Can we have the best of both Communism and Capitalism?

Each human being on the planet has a birthright that entitles them to an equal benefit to any technological creation mankind concieves of,NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY TECHNOLOGY OR INFORMATION OR TEACHINGS FROM HUMANITY.In any way shape or form.

Science is a part of humanitys natural heritage and its reality and must be shared respected and advanced in the name of humanitarian progress AND NOTHING ELSE,their can be no fiscal component to science as with religon,it cannot foster its own growth through a fiscal component or it steals from the very humanity it was created to support

Global Humanitarian Solidarity defined by an equitable share in all global resources both material and intellectual and spiritual--- FREELY AND OPENLY SUPPORTED BY DECREE OF A GLOBAL DEMOCRATIC LIST OF HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS AS DEFINED BY A COMPLETE GLOBAL CENSUS OF EVERY HUMAN ALIVE ON EARTH.

So you see neither of your ideas will ever work again and the only path for humanity happens to be the one that can be created in and through cyberspace,of the people-by the people-for the people --THERE IS NO OTHER WAY WITHOUT BEING IMMORAL ON A HUMANITARIAN BASIS AND THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO RISE AGAINST-----HUMANITARIAN INJUSTICE FORCED UPON THEM BY GOVERNMENT,RELIGOUS AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS THAT ARE STRUCTURED AS SELF-PROPOGATING ENTITIES THAT FEED OFF OF HUMAN VOICES AND VOTES THAT THEY STEAL AND BUY WITH FISCAL POWER.

We can change this but not with communism or a false democracy,WE NEED TO GERMINATE THE SEED WE ARE ALL HOLDING IN OUR HANDS AS A SPECIES IT IS THE GREATEST IDEA EVER CONCIEVED OF BY A HUMAN BEING.

In fact a true democracy is as close a reflection of what a human being intrinsicly is as can be seen,we are defined by the completeness of the sound of every human voice on earth singing one song,one humanitarian melody.

We NEED science to save our environment and feed and care for our people globally.

We NEED religon to save our people from self-serving destruction of the earth and each other by proxy globally

We NEED industrialist concepts to save ourselves from suffering inequities or shortfalls in the basic human necessities globally.

We need to bring all of these existing ENTITIES into a new form and STRUCTURE,one that allows them ALL to transition to a moneyless global society without crumbling and losing their ability to exist and grow as humanity requires them to,we need to GAURANTEE these entities AN EQUALRIGHT TO SEEK THE UMBRELLA OF HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT.

We need to do this through a system called Global Reliance---a combonation of Religon ideals and Scientific ideals,we need to make available a conduit to ALL OF HUMANITY GLOBALLY through which they can be recognised and counted as a humanitarian voice of equal weight to all others in support of this system IN CYBERSPACE,if we can achieve the goal of listing,identifiing,and hearing the voice of EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON EARTH,then we will have by proxy enabled and activated the first TRUE DEMOCRACY IN HUMAN HISTORY.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69


Why would you take the time to offer a theoretical situation if you are not willing to discuss possible outcomes? Is this not the whole idea? Responsible persons take the time to think about responsible outcomes...and irresponsible outcomes as well...

reply to post by Paschar0


Isnt that what we have already. Socialism for the banks and the rich and capitalism for the poor that are having to pay for it...

I agree with you OP, they are purposefully populated each with good points, and polemically opposed such that there will never be a middle ground.

You are completely right but it's probably can't happen until they both eradicated each other, and I mean the hard-core believers in each. So keep you head down and when the hard core people kill each other off, maybe we can survive to salvage something after wards.

Didn't mean to kill Opies thread here.

But it is obvious that capital-ism and commun-ism, both are a mixture of mud and bread. Each has a bit of bread, and a bit of mud.

It is on purpose.

So that they will always be balanced, and therefore will always function as the handlebars, of the dialectic-splitting-reforming mechanism.

Commune-ism-ists will use the hegel verbage outright, they use terms like "heating" and "cooling" (detente) and so forth --which denotes a cycle. Also in the opposite -ism, capital-ism, they speak of "boom and bust" cycles.

Philosophers, economists and professors are the truly gutless worms of our time. I look forward to some schools promoting the idea that "Fabius and Hegel were assholes." because that is the plain truth. If I am invited to any university, I have a speech along these lines already in my head. Ah, but people do love their polarities, they do love their xonflicts. It is like red versus blue OP, who wants to stop fighting? Red versus blue is a fight from one end of the spectrum to the other. All colors like yellow, green, orange, are in between red and blue. So to stop fighting, and manipulation, is to affect the core modality of the human. And how shall that happen?

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

We impose limits on other human beings all the time; they are called laws. As free as we like ourselves to be there is a reason we do not live in the wild west. Why allow our economic model to be one?

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
We impose limits on other human beings all the time; they are called laws.

You mean the legislators.

That is who issues "laws"

Well not law, really, that's extinct. The true word would be "pre-code". Which then gets boiled by the codifier, into what they then call "US Codes"

...Then there are also things called statutes, which are totally different, and numerous and are what empowers most courts. Then there is a third thing called "regulations" which come from the executive branch and its adherent bodies (EPA and so forth), totally different as well.

So there are three types of legal ropes, which get thrown over the humans, and tightened to control them. Codes (codified law issued from legislators aka law-lawmakers), Statutes, and Regulations.

So for you to say that "We" impose limits on other human beings, I think you mean "The rich ass legislators" who do it, instead of "We".. Isn't that right? Or do you work for a body that issues codes, statutes or regulations?

Frankly there's too many of those already, and still, war and starvation are rife. Perhaps if we double the body of code? More lawz? Would that make the world better?

reply to post by smallpeeps


Don't get me wrong, I agree that in most cases laws are written without direct representation of citizens, but unfortunately that's what has become of our system of governance (well to be techincal we have a form of representative democracy so it should be expected). I also agree that certain restrictions put in place are done for the benefit of those that have the most pull (as in contributions and lobbying). But on the same token "We" allow it to go on because if enough people chose to change the system, "TPTB" would have no choice to follow. That being said, I was simply responding to the comment that I quoted to show that it is possible to legislate certain limitations; "we" (or they if you prefer) do it all the time.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
[But on the same token "We" allow it to go on because if enough people chose to change the system, "TPTB" would have no choice to follow.

I appreciate your fine response.

At first you said, "We make laws"

Now you admit, that's not entirely true, because as you say above "We" allow laws to go on.

And I think you are saying "We", can somehow create a scenario, where the "Powers that Be", will "have no choice"?

I think that's the point, THEY are theonly ones who can choose. WE, the people, cannot choose.

In capital-ism, or commune-ism, in no ism anywhere, can the people choose their future.

I appreciate your fine post. Please explain this idea that somehow "we" can make the "ptb" feel that they "have no choice"? I disagree, that they can be made to feel they are without choices. I think that's a large fallusy perpetuated by fallucy-worship. Meaning, "wrong memes rule this world".

Where are the brakes on these two -isms? And how shall the people of Marxist-lands apply their foot to the brakepedal? And how shall the people of Capital-ist lands, apply their foot to the brake pedal? I am of the opinion, that if they do try to apply the brakes as you suggest, they'll find strangely, that there's no pressure in the brake lines, hence, no brakes. Have you ever had that happen? Where you press the brake pedal and it goes straight to the floor? That's a powerful paradigm shift we can all relate to.

Haha, it could be called "lack of liquidity" as in brake fluid. Get it? Ahaha, aheh. Heh.

Communism killed 100 million people and all I got was this lousy shirt :-/

Please explain this idea that somehow "we" can make the "ptb" feel that they "have no choice"? I disagree, that they can be made to feel they are without choices.

Just out of raw numbers. Ever see a gigantic scorpian get overwhelmed and eaten by a strong number of ants? There are 7 billion people in this world. The ones that hold true power are probably close to a million in number (maybe), and they employ about 10 or 15 times at amount in physican hands (military, police force etc..). So lets just say 25 million strong is their force (higher than 10 to 15 times just for arguments sake), what percentage is that to 7 billion? Now yes they have tactics, organization and technology on their side, but when I speak of overwhelming I don't necessarily mean through force. If 6 billion decided not to go to work tomorrow and the next day and the next, all the while spending absolutely no money on goods (food and necessities not included) what do you think will happen? If we refused to vote, refused to watch TV (media specifically) and dealt in local affairs - what then? TPTB are both very powerful and very dependent on the cattle to maintain that power. If 6 billion decided that money is worthless and thought of a new system of barter or anything not having to do with currency then what will TPTB do? Who would they bribe?

Also again when I said "We" I don't necessarily mean "US" or even "Me", but the reality is that most of the population agree on a certain way of living and even if I am against it, I cannot through my own actions escape the greater reality which is as a citizen if I do not follow the law there is a chance my freedom can be taken away. You can argue that "We" didn't invite Iraq, but rather "They" did, but it will be pointless really because "We" chose not to do anything with enough numbers to stop it (yeah I know millions protested, but it was not enough in hindsight).

I agree that communism and caring for the poor, stupid, lazy and unfortunate is the right thing to do.

If you believe that, nothing is preventing you and others who feel this way from practising your charity.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
the reality is that most of the population agree on a certain way of living and even if I am against it, I cannot through my own actions escape the greater reality

When you say this line above, do you mean the commune-ist populations, or the capital-ist populations? That is to ask, do you feel that you have a larger brake pedal, due to capital-ism? I personally feel the two systems are in collusion, and that is proveable through historical research as to who built up the Bolsheviks.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms[...] if I do not follow the law there is a chance my freedom can be taken away.

Are you afraid of that? I think that's the key question. Because in some -isms, there is far more fear, than in others. Yet, fear, does have a necessary component called "awareness". That is to say, you can't really be afraid, unless you are aware. Or perhaps one CAN have fear based on lies (non-awareness) but we can surely agree, that fear based on true awareness, is somewhat healthy. So either way, you must identify what happens when you do not "follow the law". Walk us through what happens. Property seizure, jail, prison rape, you know. Walk us through the consequences of law-disobedience.

In Russia, they have more reason to be afraid, since there are large gulags there, which the global media will not discuss. To me, that non-discussion of what's buried inside the Eastern Soviet system, is the true hidden evil of this world.

I expect our exchange to produce more fruit.

Do you feel that the Soviet-Marx-ism government, made itself strong, or was it strengthened, by powerful, oligarchies of capital? Thanks for your fine thoughts, yes when it comes to ants, I agree with you 100% and applaud your excellent post above.

What does this mean: "antlike"?

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Paschar0

 

Isnt that what we have already. Socialism for the banks and the rich and capitalism for the poor that are having to pay for it...

No, that's just socialism.

Originally posted by PoeteMaudit
No, that's just socialism.

Another -ism

Tell me: What is the difference between a commune, and society?

Social, and commune, as memes, concepts, requiring no dictionary, mean what?

And then a followup question: Having established the difference between the common parlance of what is a commune, and what is a society, then we can ask question #2: What do the relative isms, mean?

That is to say, if we can say "this is a commune", then what is the -ism, of that?
That is to say, if we can say "this is a society", then we what is the -ism, of that?

You can't define or use an -ism, unless you define the "is".

reply to post by smallpeeps


Am I afraid of losing my freedom, sure who isn't. That is not to say I will not knowingly break law when the need arises. There are some laws I agree with and many others I do not, I was simply making the statement that there are laws in place and to break them is the possibility of going to jail. I think civil disobedience is necessary and I believe in power in numbers. I agree there are far worse outcomes than going to jail, and that the fear of jail should not prevent anyone from becoming patriots (real meaning of the term) in preventing totalitarian control.

As far as "isms", I don't champion any of them to be honest. IMO every ism is doomed to fail but that's another topic altogether. Personally I think that large megacities and their density numbers will soon be a thing of the past, replaced by smaller town cities that are predominately independent to extent in their affairs - locally and politically. States I believe will also hold more power in their own destiny. If one state wants to outlaw weed, let them as long as that's the general consensus. If another wants to allow Gay Marriage let them, if another wants to expand their schools curriculum to allow teachers to teach evolution and ID let them. If one wants to outlaw guns, while the other loosens it's gun laws then so be it. People should be able to travel to any state and gather with like minds and actually have a say in their laws, customs, economy and culture without the Federal Government over ruling them. Ok I'm coming off point here, personally I see major flaws in both communism and capitalism and have been vocal about both from quite some time now. As to what I would replace them with I don't know, but what I do know is that BOTH systems are based on unlimited economic growth, and power concentrated in the hands of the few.

Originally posted by one4all
Each human being on the planet has a birthright that entitles them to an equal benefit to any technological creation mankind concieves of,NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY TECHNOLOGY OR INFORMATION OR TEACHINGS FROM HUMANITY.In any way shape or form.

They are entitled by whom? You sucked that out of your thumb, just as every "right" is sucked out of someone's thumb.

So what would happen if I were to say "No!" to your imperatives? There is little doubt I'd be excluded from your little "brotherhood of humanity".

What the moralist seeks is a reshaping of the living world into the image of his will. How right Nietzsche was in unmasking his will to power. "Thou shalt not!" always hides within it the "Or else I shall ...", or it would not even be worth uttering. He sings of "humanity's progress" - an absurdity if there ever was one, for such abstractions cannot do a thing, much less "progress" - as though he were therewith something more than a progression towards the domination of nature, the nature he despises so, under the iron scepter of the moralist's will.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

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

We impose limits on other human beings all the time; they are called laws. As free as we like ourselves to be there is a reason we do not live in the wild west. Why allow our economic model to be one?

Straw man aside, I'd like to live in the Wild West.

The only ones that want to live in the Wild West are the ones with the biggest guns (have already built-in advantages) or the ones with loose screws (ones that believe it will benefit them but will be the first raped, "useful idiots").

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by smallpeeps

 

Am I afraid of losing my freedom, sure who isn't.

[...]

the fear of jail should not prevent anyone from becoming patriots (real meaning of the term) in preventing totalitarian control.

Ah. Yeah. What I asked was for you to walk us through what disobedience to the law, means. You did not do that, just nice thoughts.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
As far as "isms", I don't champion any of them to be honest. IMO every ism is doomed to fail but that's another topic altogether.

[..]

but what I do know is that BOTH systems are based on unlimited economic growth, and power concentrated in the hands of the few.

Okay, to point #1 above, that sounds like nihilism which Albert Pike said would be used to destroy all religions. I feel that Marx-ism is Pike-ism is Lucifer-ism. Do you understand? If you say things "must fail", then I can agree to a point, but I will quickly return to my earlier points, which are the pinion of the question.

How would you say nihilists are enabled by your statement above? Where does one rally to anti-nihilism? Where is that flag, and how do people rally to it?

And to point #2 above, my question is, do you mean "them"? And is there a them in both the capital-ist nations, and is that them on good terms with the them, in commune-ist nations? We must define thi we, and this them, that you refer to. But you said you are afraid of losing some freedoms, yet patriots should not fear jail, so essentially, you feel that going to jail is not a loss of freedom? Trying to follow your logic here, thanks.