Guest Commie Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 Okay, I was presented this argument (discussing communism); Just TRY to imagine how advanced we'd be if corporations didn't keep secrets from each other, if they shared resources and worked to gther. instead of 3,000 scientists working in 30 companies trying to solve a problem, we'd have 3,000 scientists working toghther. Think how fast we would progress. I do admit that socialism hasn't worked in the past beacuse it has declined into stalinism or maoism, but if we ease into it, bit by bit, we can make some real progress I think this makes sense, 3000 scientists working together, and not keeping secrets from eachothers, instead of keeping secrets for eachother, and working each for seperate corporations. How would you respond to such a post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastNed Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 There is a truism that one never accepts a question from a Jesuit because the wording of the question mandates the answer. And that is what you are posing here. What is the specific problem? What motivates 30 different corporations to begin research? And what is the knowledge, background and motivations of the 3000 scientists? If directed research worked, the Soviet would have left the West in the dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 We are all to one degree or another inclined to be competetive. This motivates us to excell. The over-used expression of 'thinking outside the box', which is used for creativity and innovation, is a good way to tackle any difficult problem, not only in science. The idea of communism being able to be more efficient, doesn't take into account conformity and stifling of creativity and radical ideas. I guess the question is directed towards a communism which is not oppressive like the ones we have known, and perhaps more like a democratic socialism. If that is the case, why are we not better off? Do we have to bring all facets of life, including business and industry, onside or go even more extreme like tearing down capitalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 Communisim, like Capatilism, only works on paper. currently every country uses a mix of the two, from The United States, to North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Commie Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 Okay, but, what about crown corporations. Look at Hydro-Quebec, very sucessful crown corporation and they have world-class experise they sell to other countires and they sell power to the Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 Is that a gov't regulated monopoly though? As in no allowance for competition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Commie Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 Yeah, but Hydro-Quebec is re-knowned worldwide, and is very prosperous. Perhaps it could work, if done properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 I'm all for well run crown corporations, on anything essential to our way of life- highways, power, water, telephone. I was just asking though, would HydroQuebec be a player if it had to compete in a free market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 Democratic socialism could work, and out-class free enterprise, if but one condition was met, and it is a very simple notion. Individual greed would have to be sated by knowing that what helps all, helps that individual equally. That is why christian values have no place in business. 'Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me ' is, by business standarts, communist claptrap. Except for 1 hr on Sundays, where one can buy front row seats in heaven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 Both capitalism and socialism require effort. Capitalism requires that you remain a fair dealer and not rip your fellow man off, which is where Christian ideals can play a useful role, but socialism requires that one subvert oneself to the state and work as hard as possible without further reward. That's why socialism always fails, everyone's tuned in Radio WII FM - What's In It For Me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 I guess I would generally agree with that Hugo. Depending on the form of socialism, though, wouldn't working harder ensure better pension, maybe more benifits, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 just noticed this topic. my usual responce to communisim: Pure Communisim, like Pure Capatilisim, only works on paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Both capitalism and socialism require effort. Capitalism requires that you remain a fair dealer and not rip your fellow man off, which is where Christian ideals can play a useful role, but socialism requires that one subvert oneself to the state and work as hard as possible without further reward. That's why socialism always fails, everyone's tuned in Radio WII FM - What's In It For Me? capitalism does not reward effort... I'll make a post on this in a few hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted August 30, 2003 Report Share Posted August 30, 2003 Depending on the form of socialism, though, wouldn't working harder ensure better pension, maybe more benifits, etc... Sure it could - but then it isn't socialism anymore, because you have abandoned "to each according to his needs" in favour of a system of benefits for hard work - to whit, "to each according to how hard he works." That's basically capitalism, as the Chinese have learnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logical1 Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 I find it extremely amusing that someone could be alive in the midst of the most advanced, prosperous nation in the history of the world, a nation that virtually single handedly defeated Facism and Communism, is capable of feeding the populations of the earth, created medicines to cure the diseases of mankind, altered the standard of living for the entire world, set the pace of technology to a level that assures almost immediate obsolesence and is the envy of every nation on earth and still make the statement,"capitalism like communism only works on paper". Oh really ? Here's some news...... Selfishness is a virtue. The highest of all virtues. Man acting in his own rational self interest, for his own profit (Capitalism or a free market economy if you will) has done more for humanity than all the prayers from every religion and all the collectivist, altruist doctrines combined. Communism has never and could never, even under the most ideal conditions, support even its own participants. When will people realize that the principles that govern these matters are no different than the principles that govern science. Would you dare make the statement, "gravity only works on paper" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Good lord, man. Selfishness the greatest of virtues? It is that variable which sunk the USSR. Not that it shouldn't have been, for the leaders were all selfish. Given the direction we are headed in, we will se 5 billion 'nations of one' and say that this is workable. Impossible! Besides, the US is nowhere near the what western media describes it as. They were materially an asset but strategically and operationally a shot in the foot vs fascism. Besides, most of America was and is still fascist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logical1 Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Thank you for your reply Mr. Fleabag. I promise to spend a good portion of my evening attempting to make sense of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Being in MB I daily see an example of communism that works: hutterites. I'll give yout that they are small commie populations that draw from commerce of the larger capitalist population (machinery, clothes, etc.), but generally speaking they seem to be financially responsible and thriving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 I daily see an example of communism that works Community size is key. If you have maybe ten families you can get close to real socialism, but in a society of thousands or millions the facelessness encourages people to abuse the system and break it. Communism may work just fine for small collectives but it is not, never has been and never will be a viable national or even regional economic system. They were materially an asset but strategically and operationally a shot in the foot vs fascism. Besides, most of America was and is still fascist. Kindly explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost in Manitoba Posted August 31, 2003 Report Share Posted August 31, 2003 Oh, you're right of course Hugo. The red colonies around here definitely rely on my capitalist city. As for faceless masses, there's usually about 200people and 2 last names; they know each other quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malone1234 Posted September 15, 2003 Report Share Posted September 15, 2003 Selfishness IS a virtue. FleaBag, why would I work just hard enough not to be punished (in a socialist society), when instead I could work as hard as I want to and be rewarded accordingly (in a capitalist society)? It's a very simple question, and I think you'll find that most people will choose the second alternative over the first because they are SELFISH! Are you afraid of what big mean scary capitalists are going to do? Andrew Carnegie was so selfish, that he built up a steel empire just to make billions of dollars for himself! In the process, the price of steel plummeted, which made rapid industrialization in every sector of the economy go into overdrive. EVERYTHING became cheaper because steel became cheaper. Sure, you can say that his workers were underpayed and worked in bad conditions. But they still worked for him! Imagine that! They looked around at the employment opportunities and said, "Hey, that Carnegie plant is the best thing around right now." These workers lived in poor conditions, but if they hadn't worked for Carnegie they would have lived in much poorer conditions. Communism is a WONDERUL idea, and it even works in the real world, under one condition. Every citizen of a communist nation can be provided food, clothing, and shelter. Beyond that, personal ambition is needed to produce non-essential things, and in a communist/socialist society, personal ambition is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 Capitalism requires massive government supervision. Socialism requires huge amounts of money to be constantly pouring on. Thus, there are no true socialist countries Communism will never work with humans. Humans are far too greedy for it to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 Capitalism requires massive government supervision. Or a decent moral/religious code. Just look at the early North American colonies - strict capitalism, distinct absence of government, and everything runs smoothly due to the Puritan and Quaker religious codes. Since moral relativism and secular humanism have run rampant, capitalism has gone rapidly downhill. We've gone from supplying the market to creating the market, from meeting the needs of the consumer to telling the consumer what their needs are, from selling a good product for a fair price to making crap in a far-eastern sweatshop and suckering poor people who shop at Wal-Mart into buying it. Capitalism works, so long as people can remain ethical. When ethics goes out the window, so does the system. Ethics isn't out the window yet, but it's clinging on to the windowsill and moral relativists and leftist nutcases are busy stamping on its fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuclear Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 Interesting concept, but the idea of competition(hence the idea of more $$) is often a stronger motivator. There are to many slackers and dead beats who want to live as free riders for society to survive as communisism. If everyone was willing to work hard for the benefit of all of society, then we could ALL live in mansions and life would be perfect....so blame the deadbeats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 just noticed this topic.my usual responce to communisim: Pure Communisim, like Pure Capatilisim, only works on paper. DING DING DING, we have a winner here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.