No, I did. I'm just wondering what the difference is between a communism where everything is shared equally, which I guess is called facist communism, and normal communism
[2014-9-01. : 11:29 pm]
Jack -- kame I know of some BEEEEEEEEEEG paperbacks
The "extremes" under communism is that you earn both your fair share and those around you (who share with you their earnings). It's not a new idea, and it's better than what capitalism provides. Trust.
Guess who makes your clothing, picks your fruits, prepare the cocoa for chocolate, gather minerals for computers?... People, often working under terrible conditions and unable to partake in the products they helped create.
that's one of the funny things about socialism: one of the possible steps toward post-scarcity is the automation of the work... but the more you automate work within a market system, the more the people will suffer from unemployment and such
[2014-9-01. : 11:25 pm]
Roy -- Also, quotes totally don't work with hyperlinks.
[2014-9-01. : 11:25 pm]
Zoan -- Also, I just used monetary value as an example. It could be anything. Suppose you make something, and then you have to give half of what you just made to someone else.
by starting from axioms you share and building arguments towards the one that you don't
[2014-9-01. : 11:23 pm]
Roy -- Step 1: Automate most jobs. There aren't enough jobs for everyone. Step 2: Provide UBI due to the impossibility to have everyone earning a living wage. Step 3: Automate the rest of the jobs (the ones that are very hard / impossible to automate with current tech). There is no job where humans outperform machines. Step 4: Work becomes recreation. Nobody needs to work to earn a living, or even to live in comfort.
[2014-9-01. : 11:23 pm]
payne -- once again, communism has proven to be a great waste of my time
I was suggesting one way that would make your argument fall down... I am not saying this is what would happen, or even that it is a good thing and that I advocate
[2014-9-01. : 11:22 pm]
Zoan -- Also, an axiom is that people are good, which is what I attacked at the beginning
[2014-9-01. : 11:22 pm]
payne -- how do you prove that the axioms of communism are impossibilities?
[2014-9-01. : 11:21 pm]
payne -- if you're trying to destroy such a system, you attack the axioms, not the particularities of that system
[2014-9-01. : 11:21 pm]
Zoan -- But usually those presupposed axioms are not impossibilities.
[2014-9-01. : 11:21 pm]
payne -- what is the definition of an axiom? something you ASSUME to be TRUE at the very start.
[2014-9-01. : 11:21 pm]
payne -- It's just like metaphysical systems in philosophy: they build up extremely coherent system within a framework that presupposes axioms...
[2014-9-01. : 11:21 pm]
Zoan -- I like it! Though maybe we should move this to a debate thread
[2014-9-01. : 11:21 pm]
Fire_Kame -- no no no, let's continue talking about communism.
and btw, that is why I said earlier, "stop debating on communism"... because it presupposes things that we cannot know for sure if they are possible or not at the moment
[2014-9-01. : 11:19 pm]
payne -- also, you should as well realize that once everyone stops working and everyone starts starving to death, there sure as hell will be people working to survive
You have problems already by assuming that you'll need monetary value, that people don't already skip out, that other people's work will be valued differently, etc.
