Image Dump V (POST YOUR RANDOM IMAGES HERE!)

[Ravioli]

Communism or "centrally run market" could be a great way to start a country, as proven by both Russia and North Korea as they completely built up cities, infastructure, market, everything within only a few years. The problem is that it wont be able to keep it stable, it has to be released to a free market, or a lower form of socialism, but the people in power doesnt want to give up their power, so the country ends up being a shitstain.

 

[PvtRyan]

Most communists would maintain that what you describe as "fundamental" human nature is not fundamental at all, but rather produced by economic and social forces.

Then what human characteristic produced those economic and social forces?

People go for personal gain rather than communal because the system forces them to do so, and the system is like that because... people have always gone for personal gain.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Then what human characteristic produced those economic and social forces?

The environmental factors that we evolved and 'grew up' in!

For most modern communists - or at least the smart ones - the point is not merely to transform human society, but to transform human nature too.

 

[VirusType2]

what band is that?

****ed up a perfectly good song. What a douche.

 

[The Monkey]

I have the outmost respect for women.

 

[PvtRyan]

The environmental factors that we evolved and 'grew up' in!

For most modern communists - or at least the smart ones - the point is not merely to transform human society, but to transform human nature too.

If environmental factors forced us to adopt an economic system of personal gain, then would the absence of those environmental factors allow us to adopt a system of equality? Of course. But what that essentially means is that you need to live in a perfect world (so: without the influence of environmental factors) before you can adopt such a system. A world without the competition for energy, for resources, etc. Sure, communism would work in such a world, as would pretty much anything, the whole point is: how do you get to such a world? Making communism work in a Star Trek world isn't hard at all, as it is near perfect (aside from people with pointy ears or lumps on their forehead trying to destroy it), if you need anything, you replicate it, the problem is: what system will get you there?

And the funny thing is, is that if communists did succeed in changing human nature into one where we consider the other as much as ourselves, that capitalism would be every bit as ethical as a communistic economy. Because the people are perfect after all.

ANYWAY.

Picture:

 

[<RJMC>]

something true is that if world comunisn succeed,sure there will be someone that will start thinking "if I work more that the others,more harder that the others,shouldnt I get more money?"
and them everything starts again

 

[mindless_moder]

Spoiler

 

[Headcrab Pie]

I love that comic, and the others.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

lol ending

 

[mocho loco]

jaja that was fuuny

 

[Emporius]

*snip*

While I find that funny, the comic makes no sense and therefore annoys me

 

[mindless_moder]

anyone know where this is from ?

 

[MJ12]

anyone know where this is from ?

Oh Christ lol. Brilliant.

 

[Cpt Tenacious]

Jackass maybe?

 

[Vegeta897]

Pretty sure it is.

 

[VirusType2]

 

[Vegeta897]

I think you've posted too many creepy pictures in the past few days, Virus. Why don't you lay off.

That bitch needs to stop stuffing her face and clean the ****ing kitchen.

 

[stemot]

anyone know where this is from ?

Trigger Happy TV

 

[stemot]

HAHA!

Hilarious :hmph: Guy got a fractured rib from that.

 

[unozero]

communism is actually not that bad,its just that people think that true communism is what stallin did.That was something like socialfacism or something.Don get me wrong im for capitalism.

communism is for suckers and people that can't compete with other people

 

[kineaesth]

Can you read this?

 

[Naudian]

If I go slightly crosseyed I can

edit: or lean back away from the monitor...

 

[highlander]

No 5char

 

[Rizzo]

Spoiler

Words

then my eyes started to hurt.

 

[Vegeta897]

I saw that right away.

Does it mean I'm a genius?

 

[kineaesth]

Sorry Vegetables, Norbian and Razoo, you have chlamydia. I'm happy to say that Highlander is PERFECTLY HEALTHY.

 

[VirusType2]

Yeah I got them both right away. But that's to be expected, because of my increased penis size and special powers.

Spoiler

NOW?

 

[kineaesth]

Chlamydia! Congrats!

 

[VirusType2]

Everybody clap!

 

[Solaris]

anyone know where this is from ?

It's from trigger happy TV by dom jolly.

 

[Sulkdodds]

If environmental factors forced us to adopt an economic system of personal gain, then would the absence of those environmental factors allow us to adopt a system of equality? Of course. But what that essentially means is that you need to live in a perfect world (so: without the influence of environmental factors) before you can adopt such a system. A world without the competition for energy, for resources, etc. Sure, communism would work in such a world, as would pretty much anything, the whole point is: how do you get to such a world?

Note that a perfect world is not without environmental influence; perfection is itself an environment.

But yeah, now we come to my problem with communism. I don't grok the transition from current human nature to future transcendent human nature and I'm pretty sure a lot of people would disagree: do we have to wage a propaganda war so that everyone wants a revolution, or do we have to have a revolution and then oppress people until human nature is transformed? I don't personally see how the transition to a communist world would truly be effected without massive loss of liberty. That is why I agree quite a lot with Marxists when it comes to their analysis of the world, but I am far less convinced that the transition to communism would be possible or desirable.

(I would go as far as sci-fi writer Iain M Banks in saying that, if we can get into space, the environment will eventually allow for a system of 'anarchy without, socialism within' where 'without' and 'within' relate to a single space-ship or space habitat. In his Culture novels he posits a world where the development of strong AI, and material plenty, has allowed an almost perfect society to sustain itself)

There is a chance that I am simply going one step up the ladder of misunderstanding - that I, like people who say "it wouldn't work because of human nature" am kind of missing the point of much of the argument.

 

[Solaris]

Note that a perfect world is not without environmental influence; perfection is itself an environment.

But yeah, now we come to my problem with communism. I don't grok the transition from current human nature to future transcendent human nature and I'm pretty sure a lot of people would disagree: do we have to wage a propaganda war so that everyone wants a revolution, or do we have to have a revolution and then oppress people until human nature is transformed? I don't personally see how the transition to a communist world would truly be effected without massive loss of liberty. That is why I agree quite a lot with Marxists when it comes to their analysis of the world, but I am far less convinced that the transition to communism would be possible or desirable.

I think socialism through reform could work bloodlessly without restricting any freedoms.

The state slowly nationalises industries, sometimes buying majority shares in the companies, otherwise aquiring them through law and compensating the owners. The state would then open it own stores and sell the goods it produces at production prices. Thus running independant rivals out of buisiness, as there would be no way to make profits, products would be made for usage. The industries being part of the state aperatus and democratically answerable to the people.

Other buisiness's would go out of business and the workers would leave to work for the state where they get better wages and hours.

At the moment in my town, there are 3 superstores, you could easilly close down 2 of them and expand the other just a little, think of all the labour that is wasted becuase of the free market. A communist society would be more efficient, produce better goods, and require less labour.

A problem is that when the system goes underpressure (such as civil war like in russia, or foreign invasion, or famine), localally controlled stores and industry have to surrender their authroity to a centralised government, so the societie can be run at absolute efficiency. Then someone like Stalin can very easilly take control and it becomes a horrible place.

Perhaps the best solution is a stateless one.

 

[Cpt Tenacious]

Trigger Happy TV

That was my first guess but I thought that almost no one knew about that show.

 

[joule]

 

[Qonfused]

Trigger Happy TV was amazing.

 

[PvtRyan]

I think socialism through reform could work bloodlessly without restricting any freedoms.

The state slowly nationalises industries, sometimes buying majority shares in the companies, otherwise aquiring them through law and compensating the owners. The state would then open it own stores and sell the goods it produces at production prices. Thus running independant rivals out of buisiness, as there would be no way to make profits, products would be made for usage. The industries being part of the state aperatus and democratically answerable to the people.


Other buisiness's would go out of business and the workers would leave to work for the state where they get better wages and hours.

At the moment in my town, there are 3 superstores, you could easilly close down 2 of them and expand the other just a little, think of all the labour that is wasted becuase of the free market. A communist society would be more efficient, produce better goods, and require less labour.

A problem is that when the system goes underpressure (such as civil war like in russia, or foreign invasion, or famine), localally controlled stores and industry have to surrender their authroity to a centralised government, so the societie can be run at absolute efficiency. Then someone like Stalin can very easilly take control and it becomes a horrible place.

What you're forgetting though is that money is nothing but a convenient way to trade. The state doesn't gain or lose any resources when it buys a store from a private owner. The state trades money for the store, and the store owner then trades that money for say, a post office. You're no closer to a communist state than you were before. And what if the store owner goes abroad with the money? Then you're really boned. And I definitely would. The only way you can prevent any of that, is through restrictions and limitations, ie: oppression. Hello Stalinism! It's the inevitable result of any "socialist" state.

And selling stuff at costprice may sound nice, but how do you propose to innovate, open new stores, manage risks? And if those costs are included in the costprice, then that "costprice" is pretty much the same as you're now paying in stores for goods. It's not like a business just wants to make profit in order to gather it all in a big warehouse and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck. If profit made never left the grubby hands of a business, you would see businesses only getting wealthier while the people would get increasingly poor. That's not the case. Quite the opposite in fact. Besides, making their customers poor is in no way beneficial to a business.

Thirdly, thinking in terms of physical goods is soooooo early 20th century. There are no laborers like there were in those times any more. When societies were mostly agricultural and state owned farms might have worked. Western countries are for a very important part service providing economies, and that's much harder to state own since you're not working with physical goods. It's skill and knowledge driven rather than pure labor.

Perhaps the best solution is a stateless one.

You mean where people and private institutions and not the state own businesses? I think I know of such a system.

And when you think of it, capitalism is more communist than communism. Businesses in the end are owned by the people and are allowed to exist by the whim of the consumer.

Ethical capitalism can be achieved by consumer awareness. If you make consumers aware of injustices, they can use their wallets to steer companies in the right direction. Consumer awareness is ever increasing, especially with the internet. The internet is so important for our future. So while capitalism is future ready and can even thrive in it, communism is built for a time long gone.

Note that a perfect world is not without environmental influence; perfection is itself an environment.

But in a perfect world, the environment has no restrictive influence on us. We would be free to do what we want and would have limitless opportunity. In such a society, communism would work fine. But again, how do you get there?

I don't personally see how the transition to a communist world would truly be effected without massive loss of liberty.

You're right, there has to be loss of freedom. A communist state cannot in allow any sort of free market to exist, by definition, because free markets create inequality, by definition. So that's a loss of freedom already. What follows from that is that in a communist state, everything belongs to the state. Because if you can't do with your possessions what you please, like trading them, then they're not really your possessions. More loss of freedom.

In the end, I think communists have mixed up "equality" with "equal rights". There is no reason why people should be equal, or why that would be desirable. Giving everyone equal rights and equal worth protects them enough, what they do beyond that is none of the state's business. The state just has to provide that safety net of everyone having the right to live, and everyone having the same freedom.

So umm... PICTURE!

 

[highlander]

I'm happy to say that Highlander is PERFECTLY HEALTHY

**** yeah!

 

[kineaesth]

STOP BULLYlNG MY FONT TAGS.

 

[delusional]

I can't help but feel responsible for turning the image dump into politics.