ahhh your well informed i was trying to come up with a catchy metaphor for communism hence the trojan horse and the "fine print" comments. I appreciate your insight. first of all i believe very strongly that there is no "human nature" there is only human behavior. Consciousness is like a canvas easily conditioned by the environment upon which you were raised and were you live right now. This idea that we naturally compete with each other is false because we are not born with hate....right?, or born with bigotry?, or born greedy?, or born corrupt? these are behaviors that we pick up in society and in the environment upon where we were raised where we live, our peers and the media (to some extent) social status, financial wealth, economy society all influence our behaviors. The leading cause of crime is poverty plain and simple and the environmental influences that accompany it i think we need a resource based economy, because its crucial that we focus on: -efficiency -sustainability -abundance -unlimited universal access & availability in a monetary system the only thing that really matters is profit...... -there is no efficiency; how would you make a fortune off a light bulb thats last 100 years? -sustainability; monetary system as it is now is not sustainable its designed for perpetual inflation and debt and as technology improves and more workers are displaced by automation and machines this will cause a HUGE crash in the whole economic system worse then anything we have ever seen before; its inevitable -abundance; yea right would diamonds be worth as much if people knew there was actually a ton of them sitting around in vaults? -availability; this the monetary system is actually good for; its one of the main reasons it was designed to help manage the trade of goods and services during a time when scarcity was commonplace its not so common anymore....its actually artificially imposed upon the people to keep the prices up -unlimited and universal access to resources; ahh in the monetary system you have to pay for goods but in a resource based economy you wouldn't; you would take what you want and what you need but since everything is designed for efficiency and not profit it would be a totally different experience.... but getting from monetary to resource based economy presents a challenge, you cant just flip from one to the other that would cause chaos and as you stated it wouldn't be in "the powers that be" best interests to embrace such an economic system because it would essentially take away their power. There would definitely have to be a VERY well designed transitional system to gradually evolve from one to the other
Ah yes, I see I kinda skipped over that metaphor too literally now, which is really stupid when I think about it, I love metaphors! My brain always seems to be boiling big ideas down into fancy sounding phrases. I love your ideas on human behaviour. They appeal to my sociological education, which screams at me that nurture accounts for human behaviour. But I do think they need a little nature mixed in there with it, namely our instincts, and primarily in this context: survival instincts. To ensure our own survival, we naturally want to take more than we need, as a precautionary measure. But it's been proven time and time again that instincts are not an insurmountable force, so I do agree that given enough time and effort, the vast majority can overcome our own 'human nature' as it were. It's those not in that vast majority, or simply not willing to be in it, that would pose a problem. I also agree wholeheartedly with your breakdown of a resource based system, my only irk would be that in the monetary system, the motivation is obvious: profit. But in the resource based system, the motivation isn't as clear-cut; we'll receive our share regardless of the quality of our work. Of course, this is dependent on exactly how the system would work; there could be small rewards and punishments; for example how Alexei Stakhanov (a miner in the USSR) was rewarded with various medals and decorations for greatly exceeding his work quota (kind of like an employee of the month program on steroids) Finally, as you rightly pointed out, perhaps one of the biggest problems is how to make the transition. Looking back over history, it's interesting to see how Russia's conversion to Communism went extremely badly (that being a huge understatement), and similarly China's early attempts at conversion. I believe a better initial way, facilitated by our advanced communication and travel capabilities, would be to set up an example state, to first prove the system would work. It eliminates the problem of trying to convince citizens the new plan is better, instead those who think it would work could flock to it. Crucial to it's success would be some marketing geniuses, capable of not only bringing in willing participants, but also of publicising it's success. It would then be far easier to introduce a transitional system into the wider world, as the public would be familiar with it's concepts, and aware of it's success (and all of it's failures too I'm sure) My biggest fear for that plan would be the media picking up on it whist still in it's early infancy, and labelling it as a hippie commune or something similar, pretty much tainting it's image in the eyes of the public and rendering the whole exercise much more difficult.
Socialism (and comunism) is a wonderful world, where everybody can live well, at someone else's expense. I have lived through communism and capitalism. Under comunism, I had to wake up at 6:00 AM and queue up for a piece of bread. I couldn't buy more than half a kilo of bread per capita. We had a government issued bread card that entitled us to only that much. I was 8-9 years old, and waiting 3 hours in a queue for bread in the winter, at 6:00 AM, is not funny. My parents would have went to the bread queue instead of me, but the issue was that they had to wait at a similar queue for a piece of butter or meat. You were entitled to little, but that wasn't guaranteed to be received. Hence the queues. ---- 20 years later I live in capitalism. I worked my *arse* off, built my life from the ground up, and today I live a good life. No more bread queues, no more winters spent in unheated apartments, and no more "sharing the 2 oranges the government issued for every family, for holidays". Do you know what's wrong with capitalism? Is that some people don't GET IT. After the colapse of communism, a lot of people here abbandoned their jobs, young people neglect their education and so on. 10 years later they expect AT LEAST the same level of life I have. ----- For sure, you can make a documentary about how my well being creates poverty. And it would be true from a certain perspective. But how can you explain that our contry is one of the poorest in Europe, while here you can get a very good college education, completely free, as long as you are somewhat smarter than a plant? And nobody takes up that. Nobody pursues proper college education. 95% of those that graduate college here, are almost illiterate. I was in a bank a few days ago and a clerk wasn't able to substract 40 out of 239!!!! I asked her to give me $40 cash from my account to pay some fees, and she said it's impossible because I have 239, and not 240 !!!!
@Electric_Shaman: Free markets will create your little perfect world. Just look at how simple is to travel and relocate these days. Virtuallt, Europe no longer has any borders between countries. I cross a border and my phone continues to work, so do my bank cards, etc. My parents still see me everytime I leave the country, as being some "event". Once I forgot to tell them in advance that I am about to leave and I just called home to see how they are doing. At some point I mentioned I am out of the country and my mom was abit shocked. And no, I am not living with my parents The world has changed a lot in the past 20-30 years. People will flock to wherever the system is better
First off, it's awesome to be able to hear from someone who has actually experienced two different systems, thanks for contributing, I found your posts pretty interesting. But the thing is, Capitalism is the same. Just because that poverty isn't right in front of your face anymore, doesn't make it any less real. "Out of sight, out of mind" is a big problem when it comes to addressing the poverty issue, which is why so many donation ads are stuffed with pictures and sad music. From the perspective that we live in a capitalist society. It's not your well being that creates poverty as such, but well off people can afford to just burn money because they have millions of dollars/pounds/euros. Your well being comes into it because you've helped them get there, by buying their products, flying on their planes, and pretty much making them rich. We're all guilty of this. Sure it's for our own survival, and there isn't really any other choice at the moment. But this isn't really about playing the blame game anyway. I'm not sure I follow, first you said you can get a very good college education for free, but no one pursues it and most of those who do are "almost illiterate". Doesn't sound like a very good college education to me. I guess it would spring from the fact you're in one of the poorest countries in Europe, so the government can't afford to pay for the best tutors to be in it's college's, or to allocate enough resources to the colleges. I'm sorry if I've missed the point on this one, I'm not too familiar with your education system That's what I'm hoping for, and why I think the 'lead by a small example group first' concept is only possible because of what we've achieved in those last 20 - 30 years. The other reason is to try and avoid what happened to Communism. The USA was a big factor in the downfall of the USSR, because of their aggression (not that it was all their fault), too many resources were pooled into things like the arms race and the space race. This, coupled with the rampant corruption that took hold in the government, and other factors of course, meant there wasn't enough bread to go around, either because the government couldn't afford it, or more likely because they were trying to cut costs to have more funds to pump into winning the Cold War.
in a resource based economy the motivations would be completely different..... if people didn't have to work for a living.......... -would everyone just sit around being lazy? -would anything actually get done? its important to point out that in a resource based economy there is no currency but its also not a system that is solely dependent on barter/trade (in its traditional sense) its a completely different kind of system that the world has never seen before. i think the defining motivation of a resource based economy would be; -education -healthy lifestyles would be the "norm" -technology -efficiency -reliability -sustainability -availability of resources -and unlimited universal access -self sufficient since there is no currency and no barter/trade in the traditional sense there would be no reason to say be greedy and take an absurd amount of resources that is way more then what you need as it would literally be a waste of time in a resource based economy and in the end not give you any advantage over anyone else..... its also needs to be a decentralized system first and foremost with complete transparency in that the people are not driven to be consumers and therefore dependent on any one source or market of resources. They are driven and encouraged to not only be self sufficient through implementation of technology but also contributors or a source of resources themselves to the economy as to eliminate any vulnerability for anyone group or organization to take advantage of an individual or another group or organization of people for (greed/power/control, religion and/or racism) the idea of the home would completely transform as technology evolves and a lot of the times you wouldn't even have to go "shopping" for resources that you "need" they would be automatically delivered to your home by machines based on what your computer systems indicate which is based on your living conditions and personal preferences there would still be trade but no bartering or any trade in the traditional sense. As in "i will give you X which should be worth X so give me X and lets make a deal", it would be more akin to everyone just sharing their abundance of resources or goods with friends, family, their community and/or the world/society as a whole its also not entirely a "goods" based system in the traditional sense in that you wouldn't go to a store or what not to get "goods" you would go to an access point to get resources you need or better yet the resources would be automatically delivered to your home by machines so you can make your own goods and as technology evolves this process of "making your own goods" will become more and more easy, effortless, efficient and scalable.....WAY scalable. The best way to put this into perspective is like the old saying "if you give a man some fish he can feed his family for one night, but teach the man how to fish and he can feed his family for the rest of his life" same principle...sorta
as an individual the motivations in the monetary system are perfectly clear; get a job, submit to employment or go without the problem is that the system is inherently corrupt..... -as technology evolves more and more workers are going to be displaced by machines; its inevitable -corporations will always try to cut corners and lower their operational cost by seeking cheap labor or outsourcing their labor outright to maximize their bottom line aka profits add to the fact that the opportunity to get employment isnt related to; -your interest in a particular field -the enthusiasm you have for a specific field its based entirely on weather or not you have credentials; its like not only do you have to submit to employment to make money in order to buy the things you need to live but you also have to pay for your own opportunity for employment and jobs that have better pay and benefits; not to mention college is absurdly expensive of course there is scholarships and what not but just because you were not interested in high school or hanging out with the wrong crowd, not to mention the status quo isnt really encouraged to give a issh about education in general and your parents were working two jobs they weren't always there to guide you doesn't mean that you don't deserve the opportunity as well. But the system doesn't work that way so what do you do? you submit to debt and take student loans and your plagued by that decision for the rest of your life regardless if you actually make it through the curriculum and get the degree or not.... because degree does not always mean your guaranteed a job...... also to get a decent job you need pre-existing experience well how are you going to get experience if you have to already have experience? this is because the corporations dont care about anything other then profits. why should they have to raise their operational costs to train individuals in certain fields? thats what college or vocational school is for (in their perspective) let the people pay directly or the taxpayers pay for that indirectly......we dont give a isssh.... give you an example of how corrupt the system is................ back in the day during the boom of the industrial age; the train industry was growing and becoming the most popular means of transportation but they had to build their own tracks... flip that a decade and during the infancy of the car industry they decided that its not their responsibility to build and maintain the roadways.......so we the taxpayers payed for the roads that we have today. well if thats the case and the taxpayers payed for the roads we should have a whole lot of power to decide how our cars are made...yet when our car industry is failing what happens? they think they deserve bailouts.... honestly free market capitalism is a joke when the major industries are already monopolized by very few corporations (which is slowly and inevitably decreasing over time); competition and market influences doesn't even apply to these industries who have cozy oligopoly positions. Not to mention that these corporations also own fundamental IP's in their respective industry so no one can start a business without first paying them royalties/licensing fees and if by some off chance they do slip through the cracks with a better product.....what happens? acquisition!!! they get bought out and in fact a lot of entrepreneur are actually encouraged to start a business for the sole purpose of having a exit strategy (selling out) down the road their goal is to build up perceivable value or worth in order to get the attention of market leaders then negotiate an acquisition... and to add insult to injury we have a fake economy called a stock market where individuals, organizations, and firms can trade perceived value of companies back and forth with each other in order to make money but the question is what influences this perceived value? is it the quality of their products? their customer relationship? their ethics? no its profit!! plan and simple so therefore people are actually buying into this "game" and playing along by actually paying companies to maximize their profits, and no matter how you spin it maximizing profits is corrupt behavior you cant be ethical if want to maximize profits..... that would be like a salesperson saying "you know what you really shouldn't waste your money on this product im trying to sell you, if you really want a good X run across the street and check out their stuff. its a much better product at a much better price" that would be ethical.......
It's very simple to make a statement such as "the rich are burning cash". You, the person reading this on your home computer, are a "rich guy burning cash", if the statement comes from a guy who lives in a 3rd world country. Is a computer, an internet connection and the resources associated with it, a necessity?
Not sure how communism can ever work. It has a terrible track record. The early days of the Soviet Union were brutal. Some of our own early colonies also tried a form of communism and nearly starved. Also I believe the argument for a sort of resource based economy was made in a by Williams Jennings Bryant during his multiple presidental runs 100 years ago. I could agree with you on the Fed Reserve. They have performed horribly the last 10yrs but I can't see moving away from paper currency.
Yes'm, my ideal government is a communist democracy, on it's face, that makes no sense, as the two contradict each other, but it makes sense to me (I can't be bothered explaining it though) I call it the Illyrian System if you've ever read a book called 'Blart: The boy who didn't want to save the world' you'll have a rough idea of what I'm talking about
Yes. These days having a computer with an internet connection is becoming more and more of a necessity. Give it 10 - 20 more years and it won't even be a point for discussion. That is, if the system stays the same. As cubytes pointed out, cutting operational costs to maximize profits is the key aim of most any company. So bringing everything online, so that it is automated and requires a fraction of the staff to maintain, is a logical next step.
don't forget that democracy is simply mob rule where the majority can deny the minority their rights, liberties and freedoms.... America was designed to be a republic of the people that democratically elects representatives. It's designed so every citizen has equal rights that can not be taken away and the people have the power to control the government by ensuring the government sticks to a clearly defined rule-book & spec sheet aka the Constitution (state and federal) The idea of a self governing republic with a constitution that gives the people the power to control their own government is a revolutionary idea! However it depends on the public, as it is the public's responsibility to ensure the government abides by the Constitutions. The problem of course is media consolidation, and mass media advertisements. The public obviously needs to actually care about whats going on first, then be well informed enough to be aware, educated, and understand the issues throughly in order to be involved and ultimately for the idea of a self governing republic to actually work as it was intended. in fact corporations are more involved in the drafting process of new laws & legislation and/or changes/amendments to existing laws & legislation WAY more so then the people are. It should go without saying that they also have way more power/influence then the people do because they have more money to donate to campaigns, or to afford lobbyists & lawyers, and afford all the legal expenses or other expenses time off traveling ect involved... and when people are actually motivated to get involved they are motivated to do so by misinformation, propaganda and just are generally there to resonate opposition on baseless sensationalist claims that have no merit whatsoever and typically not even related to the litigation of protest sold to them by media conglomerates who represent a single point of view or position thankfully we have the internet because there are movements and protests taking place that actually are legitimate, logical, peaceful, opposition backed by claims that actually make sense and are related to the litigation of which the protest is all about in the first place and are not sensationalist claims (racist communist nazi socialist ect). The only problem is you rarely hear about them on the TV networks that have millions of viewers and HUGE influence on impressionable minds......
Communism is not a bad economical model. What happened in Russia and other communist countries, was a cocktail of 10% comunism and 90% dictatorship. The model wasn't wrong. The implementation was. Praising the working class, while sending highly skilled people to be killed on dangerous construction projects (basically, a mass genocid against anyone smart) resulted in a colapse. To be honest, I would elect 50 of the smartest people in the country, to run the country for 20 years (you can't make changes and good things at a large scale, in 4 or 5 years. I would provide these people with the benefit of having ANYTHING they want, so their only interest would be the well being of the people. Giving them everything, would make it hard for anyone to pursuade them into making bad judgements (read, corruption). Or even better. Make a board of 100 of the smartest people. Replace them only when they die or are unable to work. Provide them with everything they want. They would pretty much have no other interest, than making good things happen. Afterall, they have a guarantee of getting everything for lifetime.
in a resource based economy there is no need for currency or any arbitrary societal structure needed to control the trade of goods and labor.....because its based on resources. this is only possible with the level of technology we have today and because technology is constantly evolving. It's inevitable that machines will be capable of automating more and more tasks in the future, in other words freeing humanity from unnecessary LABOR. you cant ignore the fact that technology has improved to such a degree and will continue to improve. If you do your simply perpetuating an economic system designed way over 100 years ago to remain in power/control... and if you take a step back and look at the big picture you will realize there is no reason whatsoever to have any government or any self imposed rules and regulations in place to determine how resources are utilized, distributed and how access is provided; now that technology has evolved to such a degree and will continue to evolve and improve well into the future. the only concerns that need to be met are: -sustainability -efficiency -abundance -universal unlimited access to resources based on: -what is known to be needed (using real data) -how the needs change over time (using real data) -what resources are available (using real data) -and how these resources change over time (using real data) in contrast; the only concern in a monetary system is profit!!! it is inherently corrupt so therefore you absolutely need a complex arbitrary social structure aka government, law's & orders ect....to maintain the illusion of a wanabe civilized society....
On the contrary... Our problems do NOT stem from capitalism, but from unbridled, unchecked, unregulated capitalism.... which the guys who run the US have convinced you is the only way that capitalism can run. Not so. Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, etc., etc., all are successful capitalist nations that still manage to provide a huge amount of social services for their citizens. And so there's nothing to "think up;" we could simply run our country the way the rest of the civilized world does. But every time you bring up this idea, the guys who own everything throw a media fit and convince Americans that this will lead them straight to the gulag. So it's this "screw you 'cause I got mine" version of capitalism that leads to despair. The idea that the only alternative to the American Way is Soviet Communism (which has ben "proven" to always fail) is a false dichotomy.
When I say our problems, I mean the entire world, not any single country. And one of our primary problems is poverty, and under developed third world countries. This is because they are exploited for profit, and this is not just by the US. I agree Capitalism could work, for a while. But eventually we will always end up in the same position, because by it's very nature, it creates winner and losers, both with extreme cases.
