Political Compass

[gryphon]

Quarto's my hero

 

[Quarto]

Ok. But imagine this: Would you like to have someone dying in front of a hospital just because he doesn't have enough money to pay for an insurance? I happily pay for public health care, even if I don't need it, to prevent stuff like that.

Healthcare is nowhere near as important as food. Yet, incredibly enough, despite of the lack of a public feeding system, everybody's doing just fine.

(all right - not everybody; every once in a while, I see someone on the street asking for spare change to buy some food. And I'm happy to give it directly to him, comfortable in the knowledge that the government is not going to steal 90% of the money I give him. In any case, there are dozens of private charities out there that seem to do a great job)

Besides the moral aspect of it you also shouldn't forget the social one. My country is on of the safest on the world also because there isn't that sharp of a social difference as it is for example in the USA.
OTOH I am all for forced work if someone thinks he can just lay back and relax and have the society take care for him.

So... you're proud that your country offers social security for everyone, and at the same time, you are outraged that some people do nothing and live off welfare. The amazing thing is, you don't seem to notice the obvious link between these two things - people wouldn't do nothing and live off welfare if there was no welfare. Nobody - absolutely nobody - is happy to just sit around and starve. Without social security, these people would find work.

More disturbing, however, is that you're defending socialism as a more moral system than capitalism... and then you suggest that slavery is acceptable, even necessary.

This is the ultimate difference between capitalism and socialism - capitalism advocates human rights. Socialism does not - it claims to (and socialists really, really do want the best for humanity - forgive them, for they know not what they're doing), but it fails utterly, precisely because of what you said above. First, the government introduces compulsory social care - because it's the humane thing to do, after all. But having done that, the government finds that this is expensive, and it resents that people would rather take government money than find work. So, unless socialism is thrown out the window (there can be no talk of compromise or middle paths - socialism is dangerous, decadent and immoral as a whole, not in part), sooner or later it starts heading down the path you suggested above - to slavery. Of course, it's ultimately for the slaves' own good. After all, everyone knows that human beings are far, far too stupid to survive without assistance from the government.

But in a system where the only real value is the shareholder value you evolve into a society where 1% has the money and 99% starve. And again ignoring all social and political aspects (for example that it is in fact the multi national concerns that start to rule instead of the politicians) that arise from that what then? The rich 1% won't have any customers remaining either.

There is indeed a certain risk in capitalism - large companies, by definition, are anti-capitalist (what use is free competition once you're at the top of the pile? Large companies would have a socialist government, if given the chance). That's why most right-wingers don't suggest that there should be no government at all. Laws and law enforcement are needed. However, note that this risk, which occurs only if you allow people to stray from capitalism's values, is nothing compared to the evils of socialism, which force millions of people worldwide into corruption every day - every time a government raises taxes to cover the ever growing social spending debt, it pushes more people to try tax fraud in a desperate attempt to keep their hard-earned cash.

In any case, to suggest that capitalists have no values except profit is wrong. Capitalists want freedom of opportunity for all. It's socialism that's devoid of any real values, because as much as it talks about the need for human decency and such, ultimately it winds up treating people as lazy morons that need to be forced to work, and are too stupid to appreciate that this is for their own good.

 

[Bob McDob]

Healthcare is nowhere near as important as food.

Yeah, since if I cut off all your limbs you won't bleed to death immedietly like you'll starve if I don't give you food for three weeks.

Yeah, I know there are laws about that, at least in the US. And I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but the idea that medical care isn't "nearly" as important as food is odd if not downright insane.

(Healthcare is also a lot more expensive than food, which means that the starving hobo on the street can't get cancer treatment as easily as he can get food)

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Disagree - diseases and accidents aren't a constant, whereas starvation is. A percent of our population will die without health care - but without food, their mortality rate is 100%.

(And I don't know about you, but on a year by year basis I spend a lot more on food than I do on health care.)

 

[Ripper]

I claimed all my food expenses as a tax deduction for medical expenses, because if I don't eat, I'll get sick.

 

[Delance]

(at least communism *COULD* work if the society would have evolved far enough)

This kind of argument is disgusting. If society doesn’t want socialism, they force it by the use of violence. There’s mass murder, hunger, forced labor, slave camps. And when it doesn’t work out, it’s the victim’s fault, because they were not evolved enough. Every time socialism fails, and it always does, socialists find something to scapegoat. Society can only evolve in freedom, which is everything socialism tries to deny.

Just because some socialists intellectuals arbitrarily decided they know what’s best for the rest of mankind, and that everyone that disagrees with them is an evil, it doesn’t meant they are right.

 

[cff]

Healthcare is nowhere near as important as food. Yet, incredibly enough, despite of the lack of a public feeding system, everybody's doing just fine.

a) Stuff like public feeding DOES exist! Many cloisters do a public feeding for example... But also non clerical organisations do it here.
b) Starving isn't as 'urgent' as a serious illness is. In case of health care minutes can be vital. In case of starving we are at least talking about days. Days in which you can look for a solution.
c) Getting food is much easier done. You only need some $ to get something to eat. You can beg for that ammount of money if nothing else. Health care easily get into the range of $1000, more likely into sums >$10000, far to much to get if you aren't insured.
d) And finally I'll bring on an argument that is purely egostic: If an epidemic is spreading the rich should be very glad that the poor are healed as well...

(all right - not everybody; every once in a while, I see someone on the street asking for spare change to buy some food. And I'm happy to give it directly to him, comfortable in the knowledge that the government is not going to steal 90% of the money I give him. In any case, there are dozens of private charities out there that seem to do a great job)

Thats a completely different question. I'd never claim that any governmental distribution system works all that well. And while 90% is exaggerating, indeed far too much money is lost on administrative costs. That doesn't make the idea bad however. You should just make sure that the system is improved.

So... you're proud that your country offers social security for everyone, and at the same time, you are outraged that some people do nothing and live off welfare. The amazing thing is, you don't seem to notice the obvious link between these two things - people wouldn't do nothing and live off welfare if there was no welfare. Nobody - absolutely nobody - is happy to just sit around and starve. Without social security, these people would find work.

Nonono - that is exactly the thing I mean when I talk about balance. If the balance swings too far towards capitalism then you'll have people starving,... If the balance swings too far towards socialism then you'll definitely see sozial abuse. My point is exactly to find a good middle ground.
But to address 2 point closer:
If people prefer to just sit around and do nothing over working then indeed the wellfare is TOO HIGH. Social security should be enough for everbody to survive, not for everybody to live in luxury.
Regarding people would find work - you are kidding - right? At least one good friend of mine is looking for work almost 2 years now. He got a PhD. No dice. For every people abusing the system you'll also find one that really wants to work, but just doesn't find a job.

More disturbing, however, is that you're defending socialism as a more moral system than capitalism... and then you suggest that slavery is acceptable, even necessary.

Wow - slow down here...
I never said communism was a more moral system. I just said it has its advantages over capitalism and unlike capitalism communism could actually work.

This is the ultimate difference between capitalism and socialism - capitalism advocates human rights. Socialism does not - it claims to (and socialists really, really do want the best for humanity - forgive them, for they know not what they're doing), but it fails utterly, precisely because of what you said above. First, the government introduces compulsory social care - because it's the humane thing to do, after all. But having done that, the government finds that this is expensive, and it resents that people would rather take government money than find work. So, unless socialism is thrown out the window (there can be no talk of compromise or middle paths - socialism is dangerous, decadent and immoral as a whole, not in part), sooner or later it starts heading down the path you suggested above - to slavery. Of course, it's ultimately for the slaves' own good. After all, everyone knows that human beings are far, far too stupid to survive without assistance from the government.

Ow - now it gets complicated. As you quite surely noticed my views aren't as black and white. And my position is a bit harder to explain thus.
"Capitalism advocates human rights"? How so? Capitalism is basically a Darwinian system. Survival of the fittest. It doesn't care at all for human rights.
Communism at least wants the best for humanity, but obviously has failed, fails and will fail in doing so - I won't argue that. I am not condemning someone for trying tho. As an immediate note to add: Socialism =/= Communism.
It is exactly the middle part I am advocating that your claim cannot be exist (not that of course middle doesn't mean 50:50). How so? Why is it hard to give enough to introduce a minimum social standard, but at the same time keep it so low as to still invoke the desire to work in order to raise that standard. I really don't see your problem! Would you want to life without a TV? Without a computer? Without a cellpone,...

There is indeed a certain risk in capitalism - large companies, by definition, are anti-capitalist (what use is free competition once you're at the top of the pile?

Now that is an interesting POV that I catually completely disagree with. Large companies are the inevitable final goal of capitalism. Maximize profits. I don't se how they are anto-capitalist. They are anti competetive. But where is the definition for competition in Capitalism?

Large companies would have a socialist government, if given the chance).

Any pay horrendous taxes? I don't think so...

That's why most right-wingers don't suggest that there should be no government at all. Laws and law enforcement are needed.

Don't get me talking into law enforcement that is suggested by right wingers. I for one prefer my privacy. Also the cleverness of first forcing people into illegacy and then demanding harder penalties kinda is too high for me.
To also say it in much harsher words: As long as the USA treats its tourists like criminals as it does now under the Patriot act and other similar legislations I definitely won't travel there anymore. It kinda saddens me that I am going into USA bashing here, but it is the prime example for this kind of insanity. The terrorists don't even have to strike - they already won. The forced a change of lifestyle upon you and made your own government terrorize its citzends. And don't worry - I won't claim that we are much better - we are at the best way to copy that. Only a matter of years.

However, note that this risk, which occurs only if you allow people to stray from capitalism's values, is nothing compared to the evils of socialism, which force millions of people worldwide into corruption every day - every time a government raises taxes to cover the ever growing social spending debt, it pushes more people to try tax fraud in a desperate attempt to keep their hard-earned cash.

Of course capitalism is completely corruption free - yeah sure. its called special secret campain funding or so there ;-)

In any case, to suggest that capitalists have no values except profit is wrong. Capitalists want freedom of opportunity for all.

No it doesn't. What you describe is "The American Way of Life" or "The Amrican Dream". Which I can relate to. Isn't that exactly the point to get to? Hey, I'd sign that one.
But tell me about the freedom of opportunity (or rather the equality of opportunity) between a black kid from the Bronx and a son of a rich white lawyer. In which system do you think the freedom of opportunity would be more true? In capitalism or in communism?

In neither it would work out, or at least the chance is smaller then getting hit by lightning. Again some mixture is advisable. Enough support to level the playing field. Enough freedom to allow the opportunity to arise.

A few finishing points from me:
* Where would I like to life - communism or capitalism? Doh - what do you guess? Obviously I'd pick capitalism. Note again that I never suggested a 50/50 mixture.
* What system is better communism or capitalism? Well lets look at the world. How are the capitalist countries doing and how are the communists? Nuff said.
* I'd bet all my money however that the western civilisation is doomed. With extremely bad luck we might life to see, but a more realistic estimation would be about 150-200 years I'd say. By then we'll have fallen into another middle age. The only question for me is wether it will be Africa, South America (less likely IMHO) or it will be the Arabic countries that take our place. Right now I'd bet on the latter.

 

[cff]

This kind of argument is disgusting. If society doesn’t want socialism, they force it by the use of violence. There’s mass murder, hunger, forced labor, slave camps. And when it doesn’t work out, it’s the victim’s fault, because they were not evolved enough. Every time socialism fails, and it always does, socialists find something to scapegoat. Society can only evolve in freedom, which is everything socialism tries to deny.
Just because some socialists intellectuals arbitrarily decided they know what’s best for the rest of mankind, and that everyone that disagrees with them is an evil, it doesn’t meant they are right.

Indeed it is disgusting. The way you completely twist my words however forces me to a response. I won't go repeating into my stance that any form of extreme government won't work (even Democracy).
But please don't claim that I am a supporter of "mass murder, hunger, forced labor and slave camps". And while all those very well existed outside of Communist states (and probably in a much higher perfection even) I'd not deny these tendencies in about EVERY communist country.
[begin stupid remark]
But when we are with twisting of words I assume you are advocatin Anarchism then? After all your post seems to indicate that you against any force by the government applied to its citicens. So well have murderers run freely around, right? After all that is also just some stupid intellectuals that claim that murder is bad ;-) [/end stupid remark]
Note that I never said Communism is good. I said Communism *COULD* work if the society evolved far enough.
That does NOT imply that it should be forced upon society or that you should look for scapegoat to blaim its failure on. We are so incredibly far away form the mindset needed for it it is really rediculous (basically you'd have to eliminate egoism from the human race). I heared a really nice quote on it which I'll try to translate
"Communism is an excellent political system. It just has one small thing it forgot about. The factor human"
peace

 

[Quarto]

a) Stuff like public feeding DOES exist! Many cloisters do a public feeding for example... But also non clerical organisations do it here.

An excellent point. I'm really glad you brought it up... because the organisations you mention are all PRIVATE. Now, private companies and organisations of any kind are the epitome of capitalism - socialism is willing to tolerate their existence, but it certainly does nothing to promote their growth.

The upshot of this is that if there are people willing to set up private organisations to feed the poor, they'll be more than willing to set up organisations to fund their healthcare.

By the way, public healthcare turns people into hypochondriacs. It is astonishing to consider that, statistically, Europeans are in horrible health. Without public healthcare, they'd probably die. Except that they wouldn't - without public healthcare, they'd get better.

My point is exactly to find a good middle ground.

Socialism is the middle ground (between capitalism and communism). And it does not work. Now, this is the fascinating thing - improving socialism, even according to you, means making it more like capitalism. Thank you, I think that proves my point.

In a bit more detail - socialism cannot work with reduced taxes. Less taxes, less money to spend on social programmes. And they're all already up to their eyebrows in debt. This means that it is physically impossible to reduce taxes - to do so would mean reducing social spending, and socialist governments cannot do that. Furthermore, even reducing taxes would not address the core problem, which is really quite simple - I'm still forced to pay for something I do not want and do not need. I'm still being discriminated against with progressive taxes that punish people for earning more money.

At any rate, what compromise could there be between a system advocating freedom and a system advocating slavery? There's no such thing as partial freedom - only partial slavery.

Regarding people would find work - you are kidding - right? At least one good friend of mine is looking for work almost 2 years now. He got a PhD. No dice.

Consider this. Here in Poland, the lowest monthly wages are 500zl (about $130). Furthermore, regardless of the employee's wages, the employer must additionally pay 600zl to cover the employee's social security (of course, this is not the true cost of social security, which also takes money from various other taxes). We've got, IIRC, about 20-25% unemployment.

No jobs for 25% of the population, when, logically, the employers could DOUBLE their number of employees if they were freed from socialism? This is pure, undiluted insanity - socialism has unwittingly created unemployment and now it's claiming to be fixing it.

(and as for your friend, I'd point out that a PhD is not a qualification-booster. Quite the opposite, because someone with a PhD generally wants to work in their very narrow field, and is - usually - far too proud to consider something like, say, manual labour)

Wow - slow down here... I never said communism was a more moral system.

I never said you said so . You did, however, quite openly say that slavery (forced labour, as you called it) is a good idea. It isn't. "Arbeit macht frei" was wrong in 1940, and it's still wrong now.

"Capitalism advocates human rights"? How so? Capitalism is basically a Darwinian system. Survival of the fittest. It doesn't care at all for human rights.
Communism at least wants the best for humanity, but obviously has failed, fails and will fail in doing so - I won't argue that. I am not condemning someone for trying tho.

First up, let's put an end to this communism myth. Communism wants equal rights for everyone - because, when nobody has any rights, everyone is equal. What else can you say about a system that says it's evil to own property, and people should get only what they need, regardless of how much work they put in? Such a system doesn't want the best for humanity - it wants slavery (with no masters, supposedly - but it doesn't matter that I own everybody else while everybody else owns me at the same time - we're all still slaves).
Now, capitalism. Yes, capitalism advocates human rights. Is it Darwinian? Perhaps - but had apes been socialist, human beings would never have evolved. There's a lot to be said for pain and hardship - it's no coincidence that millions of young people worldwide willingly submit themselves to arduous university studies. As a matter of fact, let's talk about universities for a bit.

Universities are unrepentently Darwinian. Only the fittest survive. The losers - those who lack intelligence and dedication - drop out along the way, finish with a low grade, or never get admitted in the first place.
Consider the implications of this. There's a lot of students out there. So, someone who graduates with a low grade is in a lousy situation - he'll always get the worst job... if he can find a job at all. Interestingly, this discrimination is based purely on merit - someone from a poor family can, if he proves his worth, almost always get a scholarship or a sponsor allowing him to complete his studies.
But let's return to the losers. They're sentenced for life. Yet, the government takes pity on them, and starts throwing them unemployment benefits. Isn't this the wrong approach? We're fixing symptoms here, and wouldn't it be better to address the heart of the problem? Instead of giving losers unemployment benefits, why don't we de-Darwinise the universities? Let's make universities socialist. Let's remove all exams, and give all graduates the exact same grade.

If this sounds preposterous to you (and I'd be really surprised if it didn't), then why do you insist that something that doesn't work in the microcosm of the university would work when expanded to the society as a whole? Consider what happens to the good students in the example above. They see no point in working hard. They'll get the same grade anyway - at least those of them who choose to attend this university in the first place. The truly brilliant ones, of course, will not - they'll go study somewhere else, where a university diploma is more than a piece of paper. And of course, employers would be well aware of this. Suddely, instead of just the losers, all the graduates from the socialist university would be unable to find a job after graduation, because... well, because you'd have to be a loser to attend such a university.

Now that is an interesting POV that I catually completely disagree with. Large companies are the inevitable final goal of capitalism. Maximize profits. I don't se how they are anto-capitalist. They are anti competetive. But where is the definition for competition in Capitalism?

Capitalism and free competition are inseparable. If you are anti-competition, you are anti-capitalist. And monopolies, invariably, are socialist - after all, if they weren't, then socialist governments wouldn't insist on maintaining their social security monopoly.

Now, why do I say large companies prefer socialist governments? You're right - they don't like large taxes. But taxes are nothing to them - socialist tax systems are riddled with loopholes. If you can hire a bunch of lawyers, you can avoid taxes. You can even siphon off company money and then expect the government to bail you out (because a socialist government would rather raise the taxes for everybody than let a few thousand jobs disappear). Furthermore, socialist governments love to promote local industry - job creation and all that. As such, large companies can expect government help at every step. If a large company says that this new law about free trade will destroy jobs, the government will pay them off with huge subsidies (from our pockets, of course).

(you mentioned computers - jokes about Windows aside, it is undeniable that computers have improved astronomically over the past two decades, and their prices have continued to drop. Funny thing - this is a sector that even the most socialist of governments rarely intervene in. The advantages of free competition are sitting right before you as you read this message)

Don't get me talking into law enforcement that is suggested by right wingers. I for one prefer my privacy. Also the cleverness of first forcing people into illegacy and then demanding harder penalties kinda is too high for me.
To also say it in much harsher words: As long as the USA treats its tourists like criminals as it does now under the Patriot act and other similar legislations I definitely won't travel there anymore.

What on earth does this have to do with the right-left debate? Communist Poland treated tourists like criminals long before the USA (which, incidentally, is left-wing anyway) took this step.
Also, I'm amazed that somebody who just said people on welfare should be enslaved would dare imply that it is the right-wing that forces people into illegitimacy and then demands harsher penalties.

Of course capitalism is completely corruption free - yeah sure. its called special secret campain funding or so there ;-)

No, that's left-wing as well . Just think about it - if the only dealings a government has with business is to ensure free competition (and this is guarded by an independed judiciary branch in any case), what could a business possibly obtain by bribing the government? Bribes are costly, and capitalists don't like to waste money. If there's a better way, they'll go for it.

But tell me about the freedom of opportunity (or rather the equality of opportunity) between a black kid from the Bronx and a son of a rich white lawyer. In which system do you think the freedom of opportunity would be more true? In capitalism or in communism?

In capitalism, most certainly. Ignoring the fact that there's no such thing as rich lawyers (or rich anythings) in communism, capitalism would ensure that the kid from the Bronx had equal opportunities. Why? Because this kid might be the next Albert Einstein. And because everybody wants to have the next Albert Einstein working for their company, everybody's looking for him. Meanwhile, the son of the rich lawyer could use all of his daddy's money to attend a good university and everything, but nobody would hire him just because he's the son of a rich lawyer (unless, of course, he himself was brilliant as well). Capitalists are interested in profit and if they cannot distinguish between someone great and the son of someone great... then they don't exist. There's no such thing as luck in business, so anybody that stupid would be working as a labourer in a factory rather than running a business.

 

[Delance]

Indeed it is disgusting. The way you completely twist my words however forces me to a response. I won't go repeating into my stance that any form of extreme government won't work (even Democracy).

But please don't claim that I am a supporter of "mass murder, hunger, forced labor and slave camps". And while all those very well existed outside of Communist states (and probably in a much higher perfection even)

Well, of course you are not personally advocating all that bad stuff. But, still, that's the stuff you get with socialism, which is totalitarian in nature. It appears that most people on the western hemisphere (the world?), is buying into the rhetoric... again. And yes, it has happened outside communism, but it was always done by the state. The Nazis and Fascists were socialists too. While their were certainly not Marxists and in fact were very anti-communists, they were socialists still. And anti-capitalist, anti-liberal and anti-democratic as well.

But when we are with twisting of words I assume you are advocatin Anarchism then? After all your post seems to indicate that you against any force by the government applied to its citicens.

I'm GLAD you asked. I'm in favor of *limited* government, which certainly rules out socialism, communism, fascism, and all that totalitarian systems. And anarchy. I'm more on the libertarian side, but I certainly know that radical libertarianism (i.e., anarchy) is no solution. There's no such thing as a vacuum of power. Once the power is down, someone will rise and takes its place, and when it happens, it's not likely to be a liberal democracy.

Note that I never said Communism is good. I said Communism *COULD* work if the society evolved far enough.
That does NOT imply that it should be forced upon society or that you should look for scapegoat to blaim its failure on. We are so incredibly far away form the mindset needed for it it is really rediculous (basically you'd have to eliminate egoism from the human race). I heared a really nice quote on it which I'll try to translate
"Communism is an excellent political system. It just has one small thing it forgot about. The factor human"

But that's wrong. First of all, not Marx, not you, have the moral authority to say "This is how the human race should evolve". Second, and equally important, that has nothing to do with communism. You must understand that, as a social and economic system, socialism is a fraud. It simply doesn’t work. Mises proved that academically already. Even Lenin realized that and had to appeal to the NEP. You have private companies on China and Cuba.

Conclusion: Liberalims is * BASED * on the human factor. In fact, one of Mises's books is named, if I'm not wrong, "The human action". It's the best possible society, with prosperity to all, based on how humans are, not on how some people arbitrarily decided on how they * should * be.

Liberalism is based on freedom. Everyone do whatever they want to do. The State imposes as little as possible. And you must know the basic difference:

Communism is an unproven theory that was created by some men that decided how then how everyone else should live their lives. In contrast, a liberal democracy is a system that allows everyone to do whatever they want with little interference. The market is not a theory, but rather a dimension of human nature. Unlike socialism, it’s not an academic creation, and its rules are bound to the human action.

It’s absurd to say that, because socialism denies the nature of men (i.e., it’s wrong), that it’s the men’s fault because they are “egoistical”, or “not evolved”.

Someone makes a theory about flight, test it, but it fails. Instead of recognizing that their theory is wrong, they blame the universe, because it’s not “evolved” enough, or the universe is “egoistical”. That’s socialism.

 

[Delance]

Now, capitalism. Yes, capitalism advocates human rights. Is it Darwinian? Perhaps

Actually, it was Marx who really liked Darwin's theories and wanted to apply them to his own. So the proletariat were the "fittest" that were going to exterminate the "bourgeois". I've read that Marx wanted to dedicate on of his books to Darwin, but Darwin declined the "honor".

 

[cff]

An excellent point. I'm really glad you brought it up... because the organisations you mention are all PRIVATE.

In Poland maybe.

By the way, public healthcare turns people into hypochondriacs. It is astonishing to consider that, statistically, Europeans are in horrible health. Without public healthcare, they'd probably die. Except that they wouldn't - without public healthcare, they'd get better.

So if I have to privately insure myself for healthcare that would turn me less into a hypochondriac how? I still wouldn't pay on a per visit base. And there is already a notable ammount you've got to pay for each visit to a doctor in most countries even under pulic healthcare. Actually it is LESS for private insurance so if anything this way leads to MORE hypochondriacs.

Socialism is the middle ground (between capitalism and communism). And it does not work. Now, this is the fascinating thing - improving socialism, even according to you, means making it more like capitalism. Thank you, I think that proves my point.

Why? As I will say again and again 50:50 won't work. But 100:0 won't either.

In a bit more detail - socialism cannot work with reduced taxes. Less taxes, less money to spend on social programmes. And they're all already up to their eyebrows in debt.

So lower your spending! Geez - is it that hard?

This means that it is physically impossible to reduce taxes - to do so would mean reducing social spending, and socialist governments cannot do that.

Sides that they do it all across Europe.

Furthermore, even reducing taxes would not address the core problem, which is really quite simple - I'm still forced to pay for something I do not want and do not need. I'm still being discriminated against with progressive taxes that punish people for earning more money.

Ok, so I don't have a car. I refuse to pay for public roads.
I don't travel by railroad either. Scrap that one.
I live so far out of the civilisation no buglar comes here. Scrap paying for the police.
Actually I didn't vote and think the politicians are morons. Scrap them too (well that one would be actually a good idea ;-) )

Regarding progressive taxes - I am not a big fan about that one either.

Consider this. Here in Poland, the lowest monthly wages are 500zl (about $130). Furthermore, regardless of the employee's wages, the employer must additionally pay 600zl to cover the employee's social security (of course, this is not the true cost of social security, which also takes money from various other taxes). We've got, IIRC, about 20-25% unemployment.

That numbers don't shock me a bit. Just that it isn't a flat 600zl here but raises with the wage. The factor would be about the same if not higher however (employer pays about the same up to almost twice as much to the state then what the employee sees on his account).
In Germany the have a funny day: "The day of the taxpayer": They 'celebrate' each year the day when you start earning for yourself and not for the state. It usually is somewhen in July IIRC (which means total taxes >50% for the average person)

No jobs for 25% of the population, when, logically, the employers could DOUBLE their number of employees if they were freed from socialism? This is pure, undiluted insanity - socialism has unwittingly created unemployment and now it's claiming to be fixing it.

That calculation is shortsighted however.
a) You ignore that you'd raise unemployement in the government and especially in healt care.
b) Indeed you'd get lower unemployment, but also lower wages in the long run. And it doesn't exactly help you to get the same ammount money when working then versus getting it from the social network now. This is also a form of slavery.
c) Just because there is the money to employ more people doesn't leed to people being hired. Ever thought of the fact that a company just doesn't need more people? That the management would much rather take the money then to invest it?
Sure it would have an effect on unemployment (otherwise there wouldn't be tax lowering all over Europe), but the effect is far less then what you'd hope for.

(and as for your friend, I'd point out that a PhD is not a qualification-booster. Quite the opposite, because someone with a PhD generally wants to work in their very narrow field, and is - usually - far too proud to consider something like, say, manual labour)

Manual labour isn't exactly a job however. What use would a cook be when employed as a programmer? Everyone of us learned something and is only useful in a fairly limited field of employment. And it is not exactly that he is saying "I want to become a lawyer by company X.

I never said you said so . You did, however, quite openly say that slavery (forced labour, as you called it) is a good idea. It isn't. "Arbeit macht frei" was wrong in 1940, and it's still wrong now.

There is a HUGE gap between being forced to labour and slavery. And please don't bring up unrelated Nazi quotes.

First up, let's put an end to this communism myth. Communism wants equal rights for everyone - because, when nobody has any rights, everyone is equal. What else can you say about a system that says it's evil to own property, and people should get only what they need, regardless of how much work they put in? Such a system doesn't want the best for humanity - it wants slavery (with no masters, supposedly - but it doesn't matter that I own everybody else while everybody else owns me at the same time - we're all still slaves).

Who said that communism equals no rights for all. That rather is the perversion Communism took. In the ideal world where communism would work BTW all would work to their best so the argument "regardless of how much work they put in" wouldn't hold. Which returns me to the point *COULD* work, but humanity hasn't evolved far enough.

Universities are unrepentently Darwinian. Only the fittest survive. The losers - those who lack intelligence and dedication - drop out along the way, finish with a low grade, or never get admitted in the first place.
Consider the implications of this. There's a lot of students out there. So, someone who graduates with a low grade is in a lousy situation - he'll always get the worst job... They're sentenced for life. Yet, the government takes pity on them, and starts throwing them unemployment benefits. Isn't this the wrong approach?

You know, that is why there exist things as taking courses when you are unemployed to increase your knowledge in your field or to switch to a different (similar) job. Who said that an academic has to sit there and relax and wait for a fittin job comes to him for decades?

We're fixing symptoms here, and wouldn't it be better to address the heart of the problem? Instead of giving losers unemployment benefits, why don't we de-Darwinise the universities? Let's make universities socialist. Let's remove all exams, and give all graduates the exact same grade.

You know that there are shools that do that, do you? Not at university level, but at all lower levels. And while I don't think that it is a good idea to scrap marks(*) the graduates are fairing surprisingly well.
* it could be discussed if we would be better of to remove marks in the whole society. Would it make the world better? Maybe. Would it slow down productivity - quite certainly. The fact however is that your whole life you WILL have athority and you will have people judging you only on numbers so IMHO it would be better to get confronted with it early in life to get more experience in this kind of system. Personally I don't think very high about marks or even titles as I've seen far to many people with excellent ones that I wouldn't like to work with, while bad student often shined. Rather give me an hour talking to them then showing me their reports.

Suddely, instead of just the losers, all the graduates from the socialist university would be unable to find a job after graduation, because... well, because you'd have to be a loser to attend such a university.

And yet in all recent surveys the best student had come from countries that have strong socialist parties...
So something they must do right.

Capitalism and free competition are inseparable. If you are anti-competition, you are anti-capitalist. And monopolies, invariably, are socialist - after all, if they weren't, then socialist governments wouldn't insist on maintaining their social security monopoly.

Aeh - so how would you prevent monopolies in capitalism? Only the state can force them to break apart or to not come into existance in the first place.
Sides there are enogh movements that want to swap from "Pflichtversicherung" to "Versicherungspflicht" (really don't know how to properly translate those two words. Basically the first one say I have to be insured at company X. The second one indicates I have to be insured, but doesn't say where. As such public health care can be as well realized just like a car insurance. You have to have one in order to drive, but you can pick one. Similar every employee (or every employer if you'd rather have it at that level) would have to pick a healt care insurance or he won't be able to work.
You probably would appreciate that model far more - for me it is just a nuance.

Now, why do I say large companies prefer socialist governments? You're right - they don't like large taxes. But taxes are nothing to them - socialist tax systems are riddled with loopholes. If you can hire a bunch of lawyers, you can avoid taxes.

Just like every big company does on capitalism. There really isn't much difference here. And indeed this is disgusting. They damn well should pay the same taxes as I do. But as long as not the whole world unites here a multi national concern will always be able to shift around its profits to where the taxes are low.

You can even siphon off company money and then expect the government to bail you out (because a socialist government would rather raise the taxes for everybody than let a few thousand jobs disappear). Furthermore, socialist governments love to promote local industry - job creation and all that. As such, large companies can expect government help at every step. If a large company says that this new law about free trade will destroy jobs, the government will pay them off with huge subsidies (from our pockets, of course).

Local industry is a good idea, if only to reduce traffic and to increase the adaption to the true needs of the local people (as opposed to what a manager half the globe away thinks that the people want).
But of course I share your concerns of all of the above. You can't deny however that it would be a good idea to save jobs. The bigger question is more how much are you willing to spend and how do you expect to gain from it (who actually said that government money always has to be a donation? It also can be in the form of a credit).
Similar if I pay a company $1000000 to stay in country and they give me $2000000 taxes a year that I'd not get otherwise then it would still be a good idea to do it probably.
It boils down to the principal problem of Socialism. To closely monitor the money flow and to determine when to lower funding or not grant it at all. I am all with you when you tell me that 50% of funding shouldn't be spent at all. OTOH there are plenty of points where money should went, but doesn't.

 

[cff]

Part 2 (posting limit reached)

(you mentioned computers - jokes about Windows aside, it is undeniable that computers have improved astronomically over the past two decades, and their prices have continued to drop. Funny thing - this is a sector that even the most socialist of governments rarely intervene in. The advantages of free competition are sitting right before you as you read this message)

Any yet the biggest dangers to the computer nowadays emerge just because of the lack of any control. To name 3:
Monopoly on the OS Sector.
DRM systems. TCPA.
Spam.
Which kinda proves my point that capitalism works very very well AT FIRST.

What on earth does this have to do with the right-left debate? Communist Poland treated tourists like criminals long before the USA (which, incidentally, is left-wing anyway) took this step.

Police States ala 1984 practically only emerge from right wing politics IMO. Left wing suppression works differently albeit the end result is quite similar.

In capitalism, most certainly. Ignoring the fact that there's no such thing as rich lawyers (or rich anythings) in communism, capitalism would ensure that the kid from the Bronx had equal opportunities. Why? Because this kid might be the next Albert Einstein. And because everybody wants to have the next Albert Einstein working for their company, everybody's looking for him. Meanwhile, the son of the rich lawyer could use all of his daddy's money to attend a good university and everything, but nobody would hire him just because he's the son of a rich lawyer (unless, of course, he himself was brilliant as well).

Oh come one. How many extremely clever people are never recognized. Actually Albert Einstein is maybe a very good example for that. His grades had been rather bad and noone looked for him. If anything it was quite a luck event that the world ever got to know that man. Noone would have payed for his education. IF you are recognized capitalism works very well. But it ensures much more that many people aren't recognized because the never get to a point where they could be recognized (how many NEVER see a school - or not more then graduate school - because the have to work starting at a very early age). Also surveys show that almost everybody needed tutors or private teaching at some point in his live to pass normal school. If you cannot pay that ones you have a problem.
And sure, money cannot get you through any school... dream on. Granted if your IQ is at room temperature it would be a bit hard to find one corrup enough, but between connections, cheating (ghost writers) and private teachers I'd bet I could get almost any dumbass through a well known university. Not in record time maybe, but doabe.

 

[cff]

But that's wrong. First of all, not Marx, not you, have the moral authority to say "This is how the human race should evolve".

Did I? All I say is that if we cannot do super sonar we won't be going over the atlantic in less then an hour. I never demanded that society has to evolve for it to enable communism to work. I'd sign however that the human race devoid of egoism would be a better one.

Liberalism is based on freedom. Everyone do whatever they want to do. The State imposes as little as possible.

Isn't that what every person wants? Freedom to life as he wants to? Just that is 100% doesn't work as you accepted when saying Anarchism doesn't work (actually it probably would work just as well as communism if the society would change into the right direction). So we agree we need rules. So we are taking away freedom. So far so bad.
What you don't realize is that a certain degree of social security IMPROVES freedom. I really wonder that noone started to challenge the degree of balance yet which would be the really interesting debate, but instead all deny even the need for a balance.

It’s absurd to say that, because socialism denies the nature of men (i.e., it’s wrong), that it’s the men’s fault because they are “egoistical”, or “not evolved”.

And again I never said that nor claimed that nor implied that.
I'll repost that quote: "Communism is an excellent political system. It just has one small thing it forgot about. The factor human"

Someone makes a theory about flight, test it, but it fails. Instead of recognizing that their theory is wrong, they blame the universe, because it’s not “evolved” enough, or the universe is “egoistical”. That’s socialism.

Ok, if you want a stupid nitpicking philosophical debat you can have one...
Lets assume I were an entity ('god') with the apility to create live. Now lets rewind the universe to lets say 1000 years after the big bang. Now I want to create live. I fail. Now you know it is actually really the universe that is not evolved far enough to support live, not my theory failing.
You see sometimes a theory isn't wrong and just needs time. Imagine a caveman with an atom bomb...

 

[Valkyrie]

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.72

----

The test options are a little bit single sided, I suppose...

By the way, what in the US is called "liberial moderate left" is called in central europe "middle conservative"...
Europe owns a trauma of the ww2, so real patriotism and economic moderate right positions are called too fast "political right extreme" here. All what is not "socialdemocratic liberial" is a) communism or b) facism....

When you say "im proud of my country" and you´re from germany, then you´re "automatically" a Nazi.

I hate this, Europe (the EU) is a bunch of crap these days.

 

[Delance]

I never demanded that society has to evolve for it to enable communism to work.

Yes you did. Here it is:

(at least communism *COULD* work if the society would have evolved far enough)

And you repeated this idea on this message.

I'd sign however that the human race devoid of egoism would be a better one.

Communism has nothing to do with a race being devoid of egoism. That's a big fat rhetorical lie. Communism is based almost entirely on envy, and a desire to control other's people lives. It's not virtuous in any sense.

Isn't that what every person wants? Freedom to life as he wants to?

Which it’s safe to say they certainly don't get on the totalitarian government.

I really wonder that noone started to challenge the degree of balance yet which would be the really interesting debate, but instead all deny even the need for a balance.

We don't need a balance between something bad and something good. We need as little bad things as possible, that's the balance. It's called liberal democracy.

We don't need to balance freedom with nazism and communism.

And again I never said that nor claimed that nor implied that.
I'll repost that quote: "Communism is an excellent political system. It just has one small thing it forgot about. The factor human"

That's exactly what that means. The human factor means free will, or the desire not to be rules by tyrants. The desire not to be enslaved is what socialist rethroic calls "egoism" or “lack of evolution”.

Lets assume I were an entity ('god') with the apility to create live. Now lets rewind the universe to lets say 1000 years after the big bang. Now I want to create live. I fail. Now you know it is actually really the universe that is not evolved far enough to support live, not my theory failing.
You see sometimes a theory isn't wrong and just needs time. Imagine a caveman with an atom bomb...

Well, nice example. What you seem to be forgetting is that:

MARX IS NOT A GOD.

For your example to work, Marx would have to have divine powers to know exactly how the human race should evolve. He didn't. So here's the truth:

MARX WAS A FRAUD.

It should be clear by now socialism is a more a cult than an ideology, and to truly believe on communism despite all evidence in contrary one have to have religious faith on Marx. Even with repeated failrues and countless victims, it's not wrong, it just needs time. Marx can't be wrong in the eyes of a true believer, right? Every failure is scapegoated on human "egoism" and "lack of evolution".

That's what the original quote meant, even if you didn't realize it. It's a nice piece of rhetoric, but it's not right. I really mean no offense, but I've heard all this before, lots of times. I know you sympathies with the concept, but it really doesn't work as they say.

 

[Quarto]

(to save space, I'm gonna cut down on quotes, and I won't reply to everything)

Public feeding: The organisations you talk about are so-called NGOs - non-governmental organisations. Anything that is not owned by the government is, by definition, private property. So no, they're not only private in Poland. The exception, I suppose, would be the Roman Catholic Church, which has its own country. Which is an interesting example, really - they get hardly any money from public sources (e.g., Vatican's taxes, and public finances of other countries). This means that all the incredibly varied charity work that the RCC performs is financed by private donations.

Hypochondria: the point is that this demonstrates an interesting effect social spending has had on people. Most Europeans are genuinely convinced that they have FREE education, FREE healthcare, et cetera. They've completely lost touch with reality - they don't even realise that that's their money! This has led to abuse (like the hypochondria effect) - if healthcare is free, then why not abuse it? And if education is free, then why would a parent care that their kid has just demolished a classroom? The government will pay, not them. And when the tax raise comes, they won't make the connection with their actions and the raise. This would never, ever happen if these services were private. If your kid damaged a room in a private school, you'd pay, and you'd bloody well make sure he never did it again (next thing you know, half the current problems with undisciplined youths vanish).

Communism: who decides what my "best" is? If it's me, then I'm simply not gonna do anything. That can't work. If it's not me - well, then I'm a slave. I may be a well-fed, well-clothed slave, but I'm still a slave and have no rights.

So, we need to evolve into more altruist beings, that would do their best of their own free will, right? Why bother? In capitalism, everybody does their absolute best and is rewarded by what they need (and what they want too - in pure, idealistic communism, there can be no such thing as art or a microwave oven - these are things nobody truly needs, so anyone making them would obviously not be doing his best, and therefore would go milk cows instead). The only difference is that in capitalism, the two factors that lead to such behaviour are far more realistic than in communism - you do your very best because want to be rewarded, and because you know that if you don't do it, someone else will.

Ok, so I don't have a car. I refuse to pay for public roads.
I don't travel by railroad either. Scrap that one.
I live so far out of the civilisation no buglar comes here. Scrap paying for the police.
Actually I didn't vote and think the politicians are morons. Scrap them too (well that one would be actually a good idea ;-) )

Both roads and railroads used to be private property in ages past. This did not adversely affect them. Quite the contrary - if you've got a private road, you'll make sure its surface is regularly mended, light it well, etc. After all, you want people to use it.
And yes, a sound case could even be made for a private police force - as the private guards you see in shopping malls seem to indicate. Heck, if police funding devolved from the government down to the local level (cities and villages), this would have a very positive effect - in order to keep their inhabitants, cities would have to provide good services at competitive prices. After all, it's very easy to move from one city to another, and much tougher to move from country to country.

On that note, I wouldn't have anything against individual cities imposing social spending on their inhabitants, because this would not abuse their freedom either - the people would simply vote down such systems with their feet. It's just the central government that should limit itself to the bare necessities - specifically, the things that governments do better than the private sector can do by itself.

That calculation is shortsighted however.

Not shortsighted, just simplified. I'll go into a bit more detail now, responding to your three points:
1. Unemployment in government will indeed rise. You won't see me shedding any tears over that, however. If I'm to choose between a sickeningly bloated, wasteful system that keeps 5,000 (10,000? 50,000?) people employed while destroying potential jobs for 10,000,000 people. Considering this equation, government workers can crawl into a corner and die, as far as I care - but they won't, because capitalism will provide alternative jobs for them, too.
2. Wages will indeed drop (at least, until 100% employment is reached - then they'll rise again). This is quite all right. Firstly, an employer who offers his employees wages insufficent to survive is screwing himself over, because if he gets any employees at all, he'll most certainly get the worst possible employees. Secondly, because the social spending burden is removed from their shoulders, employers will be able to lower their sale prices. And this will indeed happen, because the moment one shop drops its prices, others must do the same. Ruthless competition is a wonderful thing - I say this without any sarcasm whatsoever.
Furthermore, even if wages continue to drop, prices will always drop faster. Employers are well aware that their employees are also their customers. Turning your employees into near-slaves is really bad practice, because they won't be able to buy anything from you (as socialism illustrates in reverse - the more social "security" a government offers, the more money it must steal from its citizens).
3. That's right, the presence of money will not lead to increased employment. Private companies would certainly laugh at socialist idea of hiring unnecessary people just to create jobs. But that's quite all right as well. Because employers will have more money, they will naturally set about expanding their businesses or setting up entirely new businesses. These businesses will give some people jobs, and the increased spending on the part of the new employees (who now have money) will lead to further expansion. In a few years, further growth would actually be limited by a labour shortage. If that sounds like an excessively bold statement to you, here's a homework assignment for you - find me a (non-socialist) period in history where unemployment persisted for longer than a few years.

Manual labour isn't exactly a job however. What use would a cook be when employed as a programmer? Everyone of us learned something and is only useful in a fairly limited field of employment.

Not quite. Regardless of degrees, people generally make pretty good janitors (though admittedly, those with a PhD in Janitorial Studies would be best of all ). If a person is unwilling to "lower" himself to such a job, then I certainly am not obliged to pay for him. He knew the risks when he undertook that PhD.

There is a HUGE gap between being forced to labour and slavery. And please don't bring up unrelated Nazi quotes.

As a rule, I never bring up the Nazis if they're unrelated to the question, since that usually kills the debate. In this case, my point is precisely that this huge gap between forced labour and slavery is one that I can't seem to quite make out, in spite of its supposedly huge size.

Aeh - so how would you prevent monopolies in capitalism? Only the state can force them to break apart or to not come into existance in the first place.

Nobody said anything about entirely dismantling the state - all we want is to remove it from areas where it doesn't belong.

[quoteSimilar every employee (or every employer if you'd rather have it at that level) would have to pick a healt care insurance or he won't be able to work.
You probably would appreciate that model far more - for me it is just a nuance.[/quote]
For me, it's also just a nuance - it's still wrong. I personally do not want healthcare insurance at all. So why should I be forced to take it?
Why don't I want insurance? Well...
If I go into a casino, I have a tiny chance to win huge amounts of money. But I pay every time I want to try my luck. Insurance is also a form of gambling - I pay every month, and there is a tiny chance that one day, I will "win" huge amounts of money. There is one, very significant difference, however. If I go play cards at the casino, I actually want to win the money. I do my best to win. With insurance? Quite the opposite...

Just like every big company does on capitalism. There really isn't much difference here. And indeed this is disgusting.

Disgusting? No - it's the lesser of two evils. They're being robbed, so they do their best to avoid losing everything. Yes, it is wrong for them to cheat, but it's far more wrong that they're placed in a position where they feel that cheating is justified or even necessary.
Three points to make here:
1. It's not just progressive income tax that's wrong - income tax in general is wrong. If I pay 20% of my income, I'm still being punished for having a better job than some other guy (whose 20% is lower than mine). If there is a public healthcare system, the cost of the system is identical for everyone. Therefore, the only just taxation system is where everyone pays exactly the same amount regardless of income size.
2. Companies should not be taxed at all. Taxing a company means double taxation - it's as if you taxed the husband and the wife separately, and then in addition taxed the incomes of the entire household.
3. In short, make the system simple, transparent. Make it cheaper to just pay the tax rather than cheat. This will save huge amounts of money - thousands of tax office workers will be fired.

Monopoly on the OS Sector. [...] Which kinda proves my point that capitalism works very very well AT FIRST.

Actually, the monopoly (ex-monopoly!) in the OS sector shows that capitalism always works out in the end. Microsoft had a near-monopoly, and as monopoly-holders inevitably do, it abused its position to screw the customers. It was beaten... by some guy from Finland that nobody had ever heard of. Just like that - to him, Microsoft's monopoly was not a problem, but an opportunity. Of course, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere had there not been rules in place preventing Microsoft from, say, sending a death squad out to kill him - but all capitalists would firmly agree that such rules are a good idea.

Police States ala 1984 practically only emerge from right wing politics IMO. Left wing suppression works differently albeit the end result is quite similar.

This is a really, really strange claim - especially when you consider than 1984 was written as a critique of communism. Furthermore, while I can give offhand examples of several left-wing 1984-like police states, I cannot think of a single right-wing example.

Finally, returning to your example of the two kids. If the rich kid bribes his way through university, that's his problem - he'll be able to get a job with his fake degree, but he won't be able to keep it unless he's good enough for it. As for the poor kid - he may indeed not get to university. But he'll still be better off than under socialism. He won't have to pay obscenely high taxes, he'll have access to cheaper, better healthcare, and he'll almost certainly be able to find a job. In the end, it all depends on him - if he's talented and ambitious, he may end up using his hard-earned wages to improve his qualifications and get a better job, or even to go to university after all.

 

[Dundradal]

I'm guessing I'm probably the most far left person...

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

Hurrah for anarchism

 

[cff]

Yes you did. Here it is:
> Quote:Originally Posted by cff
> (at least communism *COULD* work if the society would have evolved far enough)
> And you repeated this idea on this message.
> Quote:Originally Posted by cff
> I'd sign however that the human race devoid of egoism would be a better one.
And you repeated this idea on this message.

Ok, I'll repeat it again. You know mathematics? If-then relations?
If condition A then B.
A = society has evolved far enough into a certain direction.
B = communism would work.
This isn't a moral equation. This isn't a suggestion where evolution should go. It is just a statement that can be fulfilled or not.

"I'd sign however that the human race devoid of egoism would be a better one"
Is NOT directly related to the one above. I did never claim that if egoism is eliminated communism would be the perfect state form (actually at that point it probably wouldn't matter all that much which state form you choose, even Anarchy could work then). This is just an opinion on the human nature.

Communism has nothing to do with a race being devoid of egoism. That's a big fat rhetorical lie. Communism is based almost entirely on envy, and a desire to control other's people lives. It's not virtuous in any sense.

Envy and egoism go hand in hand. Now in the perfect communism you wouldn't have any that are more equal than the rest. You wouldn't have corruption either. You'd also not have anone abusing the system at all. Just the whole society giving its best and getting equal reward for that. it don't see desire to control other peoples live in there. Of course we are talking utopia here.

The only real difference would be that in capitalism you get payed by what you produce, while in communism you'd get money for the time you try doing it. So in capitalism the manager gets far more for one hour of work as a cook that migth actually work much harder by objective standards. As such the question naturally arises as to wether one person is more valuable then the other one. Is one job worth more then another? (always assuming that both do the job as well as possible)?

>Isn't that what every person wants? Freedom to life as he wants to?
Which it’s safe to say they certainly don't get on the totalitarian government.

100% agree.
But what is the difference between a totalitarian goverment and a totalitarian economic here?

That's exactly what that means. The human factor means free will, or the desire not to be rules by tyrants. The desire not to be enslaved is what socialist rethroic calls "egoism" or “lack of evolution”.

Did I challenge any you said above?
Of course it is an anti communist quote that is very true as well.

Well, nice example. What you seem to be forgetting is that:
MARX IS NOT A GOD.

[sarcasm]Damn - now my whole picture of the world crumbles.[/sarcasm]
Nice try once more to twist unbiased examples into propaganda speech.
Read my lips I DO NOT THINK THAT MARX IS A GOD. I NEVER IMPLIED THAT MARX IS A GOOD.. Having just red Hawkins' short history of time, this was just the very first example I could think of that was opposed to your argument that blaming the universe is always wrong.
Similar I could have brought up someone who designed a jet engine but failed because the proper material wasn't invented yet. That doesn't make the concept of a jet engine wrong.
And if you now tell me that is good and fine, but Marx is not as hot as a jet engine I'll start running amok.

For your example to work, Marx would have to have divine powers to know exactly how the human race should evolve. He didn't. So here's the truth:

TBH I don't know if Marx demanded that the human race has to evolutionally evolve into a certain direction. I am not that well known with the manifests. But that was never the point at all.
I really don't fucking care either.
I am just commenting completely free of any value and bias that under certain circumstances the theory of communism works. And I don't need to be a god to propose a condition. Do you know the difference between
"if A holds true then B will work" and
"I foresay that A will happen"?
Or even moreso "I demand A to happen"?

It should be clear by now socialism is a more a cult than an ideology, and to truly believe on communism despite all evidence in contrary one have to have religious faith on Marx. Even with repeated failrues and countless victims, it's not wrong, it just needs time. Marx can't be wrong in the eyes of a true believer, right? Every failure is scapegoated on human "egoism" and "lack of evolution".

Yes yes and yes.
And yet I'll give you another example: Tell me of a single big empire composed of many previously souvereign states that did survive more then 100 years and didn not fail horribly at the end and did not bring for a totalitarian painful end.
Now tell me exactly why we are forming the EU...
Just because an idea failed miserably times and times again doesn't per se make it a bad idea. And you don't have to worship it to see this. Of course if re-implementing it you should make sure you don't repeat the failures of the past - something that Communism has indeed mastered very successfully to forget.
Let me mention another stateform that is fairly related to Communism - Monarchy. Did the Monarchy as it was in the middle age work? Most certainly not. It brough up stuff like the Inqusition. And yet we see states like England where the Monarchy is very much alive. Of course it isn't the same as it was 1000 years ago. Give ideas the chance to evolve and mature. Who is to say that a tweaked Communism and Democracy couldn't work together for example?
Communism failed and there really is no point at all to try to make it working in todays form in todays time.

That's what the original quote meant, even if you didn't realize it. It's a nice piece of rhetoric, but it's not right. I really mean no offense, but I've heard all this before, lots of times. I know you sympathies with the concept, but it really doesn't work as they say.

Don't insult me by claiming I don't understand the meaning of a quote I brought up.
To say it again and very clear: "I don't sympathice with with Communism". Ok?
I am just pointing out that if you clear the very basic idea from all ideological and historical faults that it undoubtly accumulated AND put it into an utopian society it would be a very much valid state form. That doesn't say it is the only one nor it says it is the best one. Just one possibility. Capitalism however in its most extreme form isn't - of course in an utopian society people would actually not abuse the bad parts of capitalism either I suppose.
The real differences would indeed boil down to what I was talking briefly above. What is the main value of the society? How hard you work or how much you produce. Similar I could ask: What is worth more - a pice of technic or a piece of art?

 

[cff]

part 1/2 (could someone lift that stupid posting limits )

Public feeding: The organisations you talk about are so-called NGOs - non-governmental organisations. Anything that is not owned by the government is, by definition, private property.

What would you name a governmental funded or governmental supported NGO then?

So no, they're not only private in Poland. The exception, I suppose, would be the Roman Catholic Church, which has its own country. Which is an interesting example, really - they get hardly any money from public sources (e.g., Vatican's taxes, and public finances of other countries). This means that all the incredibly varied charity work that the RCC performs is financed by private donations.

Uhm I pay 1% church tax here...
Another great invention by A. Hitler (indeed he did firstly introduce that tax and it was never removed). And just to avoid confusion as I seem to be constantly misinterpreted here - no I don't say that the church and Hitler had have or will have anything in common. This is just historic facts.

Hypochondria: the point is that this demonstrates an interesting effect social spending has had on people. Most Europeans are genuinely convinced that they have FREE education, FREE healthcare, et cetera. They've completely lost touch with reality - they don't even realise that that's their money! This has led to abuse (like the hypochondria effect) - if healthcare is free, then why not abuse it? And if education is free, then why would a parent care that their kid has just demolished a classroom? The government will pay, not them. And when the tax raise comes, they won't make the connection with their actions and the raise. This would never, ever happen if these services were private. If your kid damaged a room in a private school, you'd pay, and you'd bloody well make sure he never did it again (next thing you know, half the current problems with undisciplined youths vanish).

All you say is true. However all of it could also be said for any form of insurance. Private or governmental. You'll always find people that abuse insurances.
The most extreme example here IMHO is an insurance that pays all of your lawyer costs. Now people are suing left and right for nitpicks.
On a sidenote however we seem to have more a problem that people are not visiting the doctor often enough for preventive routine checks (which in the long run is more expensive as early cure would be cheaper) then people abusing the health system.
Of course it boils down to how you look at it. Ok, we agree that there is abuse. But you can now either decide to scrap the system, or you can decide to improve it respectively make sure no abuse happens. When my dad last was in hospital someone from the insurance did visit him. Of course officially the where just checking how he was doing, but it really was just a check if he wasn't only having a nice week there.

Communism: who decides what my "best" is? If it's me, then I'm simply not gonna do anything. That can't work. If it's not me - well, then I'm a slave. I may be a well-fed, well-clothed slave, but I'm still a slave and have no rights.

I could respind "free will is an illusion".
You are a slave in capitalism as well. The bons might be less visible to you, but they are there just as well.
What is the principal difference between "Do that work I tell you" and "If you do don't do that underpaid job to barely be able to feed your family I'll watch as you starve to death"? Its closer then you might want to admit.
Besides your parents, your boss, your politicians and many many more all day long decide what is best for you.

So, we need to evolve into more altruist beings, that would do their best of their own free will, right?

Basically.

Why bother? In capitalism, everybody does their absolute best and is rewarded by what they need (and what they want too -

Unfortunately that is also an idealized view on capitalism. There are many people that work 45+hours a week and are barely able to survive on that. Ignoring those that want to work, but cannot find a job. What you describe is the good things, the things that work. But you forget that not everyone enjoys that benefits.

in pure, idealistic communism, there can be no such thing as art or a microwave oven - these are things nobody truly needs, so anyone making them would obviously not be doing his best, and therefore would go milk cows instead).

Ah, but that is not true. I'd even dare to say this is a capitalist, most certainly however a western point of view. You rate something that doesn't turn into immediate profits (arts) lower then milking a cow. Who said it is? This is a completely capitalist and technologist point of view. Lets turn to eastern civilisations for a moment. There the value is shifted far more towards the spiritual evolution of every being instead of monetarian values. Karma is of more importance then pure commercial power. You are taking a trade value stance here while there are so many more measurements of what is good/important. Of course we could do a complete theological and philosophical study on this topic alone.
Just look at surveys asking what is most important to your life. Money comes 3rd or 4th in them usually.

The only difference is that in capitalism, the two factors that lead to such behaviour are far more realistic than in communism - you do your very best because want to be rewarded, and because you know that if you don't do it, someone else will.

True and that is why capitalism works better the communism. But better doesn't equal good or perfect.

Both roads and railroads used to be private property in ages past. This did not adversely affect them. Quite the contrary - if you've got a private road, you'll make sure its surface is regularly mended, light it well, etc. After all, you want people to use it.

Or I am just a cheapshot that says as long as it doesn't completely brake down I won't invest any money in it. Instead I'll milk any money I can from anyone using it and when it is broken I'll maybe even sue that one who finally broke it.
That's the downside of private anything.

And yes, a sound case could even be made for a private police force - as the private guards you see in shopping malls seem to indicate. Heck, if police funding devolved from the government down to the local level (cities and villages), this would have a very positive effect - in order to keep their inhabitants, cities would have to provide good services at competitive prices. After all, it's very easy to move from one city to another, and much tougher to move from country to country.

Of course this would produce getto like effects. You'd have the millionaire cities and the 'homeless' cities (ok, that one is an oxymoron) and so on.

On that note, I wouldn't have anything against individual cities imposing social spending on their inhabitants, because this would not abuse their freedom either - the people would simply vote down such systems with their feet. It's just the central government that should limit itself to the bare necessities - specifically, the things that governments do better than the private sector can do by itself.

Oh, there most certainly are fields where private companies fare much better. Just not when talking about basic supply. You saw the results of the power losses in the USA and many other countries recently. Caused by badly maintained and underdimensioned private energy supply that was only geared on profit. This most likely doesn't happen if it a government funded network or if is at least very tightly monitored. Neither is a capitalist POV however.

3. That's right, the presence of money will not lead to increased employment. Private companies would certainly laugh at socialist idea of hiring unnecessary people just to create jobs. But that's quite all right as well. Because employers will have more money, they will naturally set about expanding their businesses or setting up entirely new businesses. These businesses will give some people jobs, and the increased spending on the part of the new employees (who now have money) will lead to further expansion. In a few years, further growth would actually be limited by a labour shortage. If that sounds like an excessively bold statement to you, here's a homework assignment for you - find me a (non-socialist) period in history where unemployment persisted for longer than a few years.

(I am skippng the other two points and combine them into this response...)
Let me draw a more pessimistic pictur then you:
* Ok, let me see. So we got less money spent on employees.
* We also got less money that the employees get.
* Employment rises. Money of the companies rises.
* We'll have less motivated employees doing worse work.
* We got less buying power.
* Products will be cheaper.
* Competition increases.
* Profit decreases forcing for even less payment or less workers.
* Companies need to fusion in order to stay profitable.
* Monopolies arise
* Prices rise arbitrarily
* Low payed workers cannot get the goods anymore.

You migth say that I ignored your argument that companies would expand. Well guess what - there is a thing that is called market satuation. You can make the best car in the world - if anybody on this planet already has 10 other cars you won't have a profitable business. We see this effect in the cell phone market right now. Here the ratio is already more then 1 phone/person IIRC. Now guess what UMTS isn't at all a big hit because the satuation is very well met.
Capitalism very much works like the pyramid scam (public pension systems do as well - that is why they are crumbling all over Europe). It works remarkably well for a time, but what are you going to do once every market is reached? This is the core system failure I talk about when talking about capitalism. Its the same mindset that tells us that a shrinking in economics is bad. It really isn't. Constant grow is the myth of capitalism. It is the religion of capitalism. But it isn't more then a myth. The only advantage that capitalism has is that the limit is still quite far away so it isn't noticed yet. Thats why I said 150-200 years.

As a rule, I never bring up the Nazis if they're unrelated to the question, since that usually kills the debate. In this case, my point is precisely that this huge gap between forced labour and slavery is one that I can't seem to quite make out, in spite of its supposedly huge size.

You cannot see the difference between "you can live any way you want and do whatever makes you happy, but if you want society to support you you'll have to work for it" and "slavery"?