What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Scayde

I think this statement sums up why I, (And I think Chan and Laz as well) cannot find the answer to the worlds problems in the philosophy you describe. I do believe a person is the best one to decide how to think and act on their own behalf. I do not think anyone should make my choices for me. I have little or no confidence in their ability to do a better job than I do. Even if it were the case, It would not be their place, unless I solicited their assistance.

I see, and I simply do not believe you or anybody else have enough knowledge about world economics, sociology, psychology, history, ecologics, geography, climatology and a number of other subjects, to know exactly what is best for both yourself and everybody else, short-term and long-term, in every single instance of choices you make. To me the idea of an totally rational human with total self-insight is a romantic fantasy - data from behavioural science contradicts this view and I prefer to form my opionions on emprical data.

A note on Rand.
I will say this here, as I have no intention of entering the debat in the other thread.
She is a respected philosopher in many circles.

What a pity, I would have been honestly interested in knowing what circles. As I said previously, she is virtually unknown in Europe and I have not been able to her name in any standard philosophy or economy antologies used at the universities.

I do not see much reason to continue posting in this thread for several reasons.

Well, see you in other threads then I hope some other member who propose capitalism and free enterprise as the best socioeconomic model is willing to take up the challenge from experimental economics I posted above (regarding Modern Game Theory and such).

[BuckGB]

To reiterate what T'lainya said, this thread is starting to get out of hand. Before continuing to post here, make sure you are well aware of the forum rules and that you do not criticize a person for their opinion. In general, just be civil to one another or this thread will end up getting closed.

[fable]

By the way, has anybody else read Fernand Braudel's classic Civilization & Capitalism? It's a rather lengthy work, but filled with footnoted examples that show exactly how capitalism works, what it is, and why it can kill or cure. I recommend it highly.

[Tybaltus]

Buck and T' are right.

Now, you can ignore me if youd like, but I found some cool, if not funny lyrics, and Im hoping it cheers things up a bit.

"(We Dont Need This) Fascist Groove Thang" -Heaven 17

(Everybody move to prove the groove)
Have you heard it on the news
About this fascist groove thang
Evil men with racist views
Spreading all across the land
Don't just sit there on your ass
Unlock that funky chaindance
Brothers, sisters shoot your best
We don't need this fascist groove thang

Chorus:
Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang

History will repeat itself
Crisis point we're near the hour
Counterforce will do no good
Hot you ass I feel your power
Hitler proves that funky stuff
Is not for you and me girl
Europe's an unhappy land
They've had their fascist groove thang

Chorus

Democrats are out of power
Across that great wide ocean
Reagan's president elect
Fascist god in motion
Generals tell him what to do
Stop your good time dancing
Train their guns on me and you
Fascist thang advancing

Chorus

Sisters, brothers lend a hand
Increase our population
Grab that groove thang by the throat
And throw it in the ocean
You're real tonight you move my soul
Let's cruise out of the dance war
Come out your house and dance your dance
Shake that fascist groove thang
(Shake it!)


Heh...thought Id turn the conversation to a more friendly deal.
Also note that Heaven 17 is British, not American.

[Chanak]

@Scayde: *hug* Thanks for the support, cowgirl...*kiss*

Originally posted by VoodooDali
I worked at the Brooklyn Women's Shelter in East New York, Brooklyn - the most dangerous neighborhood in NYC. And I have some issues with your generalizations about the homeless.

I'm sorry that you take issue with my comments. Perhaps you didn't read the "8 out of 10" figure that I threw out there...nevertheless, you of course are describing people that I feel are indeed in geniune need and qualify for help.

Is alcoholism and drug addiction a disease? I will abstain from offering my opinion on this here, as I feel it's an off-topic issue. Needless to say, an able-bodied man (or woman) who can't hold a job due to their particular lifestyle choices or personal habits is not someone that I feel qualifies for any sort of governmental assistance. Reserve that for the abused woman and her children, who end up having nowhere to go because shelters are packed to capacity with persons who fit that bill.

With that, I feel no further need to continue posting in this thread, as well. I think I'm done here, and have stated all I wish to post. Have fun.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by fable
By the way, has anybody else read Fernand Braudel's classic Civilization & Capitalism? It's a rather lengthy work, but filled with footnoted examples that show exactly how capitalism works, what it is, and why it can kill or cure. I recommend it highly.

I have only read excerpts from it, I know it is a massive work....I do however believe Braudel's take is the best one: he takes a broad perspective for his analysis, historicial factors, social factors, resource analysis, systemic approaoch....I should really read it some day.

[fable]

Originally posted by C Elegans
I have only read excerpts from it, I know it is a massive work....I do however believe Braudel's take is the best one: he takes a broad perspective for his analysis, historicial factors, social factors, resource analysis, systemic approaoch....I should really read it some day.

I like the fact that he approaches capitalism without a political axe to grind. He notes when it helps people and when it fails, and he notes how capitalism can enrich or impoverish a general culture. If anybody is interested in discussing Braudel, please, speak up.

To try to get this thread back on course, I'm going to put up just a few quotes about Communism and Capitalism for general discussion. Please, please do not understand me to be espousing any views expressed in these quotes. And please, don't go medieval on the quotes, themselves. Let's stick with ideas, okay?

"Institutions grounded on Communism always have brilliant beginnings, for Communism involves a great exaltation; but they decline rapidly, for Communism is in conflict with human nature." -Ernest Renan, 1866

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." -Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848

"The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society." -Ludwig von Mises

"We, who are united in heart and soul have no hestiation in sharing things. Among us all things are common except wives." -Tertullian, The Christian's Defense, 215 AC

"Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself by his own bootstraps." -Lenin, 1917

"The progress of society brings with it a necessity of sacrificing the ideal of what is excellent for the individual to the ideal of what is excellent for the whole." -Thomas de Quincey, 1847

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -John Kenneth Galbraith

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard Keynes

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -Milton Friedman

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Chanak
With that, I feel no further need to continue posting in this thread, as well. I think I'm done here, and have stated all I wish to post. Have fun.

See you too in another thread, Chanak. Now, is there anyone left to answer all the questions and scenarios I posed in my posts before the Rand discussion?

@all: I do hope everybody who have participated in this discussion, understand the foundations for my views regardless of whether you agree with them, or strongly disagree. As Lazarus pointed out, I am a scientist and I am inclined to base my opinions on emprical data. Thus, by the standards of science, I cannot believe in any religion since religions are about personal belief, not based on scientific methods to gain knowledge. To me, econonics is a science too, and I base my opinions on conclusions from empirical data. It is not a personal thing for me, economics can be and has been subject for controlled scientific experiments so I don't think it is necessary to choose a view depending on what feels good for me personally. I sincerely hope nobody feel offended by my method for forming opinions about economics. You may hold negative opinions about scientific methods - it is nothing I feel personally offended by.

EDIT: And thanks a lot to T' and Buck for keeping an eye on this thread

[Maharlika]

If I may...

...personally, I do not know much about Ayn Rand although I did see some of her books on my Dad's shelf...

Buck has said it already and reinforced what T' said. Anyway...

... as I read CE's posts, they contain IMO no flaming words at all.

Surely you could say that she is biased on certain aspects and tend to be a little "personal" as noted by frogus, but this is just the way her mind works --- being a scientist. As scientists they have rules and systems that they adhere to... much the same way as the religious...

I may disagree with a number of her points but in no way did I see her flame anybody just because they differ in thoughts and opinion.

Rand being a "nutcase" was documented (not just CE's opinion) and based on CE's posts I don't see any implication that CE was alluding to Rand's followers as "nuts" too --- much more for people who merely agree with (some if not all of) Rand's ideas yet do not consider themselves as followers.

On the other hand...

...I'm Catholic, I believe in Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make me a saint.

There's a difference between "I don't agee with you because I think that [insert argumentative points here]" and "I think that you're a fool or a nutcase because you don't agree with me." The latter is a flame, the former is just raising an opinion in a constructive way.

Lazarus though, made a point by saying that the best way to put your own judgement (if you're really interested on this topic) is to have a look at the person's work herself, read them and not just rely on hearsay.

At that, let's keep the peace. If you have a problem with posts that you think are flames, please send a PM to Buck and the mods. There is that "report this post" icon for everyone to use. If you want immediate response then sending PM's will do the trick.

[Littiz]

Not if CE created the allegation, no. But Ayn Rand's mental health was called into question by several of her associates, including at least one qualified psychiatrist. And her philosophy has been called "crackpot" or the equivalent by various philosophers who are otherwise inclined to take seriously the views of those opposed to their own.

I know NOTHING about this Rand, so I have no need to defend her, but those philosophers may ALL be wrong,
for that matter. People didn't believe Galileo Galilei, for instance...
Then, there are countless religions in the world, many with completely contrastant beliefs, obviously they
all can't say the One Truth at the same time, so a large number of people stating something doesn't imply this
"something" has to be true

Being born in a rich country, being born highly intelligent and allowed to develop that potential, or being born strong and being allowed to develop that potention...it is luck, and should not give anyone rights to use these predispositions to exploit or oppress others.

Since we quite agree on the rest, I reply to this point
So, nobody would have the right to do anything?
You stated that it would be right to give "equal opportunities" for everyone, so that everyone could start
from the.. uh, same position.
This implies though, that each one could use his capabilities, which again are given by luck, and achieve
better conditions for himself or his loved ones.
So, I think that you're only moving the problem to another place.

My problem here, as I was trying to say, is that I cannot define what "equal opportunities" are.
And even if you managed to let all people start from the same conditions, then life would procede
by itself.
After your "initial redistribuition", could you grant to everyone the same life-span?
The same amount of sex?
The same capacity to stay clear of depression?
The same level of happiness?

It all would end in difference, anyways.
Whom would serve in the end this concept of "equal opportunities"?
Would it be right, ultimately?
Why redistribute some things, and not the others?

Oh, and about the resources subtopic.. I don't believe any form of organization could prevent them
to be depleted, sooner or later, as long as the population keeps growing.
But, one might say that ALL is bound to die in time, even life itself on this planet (even this planet
in truth!), so it's "moral" to abuse of these things while we are here, who cares in the end?
It's only a matter of perspective... We really can't see the whole, I believe

[Dottie]

In a blatant atempt to hijack this thread i'll ask you all about what you think of the "löntagarfond" concept.

I dont know if the word exists in english, but it translates roughly employee fund.

The idea is that part of a companys profit should go to buying stock in that company, wich will be owned and managed by the employees there, or the trade union. That way the employees will have a part in the company profit and also step by step recive more power over their own workplace. Note that the stock wont be distributed to the individual employees though.

Personally Im quite positive to the idea, but Im not familiar with economy at all.