Did you remember to turn your clock forward?

[Starcadia]

Humans are not and probably never will be advanced enough to employ Communism successfully. Humans are first and foremost apes, albeit fancy ones, but ones which would have to find a way to bypass their hardwired will to power - and all the shit that entails, like competition, war, hierarchies, weapon fetishes, etc. - before they make even a small step towards that sort of enlightened existence. Communism is idealistic, and as such I appreciate it very much, but if one takes a look around at not only the second half of the 20th century, in Asia or elsewhere, and then add to that the many millennia of recorded history, and then extrapolate that into the past for millions of years, and well into the future, then I'd say the argument for Communism as something with realistic potential can easily be discarded.

Anyway, why does the title of this damn thread keep changing?

[ShaulWolf]

The title changes because we're trying to get past any arguments and crap about politics. Seriously, it's been gone over. It's started a spam and flame war. Give it a rest. On to more lighthearted things.

Hump day, woo! Except my darlin' isn't here... so booo! Or did you mean hump day, as in the middle day which is supposed to be the peak before sliding to the weekend? >=3

[Judge Faust]

Humans are not and probably never will be advanced enough to employ Communism successfully. We are first and foremost apes, albeit fancy ones, but ones which would have to find a way to bypass our hardwired will to power - and all the shit that entails, like competition, war, hierarchies, etc. - before we make even a small step towards that sort of enlightened existence. Communism is idealistic, and as such I appreciate it very much, but if one takes a look around at not only the second half of the 20th century, in Asia or elsewhere, and then add to that the many millennia of recorded history, and then extrapolate that into the past for millions of years, and well into the future, then I'd say the argument for Communism as something with realistic potential can easily be discarded.

I agree with all of your premises, and none of your conclusions.

Yes, we are essentially hairless greater apes (greater here meaning "big monkey," not "superior" or "good").

Yes, we are essentially primitive mammals whose main goals in life are:
(a) Slaughter anything that moves.
(b) Hump everything that survived the previous step.

So, we're on the same page so far... But then you deem my position idealistic and doomed to ultimate failure. Wait, what?

Here is my Marxist/Leninist position: Because we are largely violent monkeys, we need a strong centralized government that is able to keep our violent nature in check and maximize everyone's overall happiness (which will also keep us all in check).

Here is your capitalist position: We are violent monkeys. Nevertheless, if we let everyone do whatever they want, a magical "invisible hand" will keep us all from slaughtering each other and/or robbing each other blind.

Huh? Which one seems more idealistic to you? As far as I can tell, the Communists are the TRUE realists here - we recognize human frailty, and we know just how to deal with it. You capitalists.... well... you prefer to turn your back on society and then act shocked and surprised at the inevitable results:

"Predatory mortgages? Lending crisis? Financial collapse? Wow! Who would have thought that giving corporations free reign would have encouraged them to rob us blind? I know! Let's give them some more tax breaks! That will teach them to destroy Western civilization!"

[Judge Faust]

Faust or Faustus (Latin for "auspicious" or "lucky") is the protagonist of a classic German legend who makes a pact with the Devil in exchange for knowledge
Plays and comic puppet theatre loosely based on this legend were popular throughout Germany in the 16th century, often reducing Faust to a figure of vulgar fun
"Faust" (and the adjective "Faustian") has taken on a connotation distinct from its original use, and is often used today to describe a person whose headstrong desire for self-fulfillment leads him or her in a diabolical direction.
The Faust of the early Faust-books—and of the ballads, dramas and puppet-plays which grew out of them—is irrevocably damned

Good research. However, you should go deeper than that...

If you strip the Faust legend of all the unnecessary Christian nonsense, you get a story about a simple man willing to sacrifice everything in order to gain ultimate knowledge.

In that sense, Faust is not a tragic character to be pitied, but a selfless martyr to be emulated...

[ShaulWolf]

... seriously? Dude, we're trying to make things fun, lighthearted, and jovial. Enough with the antagonistic posts, or take it to PM's.

[Judge Faust]

... seriously? Dude, we're trying to make things fun, lighthearted, and jovial. Enough with the antagonistic posts, or take it to PM's.

I have a better idea:

Given that this started out as a political thread and I am simply keeping the theme alive, why don't you kids take the juvenile, pointless verbal diarrhea to another thread? Or, as you said, "to PM's [sic]."

[ShaulWolf]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EiR1hmpk-x4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[Kerprodo]

Just asking? Is Faust part of your given name or did you pick based upon one of the many interpretations of the Faustian character? And if so, which version

And, WTF, why is Xob's ass deemed unacceptable to some photo hosting sites criteria for acceptable ass imagery?

[Starcadia]

Humans are not and probably never will be advanced enough to employ Communism successfully. We are first and foremost apes, albeit fancy ones, but ones which would have to find a way to bypass our hardwired will to power - and all the shit that entails, like competition, war, hierarchies, etc. - before we make even a small step towards that sort of enlightened existence. Communism is idealistic, and as such I appreciate it very much, but if one takes a look around at not only the second half of the 20th century, in Asia or elsewhere, and then add to that the many millennia of recorded history, and then extrapolate that into the past for millions of years, and well into the future, then I'd say the argument for Communism as something with realistic potential can easily be discarded.

I agree with all of your premises, and none of your conclusions.

Yes, we are essentially hairless greater apes (greater here meaning "big monkey," not "superior" or "good").

Yes, we are essentially primitive mammals whose main goals in life are:
(a) Slaughter anything that moves.
(b) Hump everything that survived the previous step.

So, we're on the same page so far... But then you deem my position idealistic and doomed to ultimate failure. Wait, what?

Here is my Marxist/Leninist position: Because we are largely violent monkeys, we need a strong centralized government that is able to keep our violent nature in check and maximize everyone's overall happiness (which will also keep us all in check).

Here is your capitalist position: We are violent monkeys. Nevertheless, if we let everyone do whatever they want, a magical "invisible hand" will keep us all from slaughtering each other and/or robbing each other blind.

Huh? Which one seems more idealistic to you? As far as I can tell, the Communists are the TRUE realists here - we recognize human frailty, and we know just how to deal with it. You capitalists.... well... you prefer to turn your back on society and then act shocked and surprised at the inevitable results:

"Predatory mortgages? Lending crisis? Financial collapse? Wow! Who would have thought that giving corporations free reign would have encouraged them to rob us blind? I know! Let's give them some more tax breaks! That will teach them to destroy Western civilization!"

I hope you can see that the basic flaw of your view is that your "strong, centralized government" is just more violent monkeys. Violent monkeys leading violent monkeys. Blind leading the blind.

I don't like the barbarism of Capitalism either, and how it encourages violent monkey behavior, but we need something that works, something that violent monkeys can distract themselves with, and that happens to be money and recreation. Soft, simulated forms of war. Why any nation that has achieved such a diverse assortment of simulated war games would want the real thing is beyond me, but that's violent monkeys for you.

[Judge Faust]

I hope you can see that the basic flaw of your view is that your "strong, centralized government" is just more violent monkeys. Violent monkeys leading violent monkeys. Blind leading the blind.

I don't like the barbarism of Capitalism either, and how it encourages violent monkey behavior, but we need something that works, something that violent monkeys can distract themselves with, and that happens to be money and recreation. Soft, simulated forms of war. Why any nation that has achieved such a diverse assortment of simulated war games would want the real thing is beyond me, but that's violent monkeys for you.

Well, we have assumed (probably correctly) that the smart monkeys will always be outnumbered by the violent monkeys. But where do we go from here?

Here is where what you call our "flaw" comes into play...

In a proper single-party state, once we get the smart monkeys into power (by violent means, if necessary), we can have the smart monkeys running the show. If only the smart (party) monkeys get to choose who joins the party, they can keep the party entirely violent-monkey-free.

On the other hand, your capitalistic popular-voting system must, by definition, allow all monkeys to vote on its leaders. And since we have already agreed that the violent monkeys outnumber the smart monkeys, this means that your system is dominated by violent monkeys, whereas mine is dominated by smart monkeys.

[Starcadia]

I hope you can see that the basic flaw of your view is that your "strong, centralized government" is just more violent monkeys. Violent monkeys leading violent monkeys. Blind leading the blind.

I don't like the barbarism of Capitalism either, and how it encourages violent monkey behavior, but we need something that works, something that violent monkeys can distract themselves with, and that happens to be money and recreation. Soft, simulated forms of war. Why any nation that has achieved such a diverse assortment of simulated war games would want the real thing is beyond me, but that's violent monkeys for you.

Well, we have assumed (probably correctly) that the smart monkeys will always be outnumbered by the violent monkeys. But where do we go from here?

Here is where what you call our "flaw" comes into play...

In a proper single-party state, once we get the smart monkeys into power (by violent means, if necessary), we can have the smart monkeys running the show. If only the smart (party) monkeys get to choose who joins the party, they can keep the party entirely violent-monkey-free.

On the other hand, your capitalistic popular-voting system must, by definition, allow all monkeys to vote on its leaders. And since we have already agreed that the violent monkeys outnumber the smart monkeys, this means that your system is dominated by violent monkeys, whereas mine is dominated by smart monkeys.

You just said that the smart monkeys might have to gain power by violent means. That makes them violent monkeys, even if they are smart. And "smart", may I remind you, is a relative term.

Sorry, but even the smart monkeys - at least the ones who desire the power you require them to have - are ultimately violent at their cores. There's no getting around it. The very smart ones - the enlightened ones - simply do not participate.

Again, I think Communism is a beautiful idea, I really do. But until we learn how to radically alter our biological natures, it's simply not a viable alternative.

[Judge Faust]

You just said that the smart monkeys might have to gain power by violent means. That makes them violent monkeys, even if they are smart. And "smart", may I remind you, is a relative term.

Sorry, but even the smart monkeys - at least the ones who desire the power you require them to have - are ultimately violent at their cores. There's no getting around it. The very smart ones - the enlightened ones - simply do not participate.

Again, I think Communism is a beautiful idea, I really do. But until we learn how to radically alter our biological natures, it's simply not a viable alternative.

Hmmm... I respect your opinion, which was shared by my late, great father. He, too, argued that political power would only attract those unworthy to wield it...

However, there is a terminal error in this reasoning (we used to argue about this for hours on end, to no avail). If you assume that government is both necessary AND counterproductive, then you can never really have a decent government in the first place... In which case, why bother arguing about it? If you're doomed to be ruled by violent, selfish monkeys regardless of the outcome, why even pay attention? If it's all the same to you, just look away while the Communists and the capitalists fight it out to the death.

I take a different approach. Monkeys are inherently violent, so the first governments were inherently violent. None of them is willing to part with power. Hence, it must be taken by force, which is also violent... HOWEVER, a smart monkey may employ violence when needed but forgo it when peace is called for. In other words, a smart monkey can transcend its primitive violent nature for the common good.

But this can only work when the smart monkey does not need the violent majority's consent in order to govern the masses; if it does, then it is game over. Voting does not get you peace - it gets you Bushes and Hitlers, Hiroshimas and Stalingrads, pain and suffering...

[CaptNihil]

1) Being a Communist does not prevent one from enjoying life.
2) You really want me to switch Communism for a religion? Really? That is bizarre on so many levels...
PS: If you think Communism is "old" and a "goner," you really ought to catch up on what's been going on in Asia during the last half century or so...

I didn’t suggest switching communism for a religion. It wouldn’t make sense to say if you are not a communist then you are automatically a religious person. Starcadia has used very sensible reasoning similar to my thoughts when it comes to discussing the workability of communism and one of the reasons for the fact that would make a large workable communist population unreal. Communism “may” work in a perfect utopia where people and government have achieved absolute humanity, sincerity, fairness and enlightenment and I for one believe that to be impossible.

It would be news to me if communism is catching up, alive and kicking in Asia

Reading the monkey discussion, you are basically saying that even a bad communist government is better than no communist government. Soviet Union has gone through most of that coupled with a corrupt KGB, broken financial system, lack of food for decades and many other problems. I hope you are not suggesting a return to the old Soviet-style regime

[Zero]

People keep asking me to delete this thread.


Please stop doing this. You are adults, I am not your babysitter nor am I the teacher whose leg you tug at when somebody is upsetting you. Deal with yourselves.


For what it's worth, some people seem to have things totally backwards here. Capitalism is not a philosophy or an ideology or a program or a system of government. Not surprising, because it sounds like very few here actually know what they are talking about. This is how flamewars grow.

Capitalism is just an acceptance of a few basic principles - that you should not steal from another person, that you should not use violence to achieve ends, that every interaction between human beings should be the result of mutual agreement and that no transaction should arise by use of violence or coercion. Communism, on the other hand, is the exact opposite - that no matter how hard you work or what things you have, nothing is safe from the state. You must work the job the state decides for you and you must take only what they decide you deserve.

I'll suggest some books for people to read on the topic. Then, perhaps, the next thread can be smarter. (Maybe I am the kindergarten teacher, who knows...).

If anyone can make it through Murray Rothbard's "Man, Economy, and State", I'll be impressed.


Einsten once said that anyone who wasn't a socialist in their twenties didn't have a heart, and anyone who was still a socialist in their thirties didn't have a brain. A good point.

Capitalism broke down in the present because of socialist acts by government. Everyone is focusing on greed, but nobody seems to notice that fear is also part of the human equation. Greed is balanced in nature by fear. Even the most greedy banker would not have made stupid loans to people who could not pay them back unless a certain element of fear was taken away - the fear that he would actually lose his shirt when they didn't pay him back.

Alan Greenspan took away that fear, and Ben Bernanke continues to do so, in their manipulation of the central interest rate. If you don't understand the myriad of consequences this produces, you can't debate this issue sensibly. You will be forced to call each other names and make up anything your imagination can dream up as "argument".

Read the book, anyway, it will keep everyone busy, I hope.


PS : I've read the communist manifesto and used to parade around with icons of lenin on my shirts telling people how evil they were and how great it would be if someone could subjugate them into utopia. I was a typical communist until I actually started to learn about the problems of economics and distribution, so take it from a guy who has seen both sides as clearly as can be.

[texasmade]

there really is no point to delete this thread.....now

just let things go...everybody can talk as they please in here

...this should be the one and only thread where anything can be said without penalty...


so on that note...im gonna get me some vodka and phantom los :twisted: