Communism or Capitalist society, take your pick

I remembered from other discussions we've had that you are against violence and punishment and such, which is why I asked that question. But the only difference I see between that and the prison system is in semantics and ideals. And one man's ideals are not enough to run a country. Yours in particular seem very poor for any position of control over other people. Not to say I see myself as being fit to be a better leader than you, because I certainly don't. I am devoid of idealism and faith entirely, and that may be just as bad as having too much when it comes to leading a nation.

My point is just that you have far too much faith in people, and do not seem to account for the violence and depravity inherent to human nature. A government that does not rule over it's people, at least to some degree, can't be considered a government at all, so what you talk about it more like anarchy than anything else. But it's an idealistic anarchist society, and can only exist as a dream. It would require mutual respect and good will towards and from all members of the society, and that is just impossible.

Also, what is considered "better" and "fair" differs from person to person. One man's heaven is another's hell.
My definition of a just society is one in which absolute balance exists. But that is, for one thing, impossible, and for another, boring.
These things are subjective matters. And who is qualified to be the one whose idea on them is the definition of them for an entire nation? And even if someone is qualified, how do you get all people in that nation to respect that concept as law?
The only possible outcome is a dictator or king, keeping a society within the realm of his ideals by force, and thereby simultaneously compromising those very same ideals. And besides that, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This is why their is no perfect form of government and there never will be.

Also:


This man seems to be in true opposition to you.

If I had a choice, I would pick true anarcho-communism over this, this is a compromise with government control, this is in no way anarchy, it's closest to socialism, just with a moral adage to it, and the pursuit of justice as it's aim. People are not good enough for anarchic-communism, they have to have a set of rules written, as they would be unable to follow the unwritten rules of anarchic-communism.

I believe that people are more prone to violence and crime when it is necessary, or when it is the most viable way for them to achieve their goals. Hopefully, by proper education and providing a good quality of life for people, less will take this path. There will always be psychopaths who just want to destroy for the sake of destruction. But these are hurdles which must be traversed when we come to them.

With proper education, and a comfortable life during childhood, people will be less vulnerable to neurosis and mental disorders caused by the way they were brought up. I think that though "human nature" or "instinct" exists - it is not what drives us or defines us as human beings. Who you turn out to be, depends heavily on who your parents/carers were and how they chose to raise you.

I don't want anyone to suffer, I'd like everyone to have the highest quality of life possible. These are ideals that I stand by, and within my power, I will do what I can to further these ideals. One man's ideals are not enough to run a government, that's true. People have to believe in what I have to offer as a leader for me to have any chance of success.

Better to have a competent leader, who actually cares about the people of this world than one who does not. Even leaders with the best intentions compromise their way into power until their ideals are but a shadow of what they were formerly. In the current system and state of affairs, my way cannot win. In the current situation, those with power would never allow me to take it away from them. In order for any real change to happen, the system itself needs to be undone.

Other people may have other ideas of what justice is, I happen to believe that it is that all people should have an equal chance of a happy and fulfilling life. Right now that just isn't happening, nor is it going to happen. Yes, I accept that my ideal is difficult, but if people realize how much better for the world it would be than Capitalism/Communism is, then I could hope for a better tomorrow. The problem is educating people, and allowing them to realize that there are better ways than those on offer at the moment.

On the subject of Socialism, it is arguably the best choice in theory. But the problems arise from how it is currently applied in the world, progressive taxation, and regulatory regimes go some way to produce an equitable outcome. But in order for Socialism to be truly successful in it's attempt to allow the common man equity for his work. The problem must be addressed at it's root cause; that being large companies and corporations not giving their workers a fair share of the fruits of their labor in the first place.




It seems this fellow has been reading books by Ayn Rand..... This is a really fucked up way of thinking, and people like him are a major problem in this world. He shares traits in common with all sorts of psychopaths, and therefore must never be allowed into a position of power. I don't know what has lead him to follow such a belief, but I really hope he can change.

Both, cause they give a lot of cool benefits, but a prefer... hmm.... dunno... lol.

Communism = Perfect in wishful hope of a non-corrupt government.
Capitalism = For an imperfect world (aka, Earth).

Again, what makes you so special? Why should you be any better equipped to handle power over people than anyone else? because your ideals are more pure? because you seem to think you want power only to help other people, and do not truly desire power yourself?
At least you seem to realize that there is no way of maintaining your ideals and possessing the power to affect them on mankind.
You cannot come into power or cause real change with clean hands. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. So all of your ideals are meaningless dreams that will never come to realization without someone else willing to do all the terrible things you are not.
You cannot deny human nature without force, and denying human nature is what you want to do.

Also, he's fucked up in your view. Like I keep saying, these are subjective things, and we are all flawed human beings, so what makes you so sure that your view on things is the right view?

I am special, I'm not like anyone else I have ever met, but needless to say; I would not have to "rule" this particular society. I'm not hungry for power or influence, I only want to help people. There is such a thing as a peaceful revolution, if you read the works of Proudhon he talks about it in detail. What is needed is an intellectual revolution, where people cast away their selfishness.

It's a difficult situation, if people are animals like you suggest, then imposing a master's will upon them would be the right choice, rather than to let them run feral? I believe in a person's ability to act selflessly, at least in a material sense. If people were properly educated then I believe more would come to think as I do.

Yeah, everything is subjective, and everything should be questioned. I'm just preaching what I believe to be the right way and it's up to other people to make the decision whether they want to join me and at least attempt to achieve a better future. Or to continue on with their injustice, their ignorance, like pigs rolling in shit.

There is such a thing as empathy, some might say that I have been gifted with more than my fair share. I could never stand by and do nothing, hope that it all works out. I have to at least work toward the best society that human beings are capable of. I mean this in a sense that; I want the best possible quality of life for each human being, with the least amount of suffering possible.

He's fucked up to any logically minded person, he represents the dark side of humanity; Hedonism, wanton destruction, anything feasible in order to fulfill his own need for pleasure. That is the law of the individual my friend.

My ideals are better because they are not selfish, there is no self interest here as far as I'm concerned, I just want people to have a better quality of life and to stop being shitty to one another. My ideas would go a long way toward achieving this. If you want proof that my ideals are selfless, then fine - when the revolution happens and there is no need for me anymore, I will kill myself. If I felt that it would sufficiently serve my cause then I would kill myself right now, people love a martyr after all.......

There is so much suffering in the world, no-one lifts a finger. It's easier to just ignore Mugabe and his wonderful economic policies, I mean he's gone to great lengths to make services affordable to everyone for example; you can get a child prostitute in Zimbabwe for just 15p, or 5p if you wear a condom...... This is the tip of the iceberg, and as far as I'm concerned it cannot be allowed to go on.

If you can offer a better alternative, or suggest someone better for the task of making this world a better place then please be my guest. Though I'm sure you understand that the world is incredibly fucked up the way it is right now. By not doing anything about it then you're basically giving it "the nod" to continue. I am offering up an option, in what way is it unjust to you? I abhor anyone who would choose what we have now in this shit-driven world.

May I start by saying this: "Your pacifistic view will limit your ability to think about government."
Has there ever been any type of large-scale change without violence? Without an underlying motive for destruction and one's own benefit? I know that you have addressed my above questions somewhat indirectly in my quote of you, but when you addressed the the fact that violence is used to meet goals, how different is that from your later paragraph for peaceful world leaders? Without violence, there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to stop the advancement of a different power of arising and reigning destruction (look at Hitler and those appeasement acts). leaders are doing what they can, and generally, what they think is good, just like your own opinions of your righteousness.

Undoing the system... would this really, really work? Examine, look at Peter the Great. He attempted to tear apart the Russian system and remodel it to something he thought was 'better', the Western ways. In all his advancements of culture, he brought Russia further down. In destroying a system, the restructuring of a new system will never work without error upon time or a leader's so called 'morals'.

Now... on to this statement about Ayn Rand:
Are you completely convinced of your own innate goodness? Does the destruction of the natural human tendency for violence in yourself delude your thinking and convince you of your morals, morals that are so completely 'right' and for 'justice'? Now tell me, what types of psychopaths does your quote relate to?
An individual. An individual state. An individual culture. An individual mindset. All your previous statements have been destroyed by the use of the vulgar word "fucked". This word simply retracts that a certain undeniable brutality is being hidden, and these tendencies prove to often be violent.
And what is a position of power? Do you consider it the ability to kill? Or the ability to change minds. What is more powerful, mercenaries, or those who fight under a cause, whether that cause be completely falsified and the belief corroding? Ayn Rand is in a position of power. George Orwell is in a position of power. They can change you, your mind, they can convince you.
What government would you run? A virtuous one? Do not make me laugh. No power can last without violence, and no violence will last without the power to do such a violence.

EDIT: By the way, anything before the second quote is not mine, but Ecstacy's (I am the last few paragraphs.

What I have bolded has been a rather dire contradiction on your part, as well as a slight insight into your inner character.
You say that there is not self-interest. Is this true? You are saying that once such ideas could be put to test, you will not grasp the credit for the ideas, and seize the glory?
When you say you will kill your self, you also say that people enjoy a matyr. Killing is a byproduct of violence, and your own declared violence to kill yourself to prove what you wish to prove simply suggests that you WOULD indeed use violence in your own such ideals to gain what you want, an ideally moralistic society.

Power can be viewed a number of ways, to kill, to change minds. Both methods of removing opposition. I will use the prior, if I fall flat on my face while doing so then so be it. It's very possible that another force may rise up and seize power using violence; they would not be right. If people actually believed what I believe then they would not work for such people. Their new oppressors would have no-one to subjugate.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my use of the word "fucked", I feel it was apt and an appropriate means of getting my point across. If I said I was not upset about what is going on in the world then I would be lying. There is the capability for violence in everyone, it is how you control your emotions and your actions that defines who you are as a person.

On the subject of Discordia, there are a number of mental illnesses that could be attributed to such an attitude, a common symptom being lack of empathy for people.

If people are virtuous then no power of injustice can last. If you are satisfied with a lack of virtue, or are interested in promoting injustice then imo you are a bad person. I hope I helped to clear some things up for you.

You're mistaken, when I said "people love a martyr" I'm being ironic, I have no interest in being glorified. I don't care about the plaudits, the glory or anything like that. My name can be expunged from the records for all I care. As far as using violence is concerned, we obviously have different definitions of what is violence; It is an unjust use of harm or pain against an unwilling participant. This is why BDSM is totally fine in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned, if you take your own life then that is not violence, when you start taking other people's lives then you are crossing a line.

I agree with your first paragraph.

No offense taken at "fucked". I just used it to show a violent tendency that many do not realize exist and was in contradiction with your other opinions.

Yes, violence is a capability, but when you show the slightest inclination of violence when preaching nonviolence, there is a sort of hypocritical feeling given off.

True, but a lack of empathy is common. When you see a homeless man, do you walk up to him, take him to your house, and feed him and let him sleep? Or does something say, "I would be better off if I left him to someone else."? Also, in application, I do not see individualistic emphasis as something similar to a lack of empathy, as this lack of empathy that you have mentioned only applies to the individual himself, and I'm pretty sure what Discordia meant was that the individual makes the decision which is the society, hence, the individual is the society.

I agree that if people are virtuous there will be no injustice. However, with you rejecting Discordia's statement, your opinion lacks the backbone of your consent. You said if the people are virtuous. The broad mass of people are individuals, and each and every one of them would have to be virtuous for injustice to last, and thus, the individual is indeed the only factor even in your OWN logic.

I do not promote injustice in any way, and I am not satisfied with injustice.

I was never arguing that this world is not a world of shit.
To be honest, the indifference of good men is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. So I would agree with you that no good person can ignore evil.
My argument is that what you ignore is human nature, and seem to think that you can change a violent world with thoughts alone.
All of this argument can be brought to this one point, because nothing you are saying really matters without a means to implement your ideals, which you don't have. If these ideals of yours comfort you, than keep them, but they will change nothing.
To refuse to dirty yourself is not in the best interest of other people, it's just optimism. This is a world of reality; to help good people, and to keep them innocent, it is often necessary to sacrifice your own innocence. Sometimes you have to become a monster to kill a monster.

actually it was nietzsche. and he was a bit of a nutjob. i only read the parody on an ayn rand book, telemachus sneezed (obviously atlas shrugged), which is a book within a book and therefore was only available in a fragmented form. it was quite funny though.

back to nietzsche. he argued that the "good" of humanity is not measured by the good of all, since the common good is an oxymoron, what is common cannot be good by definition because if the common is good, it leaves no room for improvement? the common good turns everything into mediocrecy. the individual good however brings forth more ambition which is the fuel of great things. (also terrible things, but that is the toll to pay)
besides, this whole idea of the common good is why communism can never work. people are driven by self interest. it goes even so far as some would actually go against the common good if they have no repercussions from doing so...
many people argue however that this leads to more conflicts but conflicts are good. they keep the mind sharp and fresh and it gets rid of whomever falls to the ground.

besides, i dont really have any political ambition, i prefer more subtle approaches.
you see, by controlling the symbols you can control the mind since it tends to operate with symbols. a slight alteration here and there and black suddenly becomes white, up down and good bad. and i think i just found the perfect medium to get my message across. (not here, dont worry)

Catcher; That is partly what is wrong with the world, that people see another person and do not immediately take measures to preserve that person's existence. Human nature is not something that we as people should bow down to, we should oppose it wherever possible. Let's take your scenario with the homeless man for example; you would not necessarily have been doing the right thing by helping him directly and taking him into your home. Your energies would be better spent addressing the issues that led this man to be homeless in the first place.

I would say that most people have a conscience and a degree of empathy, for example in America; if someone beheaded someone else in public and then fucked their skull in front of a crowd of people. Action would be taken, people would not be able to turn a blind eye to that. It is the job of those who know the ills of the world, to inform others about them. If people are more inclined to turn a blind eye when faced with a nasty issue, then it is your job to force these nasty issues upon them until they do something about it.

Dante: If I was to become the monster you speak of then I would become everything I despised, rather than a paragon of what is right and just in the world. There would be no future that way either; follow my ideal.......unless it suits your purpose to do otherwise - just doesn't have the same ring to it?. You may think you're powerless to change things, but words do have power. If more people know the horrors of the world, less will be able to ignore them. More will act, and the world will be better for it.

When I refuse to bring myself down to the level of those who oppose me, then that is the greatest example I can set, in this sense people can see what is right and just, and what is not. In principle at least; they can see okay - well that guy may never succeed at what he is trying to do, but at least he's better than that other guy who really doesn't give a shit. If I blur the line of good and evil, then it will only aid my enemies in destroying what I stand for.... that way evil prevails.

Discordia; I'm well aware of what Nietzsche stood for....and it sickens me, if you were around in Europe during the french revolution, you would have seen what real Nihilists did. It's not about progress, it's exactly how I described it before; Hedonism, wanton destruction, there can never be justice in such a world. Just a group of animals raping and murdering each other over and over.

As far as Ayn Rand is concerned, I brought her up based on my belief that you may be an objectivist, and to be honest, I wasn't that far off. In my opinion she dances to the same tune as Nietzsche.

It is not cool to be a Nihilist, and it's not a joke either. Out of curiosity, how many people have you murdered? Nietzche's way is not justice, it will not promote the advancement of the species. If you advocate his views and quote him then you should know what that means. The idea of a common good is the way to advance the species, if people can be manipulated to serving it that is.

If human evolution has led us to become this way, then it is about time we take the reins of evolution and change things. Like I have said before, if you have power, you can dictate the terms and turn self-interest to the benefit of your cause. I am in favor of a better world, one where people are free to learn and express themselves as they see fit, as long as others do not come to harm in the process.

Power is arguably measured by not only the ability to do something, but also the willingness to carry it out, a man with a gun who will not pull the trigger may as well have no gun at all. Nietzsche believed if you have the ability to exploit people, you should. If you can murder someone for your own gain, you should.

Not everyone is as self-serving as you are, and you can be thankful for that, as I doubt you'd be alive today if they were.

I've covered this before, but the inherent problem with complete socialism/communism is that it diminishes freedom. If a group of people wish to choose to form a commune where they share everything and help each other without including those unwilling to adhere, then that is acceptable and in many ways morally noble.

However, forcibly trying to make everyone equal quashes freedom and individuality, especially the way it has been implemented by existing communist regimes. People are inherently not equal of ability. Some people have a talent for math, some people might have a talent for basketball, etc. One problem with communist regimes is that they generally fail to recognize this and offer few incentives for people to use their talents to the fullest. Essentially, why should person A work hard and produce a lot of progress when person B who has lesser talent produces less and gets the same benefit. Person A might as well be lazy and stoop to person B's level. This might not be morally admirable, but it's a reality that large scale communist societies have failed to effectively deal with.

Of course, redistributing and making all property communal also pretty much completely destroys the idea of economic freedom.

Partially socialist societies have been effective in some places, but personally I think a balance needs to be found between helping people who are disadvantaged have opportunities to succeed and presenting a situation where not succeeding doesn't provide enough of a disadvantage. That is, a welfare state in which the unemployed receive enough so as to live comfortably is not a good idea because it encourages unemployment.

As a citizen of the US, I think the US government is overly socialistic in some places but fails to do enough in other places where money might be spent more effectively. Social security is a stupid program. People should save for their own retirement, and if they don't, they'll have to keep working. This isn't and shouldn't be the government's job. On the other hand, the government spends far to little trying to get education and job training for the poor. I think it would be a good idea to pay people with a high enough financial need to go to community college or trade school for 2 years. It is more costly in the short run, but it helps create people who can get jobs, be contributing citizens in society, create better opportunities for their children, etc, and it gets them off welfare and such.



Ayn Rand is not someone I like much either. I understand the argument when someone claims they should not be forced to help others, but Ayn Rand goes so far as to say that charity is a sign of weakness and imply that we have a moral duty to NOT help the less fortunate because these people are almost unworthy of human dignity until they have made something of themselves, which I disagree with.

Nihilism is the most frightening philosophy in existence, in my mind. While not expressively destructive, there is no sense of anything and every action is of equal value(or rather, no value). To me, nihilism is the opposite of intelligence, as it rejects what defines humans as different from animals and even from inanimate objects. Nihilism is practiced primarily and most effectively by nonliving objects, certain events in subatomic physics that(we think) are random and unknowable when it comes to predicting individual events.

I don't, however, think Nietzsche was a nihilist or necessarily an evil person. He was trying to grapple with many of the philosophical ideas that had been developed that threatened meaning and existence, nihilism among them. His works were unclear and often varied significantly from one to the next, and unfortunately, this has caused people to misinterpret and use his ideas to justify horrible things.

I don't think I'M powerless to change things, I think YOU are powerless to change things. I can see your point about being useful as an example, but in that way, with only people around you who think the same way, you will be entirely ineffective and will never change anything or matter at all.

nietzsche wasnt a nihilist but he knew that his philosophy implicated nihilism which is what drove him mad in the end.
there is this parable he tells called "der tolle mensch" (aphorism 125 in the gay science) where a madman (analogous to diogenes of sinope) is searching for god. the killing of god was an event that destroyed the whole fundament to western philosophy. if there isnt a god or any other form of intent to creating this universe then there is no inherent meaning to existence.
meaning is therefore only to be found within our own subjective senses, which is why he advocated some sort of aestheticism. so the nihilists claim that there isnt one action favourable over another stands on a "ding an sich" basis. after all, what is the human to the universe? a nothing.

on a human level however i adhere to some form of secular humanism. i dont think that nihilism isnt true on a human level either, it is rather the underlying truth to existence itself.

even nihilists tend to dislike punishment and so long as people dislike suffering there will always be repercussions to harming someone and i think there should and cooperating usually renders a benefit to nihilists so i dont quite get what supposedly is so bad about nihilism either.


and on that note. what exactly is justice if not some sort of revenge? a state sanctioned and impersonal form of revenge, but revenge nonetheless.

besides, its not like i run around and murder and rape people, i mean, i would most likely get caught after all...that and i wouldnt have much gain from murdering or raping people either, i dont really see much fun in that.
although i heard there is some sort of power high that you get but it isnt real. its like taking drugs to feel good, its stupid imo.

Dante: I was stating how you could succeed in changing people's minds while following my set of beliefs, you can make the world a better place that way. I know you don't think my ideals will ever get anywhere, what ideal that wasn't carved on a bullet ever has eh? :roll:

Discordia: I don't believe in God but I don't like Nietzsche's ideas either, to justify your actions based on the fact that they're insignificant on a grander scale is just a way to avoid responsibility for your actions. On the subject of justice, you misunderstand me; Revenge is not justice, though plenty of people use justice as an excuse for revenge which derides the entire point of justice anyway. Justice is opposed to wrongdoing, it's an old cliche but two wrongs do not make a right. to kill someone because she killed another, is futile.

"There is no truth" - you've heard that one before right? How can there be truth to Nihlism if, according to it's principles, there is no truth? The motives for your actions are poor, fear of the law is what holds a weak man back from doing what he believes is right. You say you don't rape or kill people because you don't think it would be fun, you should think of the other people and then decide not to do it.

Whitelion: I wholeheartedly disagree with you if you think that the less fortunate should be left by the wayside. People should not be "free to exploit and be exploited", otherwise it just perpetuates a vicious cycle. The society I suggested before offered opportunities for the harder working and more able to advance, while ensuring that everyone got the basic necessities of life, in order to give them a chance to succeed. Everyone should start on equal footing, if you rise above others due to your own hard work and perseverance then good for you.

I think that people should subsidize those less fortunate than themselves, old people shouldn't be left to die just because they hadn't saved enough money when they were younger. I believe the entire US political system is pretty bad to be honest (the lobby system in particular), I mean "left" and "right" are measured on a cultural rather than a political scale.. It's practically a one-party state as far as economics are concerned.

Your government is corrupt: but how can it not be when political parties are encouraged to take bribes in order to ensure their election campaign is a success. My answer to your problems with your government "leaning too much toward socialism" is that it is obviously not socialist enough, if the country is ruled by oligarchs rather than it's people.

Do you want people to acquire equity for their day's labor?

Capitalist is what made the US go into this recession. They whined so much to have a free for all economy (Have the government not control them) ~ and the ones that complained for that are now the ones begging the government to give them money. Seriously, you wanted capitalism, you got it. The only way I'm seeing this, the current state of capitalism is only going make things worst. But ain't communism having the government control companies? Giving them money, that's what happening. To save the capitalism ass we went communism. Anyway its a touchy subject, not very talented in discussion it, but we talk about it in class every day.


Like one of our greatest thinkers of our time i quote:

Make them fell free, so you can better control them

it is impossible to avoid the responsibility for your actions. one way or another it will come back at you.
as for justifying myself...where did you get that idea? what actions do you think i should be justifying?

justice was born from revenge. in one of the oldest legal systems (old testament) thats exactly what justice was, an eye for an eye, that is just. even nowadays murderers get murdered or anyone that does someone harm is done harm to (i for one consider the taking of ones liberty one of the greatest harms). that is revenge. if not, wheres the difference to revenge?
is it maybe that the person to press the button or make the decision was not directly involved and doesnt have a personal grudge against the accused?
if we were to look for the reason of justice so it would be to deter people from committing crime, right? well, back in the old days it was the fear of revenge that kept them from doing so. i dont see that much of a difference, sure now we are more civilized, more cold so to speak but does it really make that much of a difference?

to kill someone because he killed someone is futile...and yet common practice, even in the so called bastion of democracy and liberty and whatnot.

you missed a detail btw, this phrase usually implicates that there is no absolute truth, that doesnt mean that there arent subjective truths. again, there are different levels of statements.

its not exactly fear of the law, its a long story of social conditioning. you should observe young toddlers and how they are taught what is right and what is wrong. they start behaving only due to conditioning, usually emotional neglect. this conditioning goes on through all your life and even made its way into forums.

morality, justice, all these things are but results of social conditioning and the most basic form of conditioning operates through fear.
its simple really, all you have to do is have your pupils associate their "misbehaviour" with some sort of punishment and the misbehaviour will cease due to fear of punishment. sure this fear cannot be compared to the fear you would feel if you find yourself in a lion cage, its more of a conscience shift that you start considering everything that is encouraged to be good and everything you d get punished for to be bad. most people undergoing this tend to start to enforce it themselves...

probably the most famous example is that boys dont cry. at least not after social conditionings through with them (although i hear there is a bit of paradigm shift in these matters)


btw

if everyone is entitled to the basic things of life i would cease all productive activity and retire myself to eating, sleeping and hanging out with friends.