They only pick on certain countries,they say no to Syria for killing and beating civilians yet they wouldnt dare say that to China

sexyweapons

And yet one of the reasons why Russia and China defend Syria so heavily from UN Security Council actions and what not is not only because of their interests in Syria, but also because they know if they allow more concessions to the west, it could eventually be used against them, if they are ever found facing a similar existential threat.

look at all those evil socialist nations

dontshackzmii

The evil socialist nations are not actually ranked highly on the list.

Who would have thought? Iraq being happier than places that are not actually war-torn.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"] Even the most basic tangible resource needs for a large, ever growing world far exceeds the resources available, at least for an indefinite time period. That's why I am very skeptical of communism working as long as tangible resources are finite and human sustainability depends on them. Resources are divided in different countries, with different levels of stability, and different means of producing them by different organizations. It would be a messy and futile effort to try to equalize the [tangible] means of production, and even then, power will tend to tend to re-concentrate. Divorcing communism from current use and geopolitical considerations, I do believe its time may come yet. But like I said, it's going to take a lot of technological development and several entire paradigm shifts in thinking before it is feasible and accepted. One cannot come before the other, and the approach must be gradual and slow. And even then, this will probably be markedly different than what Marx envisioned. ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="IllestPenguin"]

In a perfect Communist state, those funds are equally distributed to prevent any kind of poverty. This way, there is no need for crime, since everyone (should be) well enough off. This is the appeal towards Communism for me, it's a more polished system. The problem with Communism in this reality, is that humans aren't nurturing beings by default. We would rather reward ourselves more than others, we feel the need to have what others don't have.

What human nature needs to be for Communism to work, is to be caring and selfless. This is the way it is, anything else is just the by product of our nature telling us that we should be greedy, selfish individuals. It's a defence mechanism triggered by opposition to our hard wiring.

ghoklebutter

First, crime will exist even with economic well-being.

Second, your appeal to human nature is wrong, because you are assuming that human nature is always fixed and impossible to change. On the contrary, human nature is malleable to a great degree, and we aren't entirely selfish. While society does not literally create human behavior, it shapes behavior and personality profoundly. Moreover, our desire for things that others have is significantly influenced by the consumerist culture, which is of course not a necessary part of society. So a social change will be instrumental to the adapation to a system like communism.

Your view of communism is cursory and superficial. There are better objections to communism than the "human nature" one.

Even the most basic tangible resource needs for a large, ever growing world far exceeds the resources available, at least for an indefinite time period. That's why I am very skeptical of communism working as long as tangible resources are finite and human sustainability depends on them. Resources are divided in different countries, with different levels of stability, and different means of producing them by different organizations. It would be a messy and futile effort to try to equalize the [tangible] means of production, and even then, power will tend to tend to re-concentrate.

Divorcing communism from current use and geopolitical considerations, I do believe its time may come yet. But like I said, it's going to take a lot of technological development and several entire paradigm shifts in thinking before it is feasible and accepted. One cannot come before the other, and the approach must be gradual and slow. And even then, this will probably be markedly different than what Marx envisioned.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]The flaw with communism is that Marx was WRONG. LordQuorthon

Historical materialism is one of the greatest philosophical achievements in mankind's history. But, yeah, you are Vuurk. There's no point arguing with people who actually choose illiteracy as a way of life.

Maybe it's less of a matter of whether or not Marx's view to history is wrong, but rather if his vision of the future will pan out. The fact of the matter (and of all economics) is that resources (and the means of production by extension) are scarce and there is always much more demand than there is supply. That creates inequality and people/states/orgnanizations that are more well endowed and competitive than others if only by exploitation, luck, and timing. It's just the way it is.

The only way I see communism going anywhere is if tangible and natural resources as things stand become irrelevant. That's going to require many more quantum leaps in energy, computing power, and many other fields that probably don't even exist yet.

[QUOTE="IllestPenguin"]

Communism in a perfect world.

Neither work at the moment, both are being exploited by corrupt individuals within the governing factions. In a perfect world, I would prefer living in a Communist state. I would rather that everyone be considered equal, and have access to their rights as such.

Capitalism rewards profit, profit takes away from the (nation in question's) economy and privatizes it in the form of equity for an individual. If that individual decides to purchase something, that equity is released to the economy once again. The problem with that system is that profit can build to the point where the amount of funds needed to pay for various expenses is dwarfed by surplus. That reduces the total amount of funds available to everyone else, which promotes poverty in extreme cases. Cases somewhat relating to the current climate of the United States of America.

In a perfect Communist state, those funds are equally distributed to prevent any kind of poverty. This way, there is no need for crime, since everyone (should be) well enough off. This is the appeal towards Communism for me, it's a more polished system. The problem with Communism in this reality, is that humans aren't nurturing beings by default. We would rather reward ourselves more than others, we feel the need to have what others don't have.

What human nature needs to be for Communism to work, is to be caring and selfless. This is the way it is, anything else is just the by product of our nature telling us that we should be greedy, selfish individuals. It's a defence mechanism triggered by opposition to our hard wiring.

Vuurk

Only the $600 trillion derivatives market.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

So yes, I conclude that I would choose pure communism under the OP's terms. There's really no reason I can see not to do so.

ghoklebutter

People just hate the word "communism" in any context, so they don't hesitate to opt for "pure" capitalism instead. Oh well.

It doesn't help the case when so much of the communist movement is more based on geopolitical alignment than ideology. I've seen many people claim that communism has never existed, but yet defend regimes that are communist/socialist in name only.

"In communism, you are guaranteed a decent standard of living but no chance to move forward."

So you have absolutely no understanding of what communists aims to achieve?

Socijalisticka

Judging by the vague, messy, and contradictory efforts of existing [not] communist regimes, absolutely not.

Yes. There are hundreds of people camping outside a parking lot. I don't think it's at Zuccotti Park though.

Ackad

Was this it?