Would you actively participate?

[Eve]

A capitalistic society encourages high productivity, technology, out of the box thinking, competitive edge, etc. A socialistic mentality encourages laziness. Why bother doing more, if you can get away with doing less? Refer to the collapse of the USSR.

 

I have a love/hate relationship with socialism..

 

The movement is not a political one. It proposes that machinery/computers be developed to the point where humans do not have to work. Without the human need to work, competition (which breeds the social inequalities in the first instance) would be removed. The point of the resource based system would be that we make thing to last and not for profit... thus eliminating much wasted time maintaining the monetary system.

 

So, eventually noone would have to work, rather the human race would develop from a set of values whereby 'nuture' is the dominant force.

 

I was wondering how many would be willing to leave being the perceived social postion created by the monetary system? I think money can give people a false sense of self over and beyond their actual contribution to society. Also I think that association via religion can be a dangerous allure..

 

I think that the system proposed by the movement is good but generally people wont want to change. I believe that they have begun to build already.. so this is not just talk.

 

I like that.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[Trialbyfire]

Eve, I love working. It's mentally stimulating and rewarding both intellectually and fiscally. I enjoy the competitive edge since it forces me to rise to the challenge.

 

What would motivate people to get out of bed in the morning, if they had no responsibilities? It's like a never-ending child-like existence, not something I'd enjoy.

[Moose]

It proposes that machinery/computers be developed to the point where humans do not have to work.

Reminds me of the movie, "Terminator" remember that plot...?

 

Didn't work out too well for us in that scenario....lol:lmao:

[GorillaTheater]

Reminds me of the movie, "Terminator" remember that plot...?

 

Didn't work out too well for us in that scenario....lol:lmao:

 

I was thinking of the same movie.

 

I'm afraid I'm not cut out to be a utopian. Being the leader of a barbarian horde waiting to descend upon your utopian communities with fire and sword, now THAT has appeal.

[Taramere]

IThe movement is not a political one. It proposes that machinery/computers be developed to the point where humans do not have to work.

 

Without the human need to work, competition (which breeds the social inequalities in the first instance) would be removed.

 

Competition doesn't have to be a dirty word. Very smart, driven people are the reason we have labour saving machines and computers in the first place....and yes, those people are vastly superior, intellectually, to the majority of us. Would the role of this redesigned society be to help us hide from those basic, inherent inequalities? To save us from being offended when we realise that someone else outmuches us?

 

So, eventually noone would have to work, rather the human race would develop from a set of values whereby 'nuture' is the dominant force.

 

So people who were natural nurturers would be deemed superior, socially, to those who tended more towards being "doers"? Because make no mistake, the competitive element of humanity would not be removed.....and those who resent the doers often have far more of that competitive element about them than they'll own up to. Hence resentment.

 

I was wondering how many would be willing to leave being the perceived social postion created by the monetary system? I think money can give people a false sense of self over and beyond their actual contribution to society.

 

But what of the people who are wealthy as a result of their talents and/or their work ethic? Surely those talents are what give them their sense of self. This proposal seems to involve removing the platform from which they can practice their talents. Leaving them with no role, but to attempt to nurture - even when it's not really in their temperament to do so.

 

I think that the system proposed by the movement is good but generally people wont want to change. I believe that they have begun to build already.. so this is not just talk.

 

I like that.

 

I don't. I can't claim to be one of life's great doers as I've always been too much head-in-the-clouds-or-stuck-in-a-book. Nonetheless, I'm very appreciative of the people who do have that drive about them. I think it would be terrible to create a society where there they were forced to become something that went completely against their nature.

 

Why can't people just be allowed to be who they are? Not everyone who's competitive and driven is out to do harm. Many of them have achieved great things that the rest of us benefit hugely for them. Where's the appreciation in creating a society that leaves them without a role...or with a role that they feel completely uncomfortable and alien in?

 

Edit: Reading through the link you provided only left me feeling worse about this idea Eve. Presumably people who are gifted in the sciences would be expected to keep things going for the rest of society....but that whole piece you linked was dismissive of scientists, even as it purported to promote a "scientific" notion.

[burning 4 revenge]

Competition doesn't have to be a dirty word. Very smart, driven people are the reason we have labour saving machines and computers in the first place....and yes, those people are vastly superior, intellectually, to the majority of us. Would the role of this redesigned society be to help us hide from those basic, inherent inequalities? To save us from being offended when we realise that someone else outmuches us?

 

 

 

So people who were natural nurturers would be deemed superior, socially, to those who tended more towards being "doers"? Because make no mistake, the competitive element of humanity would not be removed.....and those who resent the doers often have far more of that competitive element about them than they'll own up to. Hence resentment.

 

 

 

But what of the people who are wealthy as a result of their talents and/or their work ethic? Surely those talents are what give them their sense of self. This proposal seems to involve removing the platform from which they can practice their talents. Leaving them with no role, but to attempt to nurture - even when it's not really in their temperament to do so.

 

 

 

I don't. I can't claim to be one of life's great doers as I've always been too much head-in-the-clouds-or-stuck-in-a-book. Nonetheless, I'm very appreciative of the people who do have that drive about them. I think it would be terrible to create a society where there they were forced to become something that went completely against their nature.

 

Why can't people just be allowed to be who they are? Not everyone who's competitive and driven is out to do harm. Many of them have achieved great things that the rest of us benefit hugely for them. Where's the appreciation in creating a society that leaves them without a role...or with a role that they feel completely uncomfortable and alien in?

 

Edit: Reading through the link you provided only left me feeling worse about this idea Eve. Presumably people who are gifted in the sciences would be expected to keep things going for the rest of society....but that whole piece you linked was dismissive of scientists, even as it purported to promote a "scientific" notion.

That reminds me of a much more succint (if abrasive) Michael Savage saying that "In Utopia the losers would still be the losers, make no mistake about it"

 

Which is probably true

 

The talented people would still occupy the higher wrungs of the hierarchy even if you attempted income equilibrium. Then they would be granted some sort of social status and resource access that the less talented people would have no recourse to

 

Its impossible to have a totally equal society

[burning 4 revenge]

That's all capitalism is.

 

This is the silliest thing I've read in weeks.

 

Cheers,

D.

And the Communists werent selfish

 

Your post is the silliest thing Ive read in weeks, including CE's posts on cyber-carrots

[disgracian]

How about you rebutt my statement v. just calling it silly. I doubt you're capable of doing so.

Refer to the fact that under Communism, Russia dragged itself up from a decimated post-WW2 peasant society with no infrastructure, 20-million dead (large percentage of which were young male adults) into a superpower on roughly equal footing with America, a country that, by contrast, suffered no significant material loss during the war. And it did this in the space of a few decades. I'd be interested if you could offer some examples of such rapid military, economic and industrial progress under capitalism.

 

One of the reasons for the hysteria against Communism during the Cold War was that it actually worked.

 

Your post (full of muddled sentiments and non sequiturs) demonstrates a clear lack of education on the topic.

To add to my original post, refer to the People's Commune which failed miserably.

To add to this post, refer to your earlier attempt to equate Communism with laziness which failed miserably.

 

Cheers,

D.

[SpanksTheMonkey]

A current musing .. I will go into why later.

 

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate in bringing about peace for all or would you continue with your world view?

 

Presently the question is open to individual thought but later will become quite particular.

 

What do you think?

 

Regards,

Eve xx

You mean world peace? if I follow you correctly then yes I would my own personal happiness compared to that would be a small price to pay..

[GorillaTheater]

Refer to the fact that under Communism, Russia dragged itself up from a decimated post-WW2 peasant society with no infrastructure, 20-million dead (large percentage of which were young male adults) into a superpower on roughly equal footing with America, a country that, by contrast, suffered no significant material loss during the war. And it did this in the space of a few decades. I'd be interested if you could offer some examples of such rapid military, economic and industrial progress under capitalism.

 

One of the reasons for the hysteria against Communism during the Cold War was that it actually worked.

 

Your post (full of muddled sentiments and non sequiturs) demonstrates a clear lack of education on the topic.

 

I'm throwing a flag on this one. The postwar "success" of communism had nothing to do with communism and everthing to do with Totalitarianism, the ability to control and mobilize resources without regard to individual interests (see, e.g., pre-WWII Kulaks). Hitler did the same thing, bringing Germany out of the depths of the Depression and the rotted vestages of the Weimer Republic into a power that stood a chance of conquering Eurasia in just a few short years. Similarly, his success had nothing to do with National Socialism.

[Trialbyfire]

Refer to the fact that under Communism, Russia dragged itself up from a decimated post-WW2 peasant society with no infrastructure, 20-million dead (large percentage of which were young male adults) into a superpower on roughly equal footing with America, a country that, by contrast, suffered no significant material loss during the war. And it did this in the space of a few decades. I'd be interested if you could offer some examples of such rapid military, economic and industrial progress under capitalism.

 

One of the reasons for the hysteria against Communism during the Cold War was that it actually worked.

 

Your post (full of muddled sentiments and non sequiturs) demonstrates a clear lack of education on the topic.

 

To add to this post, refer to your earlier attempt to equate Communism with laziness which failed miserably.

 

Cheers,

D.

You're so knowledgeable. I shiver in delight.

 

Now explain to me why this didn't last and why the USSR collapsed.

 

Can you also explain to me why the People's Commune failed so miserably, enough to cause famine? Sure, there were environmental factors but that's not all.

[TaraMaiden]

OK, everybody, I take this back.

I don't think this IS Buddhism...

 

_/l\_

hands-palm-to-palm

[Eve]

I have much to say on this topic but very little spare time at the mo. Most essential to the conversation so far is that I dont see this movement as having any undertones of communism or buddism. I like buddism so this isnt a slant on the practise. I dont know much about communism but the notion of money being totally removed from an ideology is something unique methinks. Wrapped into this notion.. the idea of humans being self governing agents is an interesting concept indeed. I think that we are so reliant on government structures (and bitching about them) that we have lost an important aspect of human freedom. Competition now holds very capitalistic undertones when really in its essence there are very real human transactions and interactions within what we presently preceive as 'competition' - which at the moment can be bought and sold without due respect to the persons involved.

 

More later. Especially interested in how the authour has so excellently explained the monetary system for what it actually it!

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[disgracian]

Can you also explain to me why the People's Commune failed so miserably, enough to cause famine? Sure, there were environmental factors but that's not all.

I'll consider it after you indulge my modest request, or make some kind of sensible attempt to substantiate your earlier comments beyond "USSR collapsed, therefore Communism means laziness!" type drivel.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Trialbyfire]

I'll consider it after you indulge my modest request, or make some kind of sensible attempt to substantiate your earlier comments beyond "USSR collapsed, therefore Communism means laziness!" type drivel.

 

Cheers,

D.

Why? I'm just silly and ignorant. You're the well-spring of knowledge. Teach me, O Great and Knowledgeable One!

 

So, why did the USSR collapse? Why did the People's Commune fail so miserably? You've yet to explain why Communism continues to fail around the world.

[Art_Critic]

If a definitive way to live life and achieve total peace was found but it contradicted your world view in a highly significant way, would you participate in bringing about peace for all or would you continue with your world view?

 

Isn't whether or not peace would be or is being achieved kind of speculative ?.. I mean peace to one person can be war to another..

 

Some say to have peace you carry a big gun.. while some say that carrying a big gun is nothing more than forced or manipulated peace or an act of war..

 

To me it is all in the eye of the beholder to the definition of peace and as such I would stick with my own world views instead of going on some other tangent of someone else's idea of what peace actually is..

 

I can control my own world only.. I tend to let others control theirs...

[Eve]

What of the specific questions AC? Did you read the main questions or are you generalising only from my initial post?

 

I am more interested in responses to the specific questions. It is too easy to go off topic otherwise into idiosyncracies which are not as informative or challenging.

 

I would say that your response is typical. Would you like to add anything else?

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[disgracian]

Why?

Because I asked you a reasonable question and I'm not going to answer any more of yours until you do me this tiny courtesy, and I will take your continued refusals and smokescreens as an admission that you can't.

So, why did the USSR collapse? Why did the People's Commune fail so miserably? You've yet to explain why Communism continues to fail around the world.

You are yet to substantiate the premise that is in contention here. There's an obvious reason for this. Anyone who makes such a bone-head statement like "Communism is lazy, that's why Soviet Russia failed" is either hopelessly ignorant of the topic and history (and is starting to realise this) or they're just trolling.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Trialbyfire]

Because I asked you a reasonable question and I'm not going to answer any more of yours until you do me this tiny courtesy, and I will take your continued refusals and smokescreens as an admission that you can't.

 

You are yet to substantiate the premise that is in contention here. There's an obvious reason for this. Anyone who makes such a bone-head statement like "Communism is lazy, that's why Soviet Russia failed" is either hopelessly ignorant of the topic and history (and is starting to realise this) or they're just trolling.

 

Cheers,

D.

I've already agreed with your analysis that I'm silly, ingnorant and now boneheaded and am looking to be properly taught by such a knowledgeable master of history.

 

With all this in mind, how could I give you a tiny courtesy of knowledge, when I know nothing?

 

So, Master, explain why Communism = Epic Fail?

[Enema]

Ok kids, settle down.

 

She's admitted that saying communism is lazy was a stupid, ignorant thing to say.

 

That subject now out of the way, I'm genuinely curious why the USSR failed.

[Trialbyfire]

Eve, I wouldn't participate in this movement. It's socialism at its height.

 

From a purely selfish perspective, I won't work 80 hours/week for the same return, as someone who's willing or capable of only working 5 hours/week.

 

A capitalistic society encourages high productivity, technology, out of the box thinking, competitive edge, etc. A socialistic mentality encourages laziness. Why bother doing more, if you can get away with doing less? Refer to the collapse of the USSR.

Here's what I said and stand behind it. Socialism to the degree of the USSR and the People's Commune, encourages low productivity.

[disgracian]

Except for the nagging fact that it doesn't, as witnessed by Russia's meteoric rise from war-ravaged poverty-stricken hole into the second most powerful nation on Earth with almost no outside help whatsoever.

 

Start educating yourself on the matter instead of standing by statements that are demonstratably wrong.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

She's admitted that saying communism is lazy was a stupid, ignorant thing to say.

No, she continues to stand by those comments.

 

The USSR collapsed for a variety of reasons, but laziness was not one of them. The whole premise of TBF's argument is deeply rooted in narrow-mindedness and fail. Not everybody is motivated solely by money, and socialism itself is nothing to do with extreme forms of communism where monetary remuneration is largely irrelevant. Socialism acknowledges that the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few, and it's a fundamentally good idea.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Trialbyfire]

Haha...education by wikipedia!

 

I'm looking for the great, knowledgeable master to educate me using his own words about why the USSR and the People's Commune failed. It's interesting to see how, from the ashes of Communism, Capitalism is what's brought China back into prosperity. It's also what modern day Russia is using, to attempt to regain it's superpower status.

 

Again, why does Communism = Epic Fail?

 

I suspect you have no idea, disgracian, since you haven't explained anything beyond illustrating some short-term gains. Did you know that cyanide, if given in small doses to horses, makes them look healthy and well-fed? In the long run, it kills them.

[jerbear]

No, she continues to stand by those comments.

 

The USSR collapsed for a variety of reasons, but laziness was not one of them. The whole premise of TBF's argument is deeply rooted in narrow-mindedness and fail. Not everybody is motivated solely by money, and socialism itself is nothing to do with extreme forms of communism where monetary remuneration is largely irrelevant. Socialism acknowledges that the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few, and it's a fundamentally good idea.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Sounds like the tragedy of the commons. At some point, when everyone has it, no one gets any benefits.