Would you live in the perfect Communist society (as envisioned by Marx)?

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Ive listened to it on audiobook, and frankly it was pretty awful. Ayn Rand might actually be one of the worst philosophers of our time. If you invented light bulbs, you cant stop another man from figuring out how it was made. Intellectual property is a lie on all levels.Democratik

[QUOTE="Democratik"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] I still have the ability to deprive society, for a period of time, of my ideas/creations though and, if independently created, it would be the product of another person's mind....... There is value created when an invention is made and this value would accumulate in the time between my creation of an idea and another person independently creating the same idea. This accumulated value is the product of my mind.Mafiree

wait...wha...who...I....I...I.....aaaaaaaahhhhhRRRRRRRRGHGHGHGHG

Yes, deffinetly.

Yes, I would enjoy that. Of course, that's just me, I do listen to the Grateful Dead, after all.

I would as long as I was able to practice my religion.

A perfect communist society doesn't work, people always want choice. But I like the way of your thinking, you should read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell, and Anthem by Ayn Rand, all three very good dystopian novels. My favorite was probably 1984.

No. It will NEVER work, and here is why...

Thanksgiving: Overcoming the First Failed Socialist Experiment in the New World

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Ive listened to it on audiobook, and frankly it was pretty awful. Ayn Rand might actually be one of the worst philosophers of our time. If you invented light bulbs, you cant stop another man from figuring out how it was made. Intellectual property is a lie on all levels.Democratik

If you refuse to credit people with their own originaity and intellect when it is genuinely warranted, you will never have a successful economy or society as a whole. Intellectual property, in the form of patents and copyrights, is the basis for a functioning state. To deny a human being the rights to his or her own originality and intellect is to deny a human being the right to be human, and that is why communist experiments fail again and again. Communism misunderstands the human condition and fails to respect the inherent value and unique intellectual features of each human individual.

You don't even have a comprehensive understanding of intellectual property and how the state grants it. Your worthless example perfectly illustrates why A) there is an application process for patents in the United States to ensure that the patent is not too broad or restrictive on other potential producers, and B) no patent is ever permanent (most last ten years). Only trademarks and copyrights (which do not apply to physical products, or potential physical products) are ever permanent, and even they aren't permanent in the United Kingdom and other regions of Europe (the Beatles' music will no longer be copyrighted in 2020 for example, or sometime around there). Most of your "arguments" can be refuted by facts that take approximately ten seconds to find on google.

It's people that think they are entitled to everybody else's resources, like yourself, who are ultimately the cause of failed states.

Hell no. I like money and social classes way too much :P

No. It's not a good society when there is no incentive.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Democratik"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] I still have the ability to deprive society, for a period of time, of my ideas/creations though and, if independently created, it would be the product of another person's mind....... There is value created when an invention is made and this value would accumulate in the time between my creation of an idea and another person independently creating the same idea. This accumulated value is the product of my mind.Mafiree

[QUOTE="Democratik"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] I still have the ability to deprive society, for a period of time, of my ideas/creations though and, if independently created, it would be the product of another person's mind....... There is value created when an invention is made and this value would accumulate in the time between my creation of an idea and another person independently creating the same idea. This accumulated value is the product of my mind.Mark_the_Lie

If you refuse to credit people with their own originaity and intellect when it is genuinely warranted, you will never have a successful economy or society as a whole. Intellectual property, in the form of patents and copyrights, is the basis for a functioning state. To deny a human being the rights to his or her own originality and intellect is to deny a human being the right to be human, and that is why communist experiments fail again and again. Communism misunderstands the human condition and fails to respect the inherent value and unique intellectual features of each human individual.

You don't even have a comprehensive understanding of intellectual property and how the state grants it. Your worthless example perfectly illustrates why A) there is an application process for patents in the United States to ensure that the patent is not too broad or restrictive on other potential producers, and B) no patent is ever permanent (most last ten years). Only trademarks and copyrights (which do not apply to physical products, or potential physical products) are ever permanent, and even they aren't permanent in the United Kingdom and other regions of Europe (the Beatles' music will no longer be copyrighted in 2020 for example, or sometime around there). Most of your "arguments" can be refuted by facts that take approximately ten seconds to find on google.

It's people that think they are entitled to everybody else's resources, like yourself, who are ultimately the cause of failed states.

[QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

[QUOTE="Democratik"] go ahead and do that then, someone else will invent something like it, and youll be the guy screaming "i thought of that" there is no value, outside of how useful it is. you dont actually invent anything either, your environment dictates what you make. even if you are the one who brought something to fruition it does not mean you own the idea or the rights to any of it. intellectual property is by far one of the most destructive viewpoints held in regards to human progression. if i make a program that counts numbers and deprive others of making anything that does that (through the state) then practically all computer programs are now illegal until i give authority. ayn rand was crazy, and most people know that. she was just reacting to the extreme conditions in the ussr

Democratik

If you refuse to credit people with their own originaity and intellect when it is genuinely warranted, you will never have a successful economy or society as a whole. Intellectual property, in the form of patents and copyrights, is the basis for a functioning state. To deny a human being the rights to his or her own originality and intellect is to deny a human being the right to be human, and that is why communist experiments fail again and again. Communism misunderstands the human condition and fails to respect the inherent value and unique intellectual features of each human individual.

You don't even have a comprehensive understanding of intellectual property and how the state grants it. Your worthless example perfectly illustrates why A) there is an application process for patents in the United States to ensure that the patent is not too broad or restrictive on other potential producers, and B) no patent is ever permanent (most last ten years). Only trademarks and copyrights (which do not apply to physical products, or potential physical products) are ever permanent, and even they aren't permanent in the United Kingdom and other regions of Europe (the Beatles' music will no longer be copyrighted in 2020 for example, or sometime around there). Most of your "arguments" can be refuted by facts that take approximately ten seconds to find on google.

It's people that think they are entitled to everybody else's resources, like yourself, who are ultimately the cause of failed states.

It would be pretty boring with no incentives to work. But its all pros and cons i suppose. I might give it a shot.

No, I wouldn't. I'm not in favour of capitalism, but there are too many aspects of marxism that I don't like either, mainly because the class struggle is maintained, it's just the accent that is shifted.

It would be pretty boring with no incentives to work. But its all pros and cons i suppose. I might give it a shot.

Zerocrossings

[QUOTE="Kuhu"]It would never work. Capitalism works out so well because Capitalism is fueled by each individuals' want to gain money/power. If everyone was treated the exact same, there would be no incentive to invent new technology or to do a better job then others, because you wouldn't be paid better for it and you wouldn't be treated better than other people.WestSideAzn

I would so long as I

a) got to keep my profession

b) got to keep smoking copious amounts of weed, and could keep doing my other hobbies and had the time to

c) got the car I've always wanted out of the deal

hammerofcrom

Technically, you're entirely wrong. And by technically I mean actually.

People are not paid the same, they are paid in accordance with the work they do and its value to overall society. hence the "each according to their abilities, each according to their needs" thingy (i forget the exact wording.

You're confusing historical, centralised communist government with the intended theory. You'd still have shops to buy cars and suchlike from, the shop just wouldn't be owned by a private entity. Besides, we still have waiting lists for cars now...And the fact that (as someone said) plc companies are owned by shareholders does not mean they are not owned by private entities. The reality is that wealthy capitalist/industry powers hold large swathes of various companies, and so control them.

I think that if communism could be perfectly implemented, then it would be a fantastic way for the world to be run. No more poverty, no more suffering, everyone has at least as much as they need, no exploitation, and so on. If you somehow think that your personal desire for property like shiny things outweighs the need for a social system that ensures well-being of all, then you are either extremely selfish, or probably have no idea what it is like to be under-privileged.

HOWEVER, all that said, I don't think it would work, because frankly, too many people ARE too selfish for it to work. And it only takes one person to exploit a position of power to ruin everything. The only conceivable way it could work is as part of a truly benevolent dictatorship, but those are few and far between themselves.

[QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"]

[QUOTE="Democratik"] go ahead and do that then, someone else will invent something like it, and youll be the guy screaming "i thought of that" there is no value, outside of how useful it is. you dont actually invent anything either, your environment dictates what you make. even if you are the one who brought something to fruition it does not mean you own the idea or the rights to any of it. intellectual property is by far one of the most destructive viewpoints held in regards to human progression. if i make a program that counts numbers and deprive others of making anything that does that (through the state) then practically all computer programs are now illegal until i give authority. ayn rand was crazy, and most people know that. she was just reacting to the extreme conditions in the ussr

Democratik

If you refuse to credit people with their own originaity and intellect when it is genuinely warranted, you will never have a successful economy or society as a whole. Intellectual property, in the form of patents and copyrights, is the basis for a functioning state. To deny a human being the rights to his or her own originality and intellect is to deny a human being the right to be human, and that is why communist experiments fail again and again. Communism misunderstands the human condition and fails to respect the inherent value and unique intellectual features of each human individual.

You don't even have a comprehensive understanding of intellectual property and how the state grants it. Your worthless example perfectly illustrates why A) there is an application process for patents in the United States to ensure that the patent is not too broad or restrictive on other potential producers, and B) no patent is ever permanent (most last ten years). Only trademarks and copyrights (which do not apply to physical products, or potential physical products) are ever permanent, and even they aren't permanent in the United Kingdom and other regions of Europe (the Beatles' music will no longer be copyrighted in 2020 for example, or sometime around there). Most of your "arguments" can be refuted by facts that take approximately ten seconds to find on google.

It's people that think they are entitled to everybody else's resources, like yourself, who are ultimately the cause of failed states.

not really up on my Rand, but just curious as to what you would think of the example of Alexey Pajitnov (Inventor of tetris....that's right, i brought up a game in a games forum :P), who never made any money out of his "invention" despite it being genuinely innovative and effectively creating an industry, until quite recently because he invented it in the USSR.

I think it's an interesting example, because its such a neat real-world situation. Should everyone benefit from an individual's intellectual innovation? I would suggest it seems unfair, and does not in fact encourage such innovation. But also, if the innovation is something like a new method of medical treatment which can save many lives, is it right for the individual to benefit unduly from it, at the expense of society as a whole?

Not really sure what the answer is personally, just curious what people may think...

Absolutely not. I believe very stronlgy in individuality and personal rights and freedoms. My wants and desires may not neccessary coincide with what "society" deems to be appropriate for me. I would rather make that decision or strive for that ideal than not have the right or chance to pursue my desires.

Absolutely not. I believe very stronlgy in individuality and personal rights and freedoms. My wants and desires may not neccessary coincide with what "society" deems to be appropriate for me. I would rather make that decision or strive for that ideal than not have the right or chance to pursue my desires.

sonicare

Is there any unicorns in this society if so im in.

Is there any unicorns in this society if so im in.

muller39

Absolutely not. I believe very stronlgy in individuality and personal rights and freedoms. My wants and desires may not neccessary coincide with what "society" deems to be appropriate for me. I would rather make that decision or strive for that ideal than not have the right or chance to pursue my desires.

For this purely hypothetical question, I give you the purely hypothetical answer of yes.

Absolutely not. I believe very stronlgy in individuality and personal rights and freedoms. My wants and desires may not neccessary coincide with what "society" deems to be appropriate for me. I would rather make that decision or strive for that ideal than not have the right or chance to pursue my desires.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] Okay, but that has nothing to do with the theory presented by Marx and the direction of society. But, nice job, talking about the anti communistic arguments that originated in the 30's and 40's and developed later into the 50's aimed at the USSR.EMOEVOLUTION

Is there any unicorns in this society if so im in.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Sorry, but it does. Besides, I'm not saying communism is evil or wrong, it's just not for me. Nice job being narrow minded and crying about differing opinions. sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] What? I'm crying about your opinion.. not really. I was only pointing out you were talking about two different things. I doubt you ever even read what Marx wrote. You just took the general view of communism and applied it to your opinion.. which doesn't really make much sense. When, that's not what is being discussed. We're not talking about the general publics view on communism. We're talking about what Marx wrote about..EMOEVOLUTION

To be fair, communism has never been given a chance to work or not work. I'm sure capitalism would fail too if it had a sociopath at the helm. Doctor-McNinja

Please don't bump old threads. Thanks.