. Microsoft eclipsed IBM. Google came out of nowhere. Yes, there are advantages to being huge. But there are also disadvantages. Mostly they have to do with lack of flexibility, and making decisions by commitee.
Short Term: Capitalism has a short term outlook. We will run out of fossil fuels in a mere 30 to 60 years, yet capitalism is incapable of getting on with the long range preparation needed. Now here, at least in this case, you are mistaken. As oil becomes more scarce, the price will increase. As the price of oil increases, alternative fuels become more economical. The market will take care of this problem all by itself.

Speculative Drones: Capitalism turns productive citizens into drones who do no useful work. All they do is buy and sell stocks and live off the interest. Even these people perform a service. They make capital available to those who need it. They help businesses grow and put their own money at risk to do so.
COLOR="darkorange"]Ecomomic-only Focus:[/COLOR] Profit becomes the only motive for business decisions. This leads us as a species to do some very odd things. For example, we as a species have now developed the technology to totally wipe out the AIDS plague. However, we refuse to use it, because our capitalist mentality insists that every person taking a medication must pay equally for it. It does not matter that the cost would be trivial to produce the medication to wipe out the plague now that the difficult work of developing the drugs has been done. Further, we don't wipe out AIDS because that would be unprofitable. Maximum profit demands keeping the virus around infecting new customers. And finally we don't wipe out AIDS because we don't have a way of allocating costs of projects that benefit every world citizen. We have spent about 4 billion on researching new AIDS treatments but only 0.1 billion on finding a vaccine to prevent new infections. Chris Rock did a funny bit about this. He said they don't cure anything anymore, they just fix you up enough to get by. He predicted that in the future AIDS would be like diabetes, something that you managed with meds that occasionally "acted up".
Ecological Concerns: Capitalists pushed the Newfoundland cod stock right to the point of extinction before they would pay attention to what nature was telling them. Even then the capitalist fishermen rioted demanding the right to kill off the last few fish. The glamour of capitalism makes people ignore the harsh biological realities of life on planet earth. Now this is really absurd if you know anything about ecological conditions under communism. The enviroment was filty and dangerous. Since the people lived as peasants under the thumb of a dictatorship, they could not complain.

Wealthy people like a clean environment. It's a luxury just like plasma TV's. Communism creates povery. Poor starving people couldn't care less about the enviroment.

Gravity Of Money: Consider the problem of the gravity of money. Money tends to flow toward those who already have a surplus of money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Under communism everyone is poor and getting poorer. Except for the dictator and his minions, of course.

Furthermore, it's wrong to imply a lack of social mobility under capitalism. My grandfather came from Cuba with nothing. Not even the ability to speak English. He did very well for himself, retired from the Steel Mill, and now lives in Florida (he has a girlfriend in California and spends a lot of time flying around the country.)

Meanwhile, his cousin had the pleasure of living in the "worker's paradise" in Cuba. My grandfather took a trip back to Cuba a few years ago and found his relatives living like animals in abject poverty. The standard of living is so low that he was accosted by prostitutes asking only for soap as payment.

Furthermore, my grandfather wanted his cousin to serve as his guide. When they walked into his hotel he was informed that Cubans were not allowed to stay in the hotel, or any hotels in Cuba.

Monopoly: Capitalism falls apart when a monopoly forms. One theorist said you need 26 independent competing companies to avoid monopoly or collusion. This is often hard to achieve in practice.
A true monopoly can only exist with government help to keep out competitors. The only true monopolies we deal with are the utilities and cable companies. Big surprise, this is where we get the worst service. In the case of cable companies, there is no reason for this monopoly and artificial restricitions have created it. It is now possible to recieve TV over satalite, the phone line, cable, the air, or the internet. But federal law makes it difficult to get your local programs in these alternate ways and this keeps the monopolies in place. The problem is government, not capitalism.

The bottom line is that under capitalism we have freedom. There are many ways to redress every complaint you mentioned.

But under communism, a dictatorship, there are no ways to redress any complaints. The government says jump, you say how high. Furthermore, the poverty caused by communism exacerbates every other problem.

Madanthonywayne.

Trying to have a discussion with you is useless.

I atleast read and consider what all people have to say, you only see it your way, and every other way is wrong.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think okayillgonow and I are having a nice discussion right now.

I'll admit that I think my way is right, don't you? But my opinions are guided by logic and I will change them if shown I am incorrect.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think okayillgonow and I are having a nice discussion right now.

I'll admit that I think my way is right, don't you? But my opinions are guided by logic and I will change them if shown I am incorrect.The arrogance is pouring out of my monitor and all over this purty liberry. For Shame.

I've noticed ALL rightwingers are like that. The Right has NEVER done ANYTHING wrong but the Left is to blame for everything, even though the US has no Left!Would that that were so! And I have never said "the right" has never done anything wrong. George Bush has done plenty wrong. They point at gays, Mexicans, Muslims ANYONE to take the spotlight off their own corrupted party.
No, I want the spotlight on the corrupt members of my party. They deserve to be driven out. Gays? I don't care which orifice you stick you genetals in. Mexicans? Hell, I'm hispanic. I do strongly want us to get control over our border. Muslims? No prob with them, just the islamofascists.
They are even unable to debate the war in government! That's what democracy is supposed to be about, but they can't even defend their disastrous war on the Senate floor after 7 years of running Washington!
It is wrong to pass a vote of no confidence when we have soldiers dying in a war. If you're against the war, have some balls and defund it. Don't try to have it both ways and pass a non-binding resolution saying you're against it. This only emboldens our enemies.

Just yesterday I did an eye exam on a soldier who is now on his way back to Iraq. He was quite pissed off about this resolution and felt a lot better when I told him it had been defeated by the Republicans. We had a great conversation and at the end he said, "I hope you're representative of the views here in the states."

We need to support our troops, not embolden the enemy who is trying to kill them. As I said, if the Democrats in congress are against the war, they should have the courage of their convictions and defund it.
The elections in November shocked their arrogant asses and they still can't look at the camera and defend their criminal war on Iraq. Pathetic. And they say Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to our country??
The elections sucked. But, you can't win them all. As far as the "criminal war" in Iraq, I, for one, am prepared to defend the war against all comers and do so constantly on this forum.
The arro