Left vs. Right

Van: Nobody did. But since today's society, according to Frigo, requires all three of those, it doesn't really matter.

Quoting the UN is a good idea, because they are well respected among the capitalist countries of today.

 

Hohoho, what did I found:

And now I have some fucking time to explain all of my points.

 

In this case, they have the opportunity to leave for another job if they don't get enough (money or whatever). In (applied) communism, the state defends the boundaries to prevent people escaping from the perfect paradise of communism to the evil capitalistic hell.
There will always be some capitalistic countries even when the others went crazy and switched to communism, so the competition between countries (immigration) kicks in, even if they spend huge amounts of money defending the borders (oooh, another waste communism does!).
(And don't involve religious people, they are more brainwashed than any communist state will ever achieve)

What does a person need ? Food, clothes, water, gas, electricity, et cetera, et cetera. The total price of these quickly surpasses that a communist-like state can pay for all of its citizens, just as you said (more on this later):

If you get everything you need natively (sp?), and earning more is hard exactly by this reason (high taxes, high redistribution), you'll have no incentive to work harder, or even work, just as in other communist states (and I didn't even mention corruption). It's fine that one needs to work to eat. (And, labor shortage is becoming a fucking huge problem in most developed economies, so I highly doubt there will be too many jobs paying less than is needed to get by)

Overspending, inefficiency and corruption are shared among everybody (the cost of upkeep also), its effects are not obvious at first. It's a bubble waiting to burst, collapsing the entire economy. In capitalism, if a company goes bankrupt, it has negligible effect on the economy. (Ooh, did I mention that BKV /Budapest Transport Limited/, our last larger state-owned enterprise generates 120 million dollars of loss every year, despite being a monopoly? Guess why.)

Democracy is fucking important, it is basically an error correction. It guarantees the convergence to a 'good' system, despite its flaws. Yet the leaders should have limited power. That way the country won't be fucked up when a bad leader finds its way to the throne.

Oooh, that's a nice definition of planned economy !
I highly doubt that some corrupt, not-so-qualified-than-would-be-in-a-capitalist-system person can make as precise predictions as hundreds of thousands of people driven by self-interest. Especially not in the case of disasters, where the latter's delay on price adjusting is almost zero (Why is this important? See the quote above).
And it lacks price competition anyway.

More to come...

 

Frigo, I'm only trying to give an opinion that I don't actually share it's fair due, since you seem so bent on attacking it for relatively no reason. Your arguments with communism all base around the inherent greed of people, or how they're lazy when unmotivated, etc. And the argument Everyone else, other than Bree of course, has been positing is that yea, EXCEPT FOR HUMAN NATURE, aka REALITY, Communism would be a great plan. i.e. if people weren't so selfish and self-motivated it would be the best thing since slived bread.

I kind of like the free market on the account that it's pretty much the civilized alternative to continual warfare. As a society, we can't have men pulling out guns and knives and murdering each other in the street, so we let them ruin each other financially if they're so inclined, it's like an economic rutting contest.

 

Yeah, it MIGHT work. Provided humans are exact copies of each other, yet somehow they are suited to different tasks, have no different opinions, no free will, no thoughts at all, no creativity, yet somehow they discover new ways to optimize production, behave the same way, work like robots, do not age, have no private property, switch jobs and do those jobs perfectly when somebody dies and creates an inequality in jobs, the central planners can predict the future for at least 10 years (including disasters), the central planners are able to solve unsolvable economic problems, the leaders (central planners?) are either free of corruption or nonexistant, there is no other country on the world, and the resources are unlimited.

Yes, it MIGHT work IN THEORY. In a nice abstract theory.

---

"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."

classless - Can not work EVEN IN THEORY, the world needs humans with different abilities, thus creating "classes" (whatever those are)
stateless - Can not work EVEN IN THEORY, it is basically anarchy, no lawmakers so it is not adaptive, democracy becomes meaningless
common ownership of the means of production - Can not work EVEN IN THEORY, who'll tell who and when can use these tools? Oh, wait! The OWNER of them. Who is the owner? Oh, wait! Another class!

---

Marx predicted by his pet theories that the rich will expolit the poor and inequality will further increase. He wasn't right. Period.

 

How can you say that no one would want to work in a communist society and link yo wikipedia?

Humans with different abilities don't make classes. Inequality do. And there really isn't any need for the capitalists.

Common ownership. Do you mean it's actually impossible for people to collectively own something?

 

I collectively own a bong with two of my friends. We rotate it amongst the community. In medieval times, care for invalids, the mentally unsound, and other forms of handicapped was rotated around the community. Just because you're a selfish asshole doesn't mean EVERYONE is. But, the point I will cede is that just because many people aren't selfish, doesn't mean everyone is not.

As for the free market, as I said, it's our PVP zone. It has its uses.

 

But you can't really compare something that is collectively owned with a bong...

No, this makes perfect balance - State-owned companies = 90%. Private-owned companies = 10%. If the amount of private-owned companies will rise to e.g. 12% - Nationalise teh shit!

 

Why isn't Blinky's bong broken then?

For larger things, why chose someone who takes care of it? Kind of like a company with shareholders who all own the company collectively and some people they choose who take care of the company. Common ownership doesn't equal anarchy unless you want it to.

 

What is really anti-communist about it? The people who take care of the company aren't the only ones profiting from the company being successful, the shareholders do too.

In a communist state the common owners would get more food (for example) when their farms worked well.

 

Can you sell your shares when the communist state generates loss ?

Oh wait! No!

 

Oh yeah? Elaborate that? Of course everything can't be commonly owned, but (almost) everything can be state-owned, and that's almost the same.

 

"Democracy is the worst goverment ever, except for all the others we have tried."
Think Churchchill said something like that.

 

Why would it matter if your shares generate loss? You can't sell them in a communist state, but you could appoint somebody else to take care of them so they'd stop generating loss.

The only thing you're complaining about is that you don't want to collectively own something. Otherwise, could you explain why common ownership has to be voluntary (in a communist state it would be because the people have understood (not by force) that it's a good idea)?