Chasing the Dragon

[OrionHunter]

you could have just said 'you're screwed and india will catch up'. By doing so you could have saved a penny of electricity fee which is important for your countryman to make a day's living.

Ok, as you say, 'you're screwed and india will catch up'.

 

[roadrunner]

You cannot take an anomaly to be emblematic of the theory. Every family is 'dysfunctional' to some degree. But the point here is that the family CANNOT be anything but a Marxist dictatorship. You have members of this society that for a large measure of their lives are incapable of making wise decisions and need guidance. That is what the parents are for. No matter how flawed their decisions may be, those decisions are still far better than what the children can do for themselves. The father is usually the figure who does the physical 'manly' jobs around the house so he will need to use more of the family's resources to satisfy those responsibilities. The children may have some responsibilities but far less demanding so they will receive less of the family's resources. Remember the Marxist credo: From each according to the his abilities. To each according to his needs.

The "benevolent dictator" does not receive any money for personal usage. The money would belong to the people still, but the central authority would make decisions on where it would go. It isn't a case that one set of people (the party heads) get more money than everyone else. That wouldn't be a Communist society.

What is usually accepted as nominally 'socialist' policies were previously considered to be moral imperatives. Eventually some became legal obligations. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the people are PERSUADED into believing that these programs are morally worthwhile beyond their personal moral realm.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. And it is not capitalist but democratic. If people are so easily convinced to give up their intellectual and emotional resources towards an ideology or political persuasions, we would not have campaign reasons and seasons, no political parties, no national debates, no exposures of scandals, no 'dirty' politics, no 'mudslinging', no fixing the ballot boxes or at least charges thereof, no elections laws, and the list goes on. Do you see any of those under dictatorships? More like bullets than ballots.

People are still sheeple. You promise them more jobs, they vote for you. In other societies you give them religion (I'm thinking of Saddam here) and they support you.

Communism is anti-religion and anti-fiscal greed. The sheeple would still exist in Communist societies but the ability to prey on them would be gone.

Yeah...Good luck in trying to remove greed from the human nature. Communists tried and failed.

If a society lacks material possession, greed becomes pointless.

I suppose you could get rid of inherently over greedy people by allowing unlimited emigration over a 100 years and no immigration that might aid the situation.

Of course it would be. Was that not Jesus? But look at it this way, there is NOTHING to prevent you or I or Bill Gates from giving away most our earned income and accumulated wealth, keeping only what we need to survive. But we have to do it from internal compulsions, not external coercion.

You still have not answered the essence of my question, so I will put it another way: If I cut ten cords of wood and you cut only five, even though I need only five cords of wood to keep warm, give me a morally compelling argument that you have the right to take away the excess of the fruits of my labor. Not that I can give away. But that you have the right to TAKE what I do not need.

Money would be meaningless. Your moral base would change. Your currency and priorities would be different.

 

[gambit]

Well actually communism is:
a classless stateless society with common ownership of means of production and free access to articles of consumption in which everybody had equal say in decision making.
So the characteristics are:
1. classless
2. stateless
3. common ownership of means of prodcution
4. Free access to articles of consumption
5. equal say in decision making.

So lets examen for the USSR:
1. Classless - Nope, politicians certainly were another class to common workers
2. stateless - Nope, noe need to explain this
3. common ownership of means of production - Nope, state ownership
4. Free access to articles of consumption - Nope, except mayby for healthcare
5. equal say in decision making - ROFL.

The USSR just scored 1 in 5 if I am very very generous.

No matter how you want to spin it, the USSR, China, or Cuba were/are communist dictatorships. Not only was the 'communist' label appropriate but also that all of them repeatedly cite the -isms of Lenin and Marx as guiding principles.

 

[gambit]

The "benevolent dictator" does not receive any money for personal usage. The money would belong to the people still, but the central authority would make decisions on where it would go. It isn't a case that one set of people (the party heads) get more money than everyone else. That wouldn't be a Communist society.

In a non-capitalist commune, political power is the currency.

People are still sheeple. You promise them more jobs, they vote for you. In other societies you give them religion (I'm thinking of Saddam here) and they support you.

Sorry, but if you have to make promises, you are essentially campaigning for votes, read: approval. That mean it is not possible to have sheeple in a functional democracy.

Communism is anti-religion and anti-fiscal greed. The sheeple would still exist in Communist societies but the ability to prey on them would be gone.

How can you 'prey' on something that is compliant to start? Communism is very much a religion in the first half of the 20th century. Mao's mandatory 'Little Red Book' was the Chinese communists' Holy Bible. In speeches for the Soviets, ostensibly for the People, the number of quotes from the -isms of Lenin and Marx by the speechmaker is near guaranteed to earn at least facile approval by the People and the Politburo as signs of a dedicated communist.

If a society lacks material possession, greed becomes pointless.

True. But then you can enforce such a lack. Communists did, at least for the masses anyway. Deny the people the right to the fruits of their labor and theoretically you have eliminated materialism and its associated ills. The downside to that is the lack of creativity since the people are no longer motivated. That is why capitalist country far outstrip communist ones in terms of economic output and technical creativity.

Money would be meaningless. Your moral base would change. Your currency and priorities would be different.

Your evasion of my question is expected.

 

[roadrunner]

In a non-capitalist commune, political power is the currency.

Meaning?

Sorry, but if you have to make promises, you are essentially campaigning for votes, read: approval. That mean it is not possible to have sheeple in a functional democracy.

Sheeple exist in all societies, but I suppose what you mean is they can make their own political decision about their government.

In which case, yes they can. If one party wants to raise taxes, another to lower it, sheeple included get to decide.

That's not always a good thing, to have idiots decide policy, but there are advantages of it also.

How can you 'prey' on something that is compliant to start? Communism is very much a religion in the first half of the 20th century. Mao's mandatory 'Little Red Book' was the Chinese communists' Holy Bible. In speeches for the Soviets, ostensibly for the People, the number of quotes from the -isms of Lenin and Marx by the speechmaker is near guaranteed to earn at least facile approval by the People and the Politburo as signs of a dedicated communist.

Just because it's compliant doesn't mean you can't prey on it. You can lead a bear into a trap with bait compliantly, and that becomes your prey.

True. But then you can enforce such a lack. Communists did, at least for the masses anyway. Deny the people the right to the fruits of their labor and theoretically you have eliminated materialism and its associated ills. The downside to that is the lack of creativity since the people are no longer motivated. That is why capitalist country far outstrip communist ones in terms of economic output and technical creativity.

The free rider problem? The Soviets weren't exactly uncreative. NASA found Soviet rocket engines to be more advanced than their own ones.

Though it may not have been a shining Communist example, as no society is.

Pride could be one motivating factor. That would be acceptable though not materialism.

Your evasion of my question is expected.

The answer is if you cut 5 logs of wood, the wood is yours, assuming the trees were yours.

If the trees belong to everyone then the logs of wood don't belong to you, so it's justfiable to take some. You have put in effort to cut the logs but since you can't own anything what good does it do you to keep hold of more than you need. You might as well hand them round.

 

[gambit]

Meaning?

What is there so difficult to understand? The word 'currency' is not confined to just printed money or coinage. It mean anything in possession that can be used to engage in trade, be it of or for tangible or intangible things. In any dictatorship where capitalism is oppressed, political connection and patronage are the currency.

Sheeple exist in all societies, but I suppose what you mean is they can make their own political decision about their government.

In which case, yes they can. If one party wants to raise taxes, another to lower it, sheeple included get to decide.

That's not always a good thing, to have idiots decide policy, but there are advantages of it also.

Of course such high partisanship exists if we are talking about the hard core few in every political party. But the point here is that IF there is a multitude of political parties, then by definition the nature of the entire people cannot be credibly slandered as 'sheeple'.

Just because it's compliant doesn't mean you can't prey on it. You can lead a bear into a trap with bait compliantly, and that becomes your prey.

Of course you cannot. If the people is compliant enough, what need is there for any bait for by its nature a bait is a form of persuasion. A compliant people will simply do as they are instructed. No need to prey on anyone.

The free rider problem? The Soviets weren't exactly uncreative. NASA found Soviet rocket engines to be more advanced than their own ones.

Though it may not have been a shining Communist example, as no society is.

Pride could be one motivating factor. That would be acceptable though not materialism.

Please...Those creative scientists and engineers were given privileges that in terms of disparity compared to the average Soviet citizens those privileges were equivalent of higher pay and privileges in the West. Those Soviet scientists and engineers lived in secret cities filled with Western amenities that exist nowhere else in the Soviet Union. They were given the freedom to travel to the West for both professional purposes and for simple tourism. In short, for the most parts they had to be motivated through non-ideological measures. The Soviet leadership understood this part of human nature but they had gone too far into the fallacies of communism to back out. The secret cities served both interests and needs without damaging too much the facade of communism.

The answer is if you cut 5 logs of wood, the wood is yours, assuming the trees were yours.

If the trees belong to everyone then the logs of wood don't belong to you, so it's justfiable to take some. You have put in effort to cut the logs but since you can't own anything what good does it do you to keep hold of more than you need. You might as well hand them round.

Ah...If it is presumed that all resources are 'communal' properties from the start then of course any excess will be taken away. But then this lead back to the original problem where if no one has any property rights to start, then no one will be motivated to be creative. Looky here, if you want to be a communist, come out and say so. Stop beating around the bush.

 

[CorporateAffairs]

Compare China with US and not India. IN is not aspiring to take on other countries. India will develop and prosper fro its citizens.
We dont have eyes on others wives

 

[roadrunner]

What is there so difficult to understand? The word 'currency' is not confined to just printed money or coinage. It mean anything in possession that can be used to engage in trade, be it of or for tangible or intangible things. In any dictatorship where capitalism is oppressed, political connection and patronage are the currency.

That's not a Communist state. It's not really even a Socialist one.

Capitalist states with "political connection as the currency" exist all over the world surely.

Of course such high partisanship exists if we are talking about the hard core few in every political party. But the point here is that IF there is a multitude of political parties, then by definition the nature of the entire people cannot be credibly slandered as 'sheeple'.

Sheeple exist everywhere and probably to the same extent. They don't make political decisions in Communist societies, they do in Capitalist societies. They're still sheeple, but with extra decision making power.

Of course you cannot. If the people is compliant enough, what need is there for any bait for by its nature a bait is a form of persuasion. A compliant people will simply do as they are instructed. No need to prey on anyone.

Of course they can be preyed upon. They're sheeple

You have a compliant population of sheeple. No need for any bait, they will do your bidding because they're sheeple. You can prey on them for your own benefit.

You have another population of sheeple that can make their own decisions. You need to bait them but you can also prey on them again for your own benefit.

It's simple.

Please...Those creative scientists and engineers were given privileges that in terms of disparity compared to the average Soviet citizens those privileges were equivalent of higher pay and privileges in the West. Those Soviet scientists and engineers lived in secret cities filled with Western amenities that exist nowhere else in the Soviet Union. They were given the freedom to travel to the West for both professional purposes and for simple tourism. In short, for the most parts they had to be motivated through non-ideological measures. The Soviet leadership understood this part of human nature but they had gone too far into the fallacies of communism to back out. The secret cities served both interests and needs without damaging too much the facade of communism.

Yet you called the Soviet Union a Communist state in previous posts.

Now you're saying the Soviet Union was not a truly Communist state.

Your argument is inconsistent.

Was the Soviet Union a Communist state or not? If it was, as you've stated above then how do you explain that there was an elite group in a classless society?

If it was not, as you've also stated above, that might make better sense but then no Communist society then has existed for you to know the answer to.

Ah...If it is presumed that all resources are 'communal' properties from the start then of course any excess will be taken away. But then this lead back to the original problem where if no one has any property rights to start, then no one will be motivated to be creative. Looky here, if you want to be a communist, come out and say so. Stop beating around the bush.

Argument fail. Much like the call everyone an Islamist argument, the call everyone a Communist is hollow.

How do you know noone will be creative if there has never been a Communist society? Socialist societies were successful though according to you, it was all down to Capitalism.

 

[gambit]

That's not a Communist state. It's not really even a Socialist one.

That is not the issue, which is that in every society, there is always a form of 'currency', be it tangible or intangible.

Sheeple exist everywhere and probably to the same extent. They don't make political decisions in Communist societies, they do in Capitalist societies. They're still sheeple, but with extra decision making power.

Then by definition and context, you cannot call them such. If you have to make efforts to persuade to the extent that you have to spend your own resources with no guarantees of success, then you cannot legitimately call your targets 'sheeple'. I really do not understand this difficulty on your part. Ever done a sales pitch? Am not talking about actual a financial transaction but simply to present your arguments to persuade a group to see things your way.

Of course they can be preyed upon. They're sheeple

You have a compliant population of sheeple. No need for any bait, they will do your bidding because they're sheeple. You can prey on them for your own benefit.

You have another population of sheeple that can make their own decisions. You need to bait them but you can also prey on them again for your own benefit.

It's simple.

Am not going to bother any longer with this issue.

Yet you called the Soviet Union a Communist state in previous posts.

Now you're saying the Soviet Union was not a truly Communist state.

Your argument is inconsistent.

Was the Soviet Union a Communist state or not? If it was, as you've stated above then how do you explain that there was an elite group in a classless society?

If it was not, as you've also stated above, that might make better sense but then no Communist society then has existed for you to know the answer to.

Absolutely my argument is consistent. The Soviets did not became a dictatorship based upon religion. The Soviet leadership openly called for the -isms of Marx and Lenin to guide the course of the country. What else but communism? It is only those who seeks to rehabilitate the image of communism that we see your sort of mental gymnastics about this 'pure communism' nonsense.

Argument fail. Much like the call everyone an Islamist argument, the call everyone a Communist is hollow.

How do you know noone will be creative if there has never been a Communist society? Socialist societies were successful though according to you, they were Capitalist.

No. Am willing to bet you never knew about those Soviet secret cities until now. So what if there are isolated instances where the Soviets took the lead in some areas of scientific achievements? The issue is overall and how achievements benefited the people. The microwave oven would never be possible in the Soviet Union. Not because Soviet scientists and engineers were stupid about its basic principles, but because the oven itself is a consumer oriented item that required risks and capital investments and the Soviet Union was not a capitalist country. Profits are discouraged if not outright punished so why would anyone take the risk to innovate something like the microwave oven? Over and over again, the democratic-capitalist West led the communist bloc in scientific achievements and how those achievements benefited the people.

 

[Vinod2070]

Compare China with US and not India. IN is not aspiring to take on other countries. India will develop and prosper fro its citizens.
We dont have eyes on others wives

Exactly. These comparisons sometimes seem to be getting too frequent.

We wish China well but there is no race with them or any country, only with ourselves.

 

[roadrunner]

Absolutely my argument is consistent. The Soviets did not became a dictatorship based upon religion. The Soviet leadership openly called for the -isms of Marx and Lenin to guide the course of the country. What else but communism? It is only those who seeks to rehabilitate the image of communism that we see your sort of mental gymnastics about this 'pure communism' nonsense.

Soviet Communism - 2 cows. You and your neighbour look after them. The government takes the milk. You steal back all the milk and sell it on the Black Market.

That's not Communism. Pure Communism is a stateless society with no government. Everyone is self sufficient.

There's a wiki article on it
Stateless communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviet Union was ideologically Socialist but couldn't achieve it.

 

[marshall]

No matter how you want to spin it, the USSR, China, or Cuba were/are communist dictatorships. Not only was the 'communist' label appropriate but also that all of them repeatedly cite the -isms of Lenin and Marx as guiding principles.

Russia, Venezuela, Singapore, etc. are nominally democracies that the USA either directly or indirectly characterize as authoritarian dictatorships. China has Communism with "Chinese Characteristics". China is listed as a "Market Economy" by many dozens of countries. The USA itself is a "Republic"....if you know what that really means. The "isms" that you refer to is nothing more than a vague qualifier on a very complex discussion. Your belief in Cold War style categorizations is ignorant in today's reality. This sort of ideological indoctrination that is common in the USA can be balanced by international exchanges such as this forum.

 

[JustForFun]

Soviet Communism - 2 cows. You and your neighbour look after them. The government takes the milk. You steal back all the milk and sell it on the Black Market.

That's not Communism. Pure Communism is a stateless society with no government. Everyone is self sufficient.

There's a wiki article on it
Stateless communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviet Union was ideologically Socialist but couldn't achieve it.

There is no need to talk to him I reckon. He doesn't (want to) know what communism is,but still want to label countries as communist.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

There is no need to talk to him I reckon. He doesn't (want to) know what communism is,but still want to label countries as communist.

You have to understand that he has a certain undying hatred for Communists, ever since he fled from South Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

After Communism collapsed in 1989, he lost his great enemy. It's only natural for him to want to believe that his enemy is still alive.

 

[JustForFun]

You have to understand that he has a certain undying hatred for Communists, ever since he fled from South Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

After Communism collapsed in 1989, he lost his great enemy. It's only natural for him to want to believe that his enemy is still alive.

Didn't know about that. Feel sorry for him hating something that was never there.