Can we have the best of both Communism and Capitalism?

Originally posted by icanhaz
Communism is a totalitarian system

No it is not. Read my last post...

We have all been conditioned to believe the system we were born into is the only system that is good and works.
That everything we have is because of capitalism, and everything they don't have is because of communism.

It is simply propaganda, and not even close to the truth.

Yes the Russian system sucked, but their system was not communism. Their system was not much different to ours, except they had better worker organization. They had a lot more state control. Communism is a system that has no state, it doesn't need one. If you go by the understanding of the original left/right divide, left was less authority, anarchism being the extreme. Right wing was more authority, fascism being its extreme. Russia's problem was isolationism, the same reason they were the 'enemy' of those who were working for a one world economy, led by the UK and USA. That is why they were demonized, not because they were 'communist'. They killed two birds with one stone. Demonized communism/socialism, and demonized the 'enemy'.

It's exactly the same thing going on now in the ME. Same agenda, different names used to demonize the 'enemy', and 'justify' war to spread economic control of world resources.

Same reason we had the Korean war, Vietnam, blah blah blah...

So basically, you want socialism or commie-lite. (Same great loss of freedom with half the calories)

The thread title is asking for the best of. . . prostrate cancer and ice cream.

They just don't mix!

Capitalism is service to self (service by all for few). Communism is service by all for all.

But since ego of human always gets in the way, the communistic states that have existed have not given the authority down to the people as they should. People that uses the system to their benifits always seem to get to the top and screw up everything. It's because the people don't stand up for their rights and choose to be sheep. But then it the same in Us and Eu. We don't have real democracy but are lead by corrupted poleticians. We don't need people to vote for us in a congress or senate. With the right technology every person could vote on issues that he thought was important for him and the majority vote decides what happens.

You can have a communism where everybody works and share the workload and have the same salary for what they are doing. And if you controlled capitalism so that it was not allowed to destroy the planet and it had to pay for the pollution then the companies we see today would be very different.

Face it the idee that the poor don't want to work is bull#. There are a few that might try to manipulate the systems but most wont. I am a person that works hard but I am not as good on the social game to the boss in the workplace. That means I work my ass of but don't get the promotions and the higher salery. I also did not get the work I went to college for and the companies told us they were needing people for. The system of supply and demand on workers are being manipulated by the companies to keep the wages down. Even if I could do more qualified things I am still kinda happy at my work because I help people everyday with their problems and im a goto guy when my younger colleges needs help.

Ego or service to self is what we learn by the system and it is idiotic and we will go extinct if we don't change our ways. Selfless service to all is the way. The funny thing is that it is what the major religous teaching seem to think also. To bad that the orginized religons don't 100% follow what they preach and sometimes become egoistical and corrupted.

Whatever system we choose will fail if we can't get over our egos and not tolerate corruption and lawmaking for special intrest groups (the people in power).

Above is my thoughts and if you don't like them ignore them. Namaste

Originally posted by jeichelberg

You have to ask, "By what authority or claim do I impose a limit on another human being?"

I should have added /SOCIALISM to the title.

For the greater good of the entire society of course. I see no problem limiting an individual to say $100 million dollars. By imposing that limit on human beings, you allow other human beings to have a little more. It's a system where more people "win" and less people are "winner take all".

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Paschar0
Providing the bare essentials is a good thing. Now if you're lazy, stupid, or unfortunate then you don't get the mansion on the hill, but you do get to eat, live and survive, just without any luxuries.

So why can't this work?

Because sooner or later, you'll run out of other people's money.
307 million people getting a non-luxury "living wage" of (to pick a number off the top of my head) $20000 comes out to be a cost of 6,000,000,000,000 dollars.
Your government's income during that year = 0 dollars.

I get what your saying, but I think we can all agree your numbers are a little ridiculous. Imagine if the richest people were all limited to $100 million. If they were forced to increase their workers wages if they wanted to go beyond that figure. So they could make even more, but would have to allow others to make a little more as well, after all, they accomplished this together did they not?

When you talk about a "fair" system, you realize most of the biggest hoarders of money do not play "fair" in the least. So why is evening the playing field such a bad idea? If you want to argue that these people are worth more than 100x their average worker and should be allowed to do whatever the please, I would simply disagree and I think the results we see today are very telling.

Originally posted by Paschar0
Why is this rarely discussed? I know of few people that agree with either 100%.

I agree Capitalism is a wonderful opportunity and great motivator for people to excel and achieve great things socially and economically. I also think that there should be a limit. Something like 100x your lowest paid employee or something that prevents such huge imbalances in wealth. Yes I don't believe you should make all the money in the world no matter how great you are or wonderful your product. After a certain point, it stops making any difference whatsoever in your life and only takes from others. So you can continue to increase your wealth, but only if the people under you also get some benefit.

I agree that communism and caring for the poor, stupid, lazy and unfortunate is the right thing to do. Providing the bare essentials is a good thing. Now if you're lazy, stupid, or unfortunate then you don't get the mansion on the hill, but you do get to eat, live and survive, just without any luxuries. You would still have the opportunity to excel and change your life at any time. I have a real problem with people that don't mind watching these people suffer, for any reason.

I think most of us would fall in the middle. Capitalism today is not true capitalism, it's crony capitalism at it's best. Pure communism doesn't really work either, ambition and the want of a better life drives some of the best people to do great things. So no, I don't think people are equal in that regard. Some are better than others at certain things, and it's up to society to decide which is to be rewarded more than another, this is on top of inalienable rights.

So why can't this work?

I think that there is room for an idea like this or similar to work, but we live in a capitolist society, full of people who enjoy their love of greed and are proud of their accumulation of monetary assets sooo... You are going to experience a lot of resistance to change from people whom enjoy the short trem physical rewards of a capitolist society.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69


It does tend to expose that in people doesn't it?

I understand why the mega wealthy would cling to that and fight to keep it, what I don't understand are why all the working class slobs and others struggling unnecessarily just to survive defend it. They might say the agree with the philosophy of Capitalism and yet they don't even get to play because the game is fixed. I'm just glad the world is not only waking up to this but fighting back. It's going to get worse before it gets better but it's worth fighting for in the end.

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

It does tend to expose that in people doesn't it?

I understand why the mega wealthy would cling to that and fight to keep it, what I don't understand are why all the working class slobs and others struggling unnecessarily just to survive defend it. They might say the agree with the philosophy of Capitalism and yet they don't even get to play because the game is fixed. I'm just glad the world is not only waking up to this but fighting back. It's going to get worse before it gets better but it's worth fighting for in the end.

I agree, it is worth fighting for. The one thing that no one seems to address is that a social, economic and political change is also going to require an emotional, sprirtual and psychological change. As for the defenders of capitolism whom don't even get to play. I can only put it down to the we are right and they are wrong mentality. People think that christianity is right and muslem religions are wrong. People think that democracy is the only acceptable form of governmment. People think that that must mean that capitolism is the only way as communism and socialism are so clearly evil. Small people think small things.
I know it's just a story but I love the star trek society. Captian Janewway doesn't get paid any more than anyone else in the crew. So why does she do it? Because she can. Because she aspires to be all that she can be. Because she wants to be a Starship Captain and she recieves all the associated respect with such a position.
Wouldn't you like to live in that world?

The right can remind us of the importance of personal responsibility, self-reliance, and freedom. (The "daddy stuff")

The left can remind us of the importance of compassion, caring for those who have fallen behind, and social responsibility. (The "mommy stuff")

The perfect society would harmoize these two drives.

Originally posted by Paschar0

Originally posted by jeichelberg

You have to ask, "By what authority or claim do I impose a limit on another human being?"

I should have added /SOCIALISM to the title.

For the greater good of the entire society of course. I see no problem limiting an individual to say $100 million dollars. By imposing that limit on human beings, you allow other human beings to have a little more. It's a system where more people "win" and less people are "winner take all".

Now your ability to be able to determine the, "greater good of society," is based on what? Your definition of your ability? What if I believe you do not have this ability? Where does the cap of 100 million come from? What would the schools who have been the beneficiary of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Jobs, have to say about this? What about PBS and their reliance on charitable contributions from people who have a net worth over 100 million?

Exactly what do you rely on to state that your ability to determine the "greater good," is better than mine or anyone else, for that matter?

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by Paschar0

Originally posted by jeichelberg

You have to ask, "By what authority or claim do I impose a limit on another human being?"

I should have added /SOCIALISM to the title.

For the greater good of the entire society of course. I see no problem limiting an individual to say $100 million dollars. By imposing that limit on human beings, you allow other human beings to have a little more. It's a system where more people "win" and less people are "winner take all".

Now your ability to be able to determine the, "greater good of society," is based on what? Your definition of your ability? What if I believe you do not have this ability? Where does the cap of 100 million come from? What would the schools who have been the beneficiary of Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Jobs, have to say about this? What about PBS and their reliance on charitable contributions from people who have a net worth over 100 million?

Exactly what do you rely on to state that your ability to determine the "greater good," is better than mine or anyone else, for that matter?

If all the incomes in the western world alone, were limited to 50 million dollars and any amount over 50 million was donated to charity... Then there would be no world hunger. Capitolism is that greedy.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69


And exactly how would you know this picture of a world you paint was actual reality? Whose reporting the numbers? How do you know the income is capped? Who does what with the excess? How would you know world hunger would be ended on this basis alone? Who, right now, at this moment, is doing more to end world hunger?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69


Well, I do not know what you posted in response, but since you were censored for lack of civility and decorum, I would state you probably have zero qualifications to determine what is good and best for the many...and this is the fundamental evidence relied upon to state that your idea of fairness is just as exclusionary as any other person's idea of fairness...fairness is totally subjective...

The one problem I see with "limits" is that say you make a million this year and that is the limit. Next year your company goes under and you can no longer make money. Now your million will run out and you will eventually have to find a way to earn more. What if you could have earned enough millions in that first year to never work again? When is much...too much?

The problem is we dont have a party who will both cut government spending and force companies to pay workers a GOOD wage before paying investors. Right now you can just invest money (if you have money) and make more than an average worker working 8 hours per day.

Work should pay more than investment profit. That and government spending cuts = the way our. Force the lazy investors to actually work rather than just invest mom and dads inheritence to make a living.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

Well, I do not know what you posted in response, but since you were censored for lack of civility and decorum, I would state you probably have zero qualifications to determine what is good and best for the many...and this is the fundamental evidence relied upon to state that your idea of fairness is just as exclusionary as any other person's idea of fairness...fairness is totally subjective...

And once again allow me to explain to you since you seem to have a very teniuos grip on reality the difference between my hypothetical situation and your imaginary reality. I'm a talking about a hypothetical situation based upon some very simplistic maths. You, for reasons beyong my understanding are trying to take my hypothetical situation and quote it back to me as FACT?

WHAT??? are you on??

reply to post by Paschar0


that was essentialy how i would run a country, have the governemnt run socialist with programs to assure everyone has food, housing, work. and most buiness and economy private(with a few Exceptions, such as oil and other resouces)

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

Well, I do not know what you posted in response, but since you were censored for lack of civility and decorum, I would state you probably have zero qualifications to determine what is good and best for the many...and this is the fundamental evidence relied upon to state that your idea of fairness is just as exclusionary as any other person's idea of fairness...fairness is totally subjective...

And once again allow me to explain to you since you seem to have a very teniuos grip on reality the difference between my hypothetical situation and your imaginary reality. I'm a talking about a hypothetical situation based upon some very simplistic maths. You, for reasons beyong my understanding are trying to take my hypothetical situation and quote it back to me as FACT?

WHAT??? are you on??

I understand your very simplistic math...and all I asked was for you to answer the questions relative to your math...

1. How do you know the limits you propose are being adhered to?
   
2. What happens to the excess?
   
3. Who is addressing the needs of the hungry in a more effective fashion now?
   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

Well, I do not know what you posted in response, but since you were censored for lack of civility and decorum, I would state you probably have zero qualifications to determine what is good and best for the many...and this is the fundamental evidence relied upon to state that your idea of fairness is just as exclusionary as any other person's idea of fairness...fairness is totally subjective...

And once again allow me to explain to you since you seem to have a very teniuos grip on reality the difference between my hypothetical situation and your imaginary reality. I'm a talking about a hypothetical situation based upon some very simplistic maths. You, for reasons beyong my understanding are trying to take my hypothetical situation and quote it back to me as FACT?

WHAT??? are you on??

I understand your very simplistic math...and all I asked was for you to answer the questions relative to your math...

1. How do you know the limits you propose are being adhered to?

It's a theoretical situation what are you talking about?

What happens to the excess?

UMMM... it goes to charitable organisations to fee the starving? Perhaps I wasn't clear on that point.

Who is addressing the needs of the hungry in a more effective fashion now?

I sorry were you going somewhere with this question? In regards to my hypothetical senario this question doesrnt really make any sence.

nThe reality is that both of these options are no longer on the table,the natural progression of humanity following
our global population curve has dictated that a global solution is humanities only option for survival as a species .

We need someone or a group of rich powerful indoctrinated individuals to step forward with Anonymous from cyberspace and form an alternative global management system in cyberspace,one that takes a name and a face of everyone who chooses to join humanity in a united future of equality of human rights globally via an equitable allocation of global resources,above all other mandates this group will keep and maintain a public cyberspace record of every human that they support,a tactile physical record of their existance and a real conduit for their voice in humanities future.

We need to actually physically put these people on the recored in real time as a means of validating their authenticity and existance .We need to stop the deciet and manipulation rampant among the worlds major governing,industrial,social,and financial institutions,the only way to do this is through a democracy.There is something that no one talks about ,a dirty little secret about our history since the romans,THE ROMANS LIED---there has never been and can never be a true democracy on this planet .

A true democracy can only exist if every member of a totalitarian group has an equal real time voice in the direction of said group.

There is no other way ,dont even bother to waste energy trying to refute that.

So you see the romans lied,they did not and could not have a functioning democracy in their empire.For the same reason no country on earth today can.

Because to create the biggest most important humanitarian ideal in history in the form of democracy it takes a miracle.It is a dream for the far future,and we are the far future today,democracy was a seed sown and planted from a single human mind long ago,the fact is that THE SEED OF DEMOCRACY CANNOT POSSIBLY GERMINATE UNTIL EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ALIVE ON EARTH HAS A FAIR AND EQUAL VOICE IN HUMANITIES DIRECTION,.

And my newly quantified friends,the fact is that prior to the ability to provide REAL TIME GLOBAL COMMUNICATION TO THE ENTIRE GLOBAL HUMAN POPULATION via the WORLD WIDE INTERNET------it was simply IMPOSSIBLE.

DEMOCRACY WAS IMPOSSIBLE.There can be no borders,there must be a state of global solidarity.
This is irrefutable and fact someone here on ATS shoul tell Anonymous to read this post because this is the blueprint to humanities future.Tell them One4all gifted the light.

Cyberspace is where the list of HUMANITY must begin,we cannot allow MILLIONS of our voices to be silenced every year by non-humanitarian efforts.We must become known and our voices must be heard as a species and globally,we can only unite in cyberspace,the only place we can redefine humanity and bury all borders is IN CYBERSPACE,the only level playing field on the planet.


Occupy cyberspace--it is time for a new belief system to to be supported ,a humanitarian belief system,one that allows us all to meet on the same page ,one that provides the environment in which we CAN ACHIEVE GLOBAL SOLIDARITY.

Anonymous,we need to bring religons and science together for the benefit of mankind,we cannot ever come to a totalitarian consensus of global solidarity without providing the conduit for both left and right brain thinkers,no need to get more liberal than those two avenues.

We need to support religous autonomy with the proviso that it not have any negative impact on humanitarian progress and interests.people have a right to believe what they want ,but not a right to join together in groups and use their religous/network of personal contacts in the community which results in monetary and economic combined influence, to offer their religous perspective disguised as normal un-influenced behaviour to humanity ,while they actually undermine humanitarian principals by religons very viral nature ,and use this fiscal power to keep their religon alive and growing,religons are self-propogating entities--that create a need for fiscal fuel to grow and breathe--this need for money means that an economic system that requires inequity by proxy is needed..This is half of humanities problem right now.Not that religons exist but that they REQUIRE MONEY AND COMBINED THEFT FROM OTHERS SECTORS OF HUMANITY TO CONTINUE TO EXIST AS THEY ARE .We need to create a moneyless environment of humanitarian equity in which people can worship and grow their beliefs and perspectives without harming other humans to do it.This is possible,a reliative of mine founded a religon numbering in the millions worldwide long before I was born under his and his partners own pre-texts----I see the world through those eyes but with a humanitarian belief system behind them.This is possible this is the only way to UNITE ALL WORLDWIDE RELIGONS.

Science cannot be denied to all of humanity.,each h