Collectivism vs Communism

[Dan~]

Separation of church and state:

Religion became so corrupt that it could no longer run itself.

The government wanted a fresh new start.

With our without a church, corruption happens.

Blaming the church instead of blaming humanity.

Talk about poor application.
Communism gets nasty when people try to enforce it.
But when religion tries to enforce itself, it's even worse!

People need to stop being crazy and malevolent.
No system will work without good people behind it.

[obsrvr524]

Separation of church and state:

Religion became so corrupt that it could no longer run itself.

The government wanted a fresh new start.

With our without a church, corruption happens.

Blaming the church instead of blaming humanity.

Talk about poor application.
Communism gets nasty when people try to enforce it.
But when religion tries to enforce itself, it's even worse!

I agree that it happens. I don't know if religion is any worse. At least religion has a few unchangeable rules, stated "morals". A communist government has no moral obligations to be concerned about..

People need to stop being crazy and malevolent.
No system will work without good people behind it.

I agree but I can see how keeping people crazy is a fundamental part of trying to maintain power over them. Telling people to not be crazy doesn't stop those who are ensuring that they remain crazy.

[Dan~]

The public is rarely considered to blame for anything at all.
It is a minority of corrupted individuals which deceives and undermines the masses.

Being corruptible is its own issue.
Wood burns because it is flamable.
Likewise, corruption burns because people are corruptible.

Do the people get driven crazy by con artists?
Or does the public embrace and demand crazy media?

Have you ever thought that the public was to blame for anything?

[Dan~]

Equalitarianism:

Equality is unnatural.

The human body is made of many parts.
If one should succeed, the rest will do well.
If one part fails, the whole system falls down.
Organs are not equal though.
Organs are each unique and has its own job.

An ideal society realizes that many things are necessary.
All this talk of equality is crap to me.
We can be friends without being equal.

[obsrvr524]

Have you ever thought that the public was to blame for anything?

We blame a killing based on intent because it is the intent we hope to change by punishment.

Do you blame the people for having COVID or do you blame the CCP for giving it to them?
Do you blame a weed for growing in the wrong place?

Can you change a crazy person by blaming him for it?
If you don't like something the way it is, isn't it up to you to change it?
Isn't a frustrated blamer just a crazy person?

You reminded me of James' "planet of the apes" comments. Although I never saw him blaming them for it - probably because he didn't expect to change it by blaming or wanting to punish them. "If you can't fix it, deal with it."

[Dan~]

I was kinda hoping my earlier post would apply to something beyond the punishment system.
True cause, never mind the crazy contraptions of crime and innocence.
I think sometimes a dream is preferable compared to being awake.

[obsrvr524]

I think sometimes a dream is preferable compared to being awake.

I think everyone lives in a bubble. I thought about a thread on whether spreading accurate real truth was a good thing or bad. But with this group...

[Dan~]

Some part of me wants to torture and destroy all life.
It's on the edge of destruction.
It's connected with tubes going into my brain and heart.
I'm hoping i can out-live this.
I'm pleased with my light side.
I love life without hate, anger, frustration, thirst, etc.
But some part of me is really holding me back.
That's my bubble.

[Dan~]

Ownership of land:

Let's say i got up one morning, and said : I own 2000 square feet of land,
and nobody gets to use it unless they either buy it from me or get my permission to use it..

That only works if the people were foolish enough to believe me.

However, if i had 100 armed men on the land,
they would enforce my idea. They would help to own the land.

Land ownership is a form of militarism.
The military is the strong arm of the bourgeois elite.
The military is a giant mind controlled mercinary gang.
Sure, they can do good things,
but all they are is trained to obey, equipped with the best weapons,
then deployed due to a national interest.


On the other hand, a collectivist plot of land,
is shared between people that want to cultivate it.
The workers can arm themselves, but not in the same fashion as a military.

[Silhouette]

I don't think capitalism has anything to do with voting. Capitalism is about the economic system of exchange and private ownership, not the method of choosing leaders. Private ownership of anything doesn't exist in a socialist world but that doesn't have anything to do with voting either.

And Silhouette, Everyone was accepting your version of what Marx was calling communism whether accurate or not. And we were telling you that because of that description of Marxist communism, what Marxism IS, is a violent effort to chase a fantasy (YOUR version of stateless communism whether the same as Marx's or not).

Stateless communism is a fantasy. No one needs to read Marx or anyone else in order to determine that if you merely look at how often any kind of communism has been attempted. It is NEVER stateless. And it has always immediately become dictatorial as it must.

It is the stateless aspect that prevents it from ever becoming a real thing.

Private ownership of anything is fine for Socialism - just not the use of it as capital. Personal use/consumption is still fine - you still have your own stuff. You just don't use it to make more money. The stuff being used to make more money (means of production) is not privately owned.

Capitalism is voting with your money - more money, more power, more leadership. The more unequal wealth gets, the more the rich pull away with their ability to control things, the more they can rig the system in their favour - and the icing on the cake is that because it's "private" the less conspicuous it is. The only difference between that and a government is that government is out in the open and visible. Any corruption is obvious, but apparently simply hiding the corruption is the capitalist solution.

You need to read Marx to realise that all these "attempts" lacked crucial ingredients - like occurring in late Capitalist societies.
It's like using salt instead of sugar and then complaining that cakes necessarily taste like crap and they're a fantasy.

You just write it off as "Statelessness = impossible" and attempts calling themselves Communist and failing is enough for you with zero regard for precision and detail - it's just lazy, the same as being too lazy to actually read Marx, and claiming nobody needs to read Marx to know what it is and that it's impossible.

That's your "bubble", and because you suffer from living in your bubble you assume that everyone else does too.
All I'm doing is trying to explore outside of bubbles.
If statelessness is impossible in all possible circumstances, let sufficient studies confirm as much with scientific rigor. Until then, the jury is NOT out, stop pretending it is. Your "can't win don't try" attitude is self-fulfilling, allowing you to remain safely in your bubble.

[obsrvr524]

I don't think capitalism has anything to do with voting. Capitalism is about the economic system of exchange and private ownership, not the method of choosing leaders. Private ownership of anything doesn't exist in a socialist world but that doesn't have anything to do with voting either.

And Silhouette, Everyone was accepting your version of what Marx was calling communism whether accurate or not. And we were telling you that because of that description of Marxist communism, what Marxism IS, is a violent effort to chase a fantasy (YOUR version of stateless communism whether the same as Marx's or not).

Stateless communism is a fantasy. No one needs to read Marx or anyone else in order to determine that if you merely look at how often any kind of communism has been attempted. It is NEVER stateless. And it has always immediately become dictatorial as it must.

It is the stateless aspect that prevents it from ever becoming a real thing.

Private ownership of anything is fine for Socialism - just not the use of it as capital. Personal use/consumption is still fine - you still have your own stuff. You just don't use it to make more money. The stuff being used to make more money (means of production) is not privately owned.

Not so according to Wikipedia

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element.

Capitalism is voting with your money - more money, more power, more leadership.

Not so. Capitalism is used in democratic environments

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. Cornerstones include freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, voting, right to life and minority rights.

Democracies forbid purchasing of votes although people are always breaking laws regardless of the type of government. In socialist systems (centrally controlled - anti-democratic) only the elite, ownership class have any rights or actual authority (whether they are allowed to vote or not). It is in socialism that more money can purchase more political influence through voting or not. You seem to have it all backwards.

And YOU complain that others do not read the material first?

The more unequal wealth gets, the more the rich pull away with their ability to control things, the more they can rig the system in their favour - and the icing on the cake is that because it's "private" the less conspicuous it is. The only difference between that and a government is that government is out in the open and visible. Any corruption is obvious, but apparently simply hiding the corruption is the capitalist solution.

I think you have corporate "crony capitalism" (hidden socialism using corporations as disguise) confused with actual capitalism (free trade protected by anti-trust laws). The US is infected with a great deal of that because open socialism is unpopular and actually unconstitutional. So they have been sneaking in their Marxism through corporate hegemony.

You can't use the current US as an example of capitalism simply because the US is currently in a Sun Tzu internal takeover war that has been going on for a long time (decades). Mr Trump opposes the corrupt take over so he has tremendous internal push back from the hidden, corporate crony capitalist/Marxist elites and their establishment pundits. Mr Trump is trying to get rid of the very kind of corrupt abuse of power that you are talking about. I suspect that you, as many people here, have been fooled into standing up for the antithesis of your own ethics.

You just write it off as "Statelessness = impossible"

No I explained why it is impossible and gave real world examples, as did urwrong.

If statelessness is impossible in all possible circumstances, let sufficient studies confirm as much with scientific rigor. Until then, the jury is NOT out, stop pretending it is. Your "can't win don't try" attitude is self-fulfilling, allowing you to remain safely in your bubble.

In Seattle Washington just a couple of months ago, the city mayor allowed for a Marxist group to take possession of a part of the downtown city (7 blocks worth). Their city council is run by a devout Marxist. Police were not allowed to interfere at all. She declared, "Maybe it will be a summer of love. We will see".

Did you see what happened? Did you read the experimental data? Very probably not so let me tell you what happened.

Within only two weeks that collection of anti-capitalist millennial communists were impoverish, living on handouts from outside of the blocked off "CHAP Zone", had shot and killed one white teenager for speaking up by the only person allowed to have a gun (black of course), and beat another nearly to death. The self appointed leader (the "Party of the People" leader also black) stood above the crowd telling every white person to give their money to the black person next to them, saying, "I want every one of you white people to give $10 to the black person next to you. And I can see every one of your faces. I will remember your faces." - intimidation, coercion, violence, and murder. Exactly as China does except these were a bunch of black and white US born millennials.

That was their communist "summer of love". The city Mayor is culpable for murder with her experiment in communist love.

New York state governor Mr Cuomo and New York city mayor Mr de Blasio, both communists are even more guilty of condoning and promoting impoverishment, criminality, and murder (more than 3000 people killed directly from governor and mayor edicts). Look at New York city now after communist rule. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago are similar under socialist (not quite communist yet) rule. And now they demand more money (after enriching themselves) from the federal government. And in Congress any stimulus help for COVID relief is being held up in hostage until they get more free money from the nation's other states (extortion).

The Marxist ploy is to stand for the opposite of what they really do (hypocrisy). It seems that they have you, just as those millennials, standing on the opposite side of your own ethics.

[Silhouette]

Not so according to Wikipedia

Lmao, so Wikipedia is suddenly okay again now you (mistakenly) think it's supporting your misinformation?

Actually READ the quotes you provide next time:

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element.

See that bit where it clarifies "social ownership" as being "of the means of production and workers' self-managements of enterprises" earlier in the quote?

Yeah - that's the bit you're conveniently ignoring in order to interpret "social ownership [as] the one common element" as not specifically referring to what it literally just clarified that it specificially referred to, but instead as necessarily applying to ALL things. Y'know what, I bet there are obscure types of Socialism where people share toothbrushes, but if you want to talk about Marxism, you are just highlighting yet more ignorance on your part.

Not so. Capitalism is used in democratic environments

Yes, this is what I was saying:

Capitalism has 1 vote per dollar, which is a sort of voting system.

The fact that there's usually a 5-or-so yearly election cycle on top of it is a bolt-on idea, separate to Capitalism but often used in conjunction, to counter 1 vote per dollar with 1 vote per person. And it's only to vote in a delegation of particular people (career politicians), who usually have a lot of capital already and who can be influenced by capital, which is "indirect democracy".

I clarify that Democracy and Capitalism are separate, and the latter needs the former though in practice it's not much of a consolation.
Why are you trying to "correct me" with my own point?

I say Capitalism is a sort of voting system, not that it "is" Democracy.

So YESSS, I DOOO complain that others are not reading the material first

And YOU have it backwards (AGAIN) trying to make out like Socialism has an elite ownership class where money buys votes. LITERALLY the opposite of Marxism. And YESSS, even though China told you that they were perfect examples of Marxism, all the government corruption they impose is indisputable proof that government isn't simply regular working class elected people - it was set up as a dictatorship just like China always has been, merely "calling itself" Communist. The opposite of being working-class-run.

It's infuriating how you insist on constantly coming out with completely inverted nonsense!!!
Stop wasting everyone's time with it.

I think you have corporate "crony capitalism" (hidden socialism using corporations as disguise) confused with actual capitalism. The US is infected with a great deal of that because open socialism is unpopular and actually unconstitutional. So they have been sneaking in their Marxism through corporate hegemony.

You can't use the current US as an example of capitalism simply because the US is currently in a Sun Tzu internal takeover war that has been going on for a long time (decades). Mr Trump opposes the corrupt take over so he has tremendous internal push back from the hidden, corporate crony capitalist/Marxist elites and their establishment pundits. Mr Trump is trying to get rid of the very kind of corrupt abuse of power that you are talking about. I suspect that as many people here, you have been fooled into standing up for the antithesis of your own ethics.

Socialism has nothing to do with "Crony Capitalism". Crony Capitalism is just what eventually happens when you try to moderate Capitalism with a State. The State gets bought unofficially and tacitly by capitalists such that they advertise themselves overtly as appealing to the working class to try and fool them into voting them in, but covertly they allow in law after law to protect and provide for capitalists. The opposite of a Socialist State.

No conspiracy theory scapegoats are necessary here - it's all a natural product of Capitalism's effects playing out in the real world. Trump was elected to facilitate these effects in line with the Republican agenda. Ridding this corruption can't even be achieved by the Democrats, they're both too right-leaning. The left dominate education and celebrity, and seem to only be able to influence superficial attitudes, but the core economic structures and politics remain as rightist as ever.

No I explained why it is impossible and gave real world examples, as did urwrong.

In Seattle Washington just a couple of months ago, the city mayor allowed for a Marxist group to take possession of a part of the downtown city (7 blocks worth). Their city council is run by a devout Marxist. Police were not allowed to interfere at all. She declared, "Maybe it will be a summer of love. We will see". Did you see what happened? Did you read the experimental data?

You gave and continue to provide anecdotes.

This is not science.

And this Seattle fiasco is all the most disaffected and angry youths lashing out at all the shit they've been subjected to as a result of Capitalism - of course it's going to be a catastrophe. That's why I keep saying I'm against revolution - rage isn't what we need to transform society into something better.

[obsrvr524]

Not so according to Wikipedia

Lmao, so Wikipedia is suddenly okay again now you (mistakenly) think it's supporting your misinformation?

So are you now saying that Wikipedia is wrong after to objecting to me saying that it isn't always right?

Actually READ the quotes you provide next time:

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element.

See that bit where it clarifies "social ownership" as being "of the means of production and workers' self-managements of enterprises" earlier in the quote?

I'll give you that mere socialism doesn't directly specify the lack of private property, but communism, the result of socialism, does expressly demand the total lack of private property. I see socialism as merely a short interim in-between. In effect, socialism is communism at birth.

But if you want to talk about Marxism, you are just highlighting yet more ignorance on your part.

Okay let's talk about communist Marxism (again). That is what I was talking about anyway. Let's see how "ignorant" I have been.

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need [by government decree and taken back at any time - so not actually privately owned]. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

In legal terms, property is defined as anything that can be owned. Land and buildings are frequently referred to as real property, while the term personal property is often used to describe other types of possessions.

Property is also described as being tangible or intangible. Tangible property has a physical existence. Intangible property is something that has value without a physical presence, or there may be a representative object, like a piece of paper. Stocks, bonds and intellectual property are examples of intangible property.

Property rights are defined as the authority of an individual or group of individuals to decide how property will be used [as in "production"].

.. where private property is not allowed, the government ensures that property is shared and wealth is redistributed so that no one person is allowed to hold on to more property than is needed for daily survival [to the degree dictated by the State - if you are breathing, you don't "need" any more. If you stopped breathing you don't need any more either - you get the least we care to give you and you better claim to like it or we won't have a need for you].

.. bracketed are my inserts.

Private property is a system that allocates particular objects like pieces of land to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others and to the exclusion of any detailed control by society

Your argument is "Oh but he didn't REALLY mean all private property so you don't need to worry. He only meant the property of those OTHER bad oppressive people." Always depending on the nuance of wording to be adjusted as time goes on -

Private property is a legal concept defined and enforced by a country's political system

.

Not so. Capitalism is used in democratic environments

Yes, this is what I was saying:

Capitalism has 1 vote per dollar, which is a sort of voting system.

That is not true in democratic environments. Quote a source for that assertion.
Every democratic nation allows for one person - one vote.

This is not science.

I thought you were going to say that. Nothing is going to be "science" until it agrees with you. Real life observations don't count. So how many people do you want to murder in your "scientific experiment"?

That's why I keep saying I'm against revolution - rage isn't what we need to transform society into something better.

Then you are against Marxism.

[Silhouette]

So are you now saying that Wikipedia is wrong after to objecting to me saying that it isn't always right?

No

Wikipedia concords with Marxism and not your misinformation - and I simply pointed out why your misinformation is misinformation.

Your History.com article at least agrees with what I was saying about Socialism allowing individuals to own property, and that it's just the means of production that are publically owned.
But for some reason you still can't resist inserting your own misinformation into your quotations can you?!
From simply getting at least what you need (from each according to their abilities) you gotta go add in this contradictory bullshit: "[by government decree and taken back at any time - so not actually privately owned]".
No, the Socialist government is just other working class people according to Marx if you'd just fucking read a book by him - not some oppressive dictatorial regime that acts against the working class and threatens to take back what is given at any time
And this: "[to the degree dictated by the State - if you are breathing, you don't "need" any more. If you stopped breathing you don't need any more either - you get the least we care to give you and you better claim to like it or we won't have a need for you]" - turns an already dubious "Pocket Sense" article that tries to make out that anything beyond daily survival is actively denied from anyone... into some weird extremist threat about merely breathing... I mean, what the actual fuck dude? You are messed up. Where in the hell does Marx support that and why the hell would any Marxist support that? Marxists support things that Marx wrote (and not necessarily every single detail!) They don't want people to be stripped down to barely breathing - how you could even begin to think that's what anyone wants is fucked up.

Leave out your paranoid "bracketed inserts" in future, please. They're completely unnecessary, and just more misinformation. Just leave the texts alone for what they actually say.

Your argument is "Oh but he didn't REALLY mean all private property so you don't need to worry. He only meant the property of those OTHER bad oppressive people." Always depending on the nuance of wording to be adjusted as time goes on -

The means of production.

Not "the property of those OTHER bad oppressive people" or any other unnecessary nonsense you keep trying to inject into a perfectly clear instruction. No the instruction isn't subject to change as time goes on, it means what it says - nothing more or less. Why can't you accept that without imagining some evil malevolent forces out to come get us all as soon as we turn our backs - that's in YOUR head. If you could just look at the words for what they literally are, you might be able to understand this topic - but until then you'd be doing everyone a favour if you just stopped insisting on all the conspiracy shit.

That is not true in democratic environments. Quote a source for that assertion.
Every democratic nation allows for one person - one vote.

It's really not a complex assertation - it's just a common way of thinking of the market pricing system known as Dollar voting.

I thought you were going to say that. Nothing is going to be "science" until it agrees with you. Real life observations don't count. So how many people do you want to murder in your "scientific experiment"?

Just no, idiot.

I have nothing to do with what counts as scientific rigor. The scientific method stands alone and has everything to do with real life observations: of experimental data extracted from tightly and specifically calculated scenarios.
This is the most basic of requirements for what constitutes science - if you haven't carefully controlled for what you're measuring, if you aren't isolating specific variables to test, it's not going to be sufficiently clear what the results exactly mean. You don't just "let some shit happen" and then at some point down the line decide what you think it all means and count that as sufficient evidence for what always happens when you let that kind of shit happen. That's barely scientific at all - you have to be precise and thorough, trying all different kinds of situations to test against controlled conditions and be exhaustive.
You really have no scientific education, do you.

Then you are against Marxism.

Yeah coz you can't disagree with the odd aspect of Marxism without being completely against all Marxism.

Just stop, please.

[obsrvr524]

That "dollar voting" wasn't talking about policies or political leaders, you idiot. It is about "voting" for preferred products through paying more.

I'd like to see what your arrangement for a scientific double-blind study on communism would look like. How many people would you be willing to sacrifice for the cause?

[Silhouette]

That "dollar voting" wasn't talking about policies or political leaders, you idiot. It is about "voting" for preferred products through paying more.

And I wasn't saying dollar voting was talking about policies or political leaders, you idiot.

I was saying that more money = more power and influence because it's not just products you can buy, and not just a handful of consumables for personal use. The more wealth inequality, the fewer people make the largest impacts on the economy, meaning it matters more economically what just a few people do with their money. If the good favours of these people are lost, a great many people can be made to know about it. And it's not just supply chains, capital, credit etc. that they can influence - they are able to access all the best channels to changing laws in their favour. And if any State is involved that doesn't appeal to them, the richest people can essentially hold them to ransom until they do. Even if these richest people have avoided paying any tax at all (they end up mixing and networking with all the other richest and most powerful contacts, and can afford all the best accountants as well as all the best lawyers) the amount of people that their decisions affect who do pay taxes is not insignificant that you can risk. The larger the wealth disparity, the larger the collateral fallout of the decisions of the wealthiest.

And all from "voting for preferred products through paying more", with initially the best or at least most popular pulling away (early Capitalism is healthy) - recognised as the capitalistic goal/the definition of capitalistic success - the richer you are, the more resources you have available to you to become more rich (and vice versa for the poorer). The effects of Capitalism working properly run away with themselves, and we see this with or without a State for the reasons laid out above. The tumor becomes malignant and Capitalism working properly leads to fewer and fewer people developing very real executive powers, tending towards the point of essentially becoming unofficial de facto leaders (not chosen by explicit decmocratic election) - but under Capitalism their business is "private" so can continue to spiral out of control behind the scenes. And the effects pass down through generations, traditions, friend circles - none of these richest people are completely islated from the others. With all their privacy and the corresponding lack of accountability that this affords, "illegal" collusion can easily go off the record, and they can buy all the smartest people to put on the payroll to facilitate it all. Stupid people think there's secret underground Commie moles infiltrating all the most powerful institutions - no, it's simply Capitalism working and increasingly we are suffering the effects of it working in its mature form.

I'd like to see what your arrangement for a scientific double-blind study on communism would look like. How many people would you be willing to sacrifice for the cause?

I'd like to see one too.
I would be willing to sacrifice zero people at most for the cause.

[obsrvr524]

So your "one dollar = one vote" is not relevant to the conversation except to say that people will no longer have any influence in what products they can buy. Communism does that. You get what we give you and you had better say that you like it.

Your fantasy version of communism that sounds so wonderful requires some indication that it could probably work. So far all evidence implies the reverse. Idealized communism appears to be a fantasy utopia and not worth the death and destruction required to attempt it (similar to the Green New Deal in the US). How could the world ever get evidence favoring its reality without endangering people with even an experiment?

Seattle tried the experiment and it failed very quickly. What wasn't scientific about their experiment?

[Silhouette]

So your "one dollar = one vote" is not relevant to the conversation except to say that people will no longer have any influence in what products they can buy. Communism does that. You get what we give you and you had better say that you like it.

Your fantasy version of communism that sounds so wonderful requires some indication that it could probably work. So far all evidence implies the reverse. Idealized communism appears to be a fantasy utopia and not worth the death and destruction required to attempt it (similar to the Green New Deal in the US). How could the world ever get evidence favoring its reality without endangering people with even an experiment?

Seattle tried the experiment and it failed very quickly. What wasn't scientific about their experiment?

Find me the scientific papers behind Seattle's careful plans for structured experiment and controlled variables, and then let's discuss what's scentific about their experiment.

Since we both know the complete opposite approach was taken, I suggest you at least attempt to gain some education on what science actually is because you're quite clearly oblivious. And I don't mean read a couple of internet articles and maybe a Wikipedia paragraph or two - actually take an official course and see if you can even get to high school level with your lazy suggestions about what constitutes a scientific experiment.

I have no "fantasy version of Communism", just an understanding of the theory that I want to be sufficiently tested before it's ruled out. I even expect a significant probability that it'd be really hard to establish sufficient conditions to enable a working model to function viably. This notion that you think I'm lost in some dream world where Communism is the heavenly utopia that we can all discover if we all believe in ourselves like some fucking Disney movie is your own god damn imagination. Get real and stop spreading all your misinformation.

And "Dollar voting" is perfectly relevant to the converstion.
"One dollar = one vote" means more and more dollar disparity equals more and more inequality in purchasing power, and due the sheer extent of this inequality in current purchasing power there are small numbers of individuals who have the purchasing power of whole countries. And they are not operating in isolation, and the legions of employees and the collateral effects of their decisions are gigantic. The executive power that they have between them is akin to that of de facto leaders.

No Communism required, this is literally what happens when Capitalism works properly for long enough.
Communism, in fact, would work in the exact opposite direction to control this fiasco from spiralling even further out of control by taking "private ownership of the means of production" out of the equation - which is the means by which surplus value is extracted from the labour of the working class. Under actual Communism, as in the actual literature, the working class are those doing the giving and the taking, not some oppressive totalitarian government regime that merely claims to be communist, and you'd have just as much free speech as ever to say what you think of it all with just as little consequence for doing so. The aim isn't to end up like China, it's to solve the inherent economic crises that late-stage Capitalism has been bringing about, without resorting to Totalitarianism or any other corrupt form of government.

Stop telling Marxists what they're aiming for, and trying to make out like it's the exact opposite of what they're aiming for.
You can tell all of them how much you don't think it'll work until you're blue in the face, and it won't affect the results of legitimately scientifically controlled attempts to try and see if there's a realistic and safe way of successfully bringing attempts to make things better into fruition.
So since you have nothing but Doomsaying and pessimism to offer, kindly cease your misinformation and shut up until you actually know what you're talking about so that people who do can have a decent on-topic conversation. You're being a dick.

[Dan~]

True things don't need to be proven by 'science' before they are true.

[Silhouette]

True things don't need to be proven by 'science' before they are true.

Things need to be known as true before they can be relied on to be "true things".
How many times has humanity thought something to be true, only for it to be revealed as less true than some other explanation?

That's what science does - it takes what you thought to be true and tests it, and improves it. Correctly approached, it never espouses things to be absolutely true (people did at one point thing physics was "finished" - how wrong they were).

Turns out the best way that we've come up with so far to evaluate the empirical, which is seemingly always vulnerable to the "problem of induction", is the scientific method. That's just the current state of Epistemology. Without it we just have "claims", and anyone can say anything that comes to mind that they think to be true and call it true (as they do here on this forum far too often). And the gains resulting from this improved epistemological approach are quite apparent (e.g. technology).

So I disagree, quite ardently.

[Dan~]

Science can't save you from your humanity.

[Silhouette]

Science can't save you from your humanity.

What?

Who needs or wants saving from their humanity?
Humanity is something kinda hard to shake for humans (being human and expressing humanity throughout human life basically tautologically....)

And science is an expression of humanity - far from counter to it.
We're the only species on earth to practice it, setting us apart from anything non-human for a start.

The urge to alleviate fear seems to pervade the animal kingdom, though most species have simply have to make do and live with fear as part of their daily life - benefitting from its somewhat effective physiological reflexes, but humanity has done much to conquer the fear of this kind of existence through understanding. The ability to abstract patterns from life and act accordingly does much to evade scary situations, it provides confidence and the ability to create one's own life in a way of one's own choosing: freedom. The ability to control for our environments has allowed us to stand far apart from all non-human species - as distinctly humanity. And we do all this through Epistemology, which has progressed into the Scientific Method - it's nothing more than an expression of the human desire to know life and enhance life, and we have much to show for it that could not have been achieved had we been unable to advance Epistemology into the Scientific Method. If anything, science saves humanity!

Without science we are left with hasty, imaginative, cobbled-together guesses that amount to little more than personal claims of knowledge that are not necessarily shared unless imposed by force or trickery, diminishing freedom for all who are not successfully imposing such guesses - leading to much war, power squabbles and suffering, as litters our "human" history with a veritable lack of humanity. Who would choose these backward existences over the world of today that science has won for us, by us. Any remnants of the old way are simply dying echoes that periodically retreat into ever smaller gaps left in the wake of continual scientific successes, and the modern world that continues to be won in this way is so successful in spite of any clinging to the old ways - not at all because of it. The results of the old ways without science are apparent from the millenia before enlightenment times, and can only be justified with a lack of appreciation for what's actually been affording our far richer contemporary standards of living. The kind of thinking required and praised of the old ways is in exact opposition to the Scientific Method: believing on lack of evidence instead of based on evidence. Turning one's back on science is what "saves you from your humanity", by diminishing it back towards the much more inhuman civilisations that came before.

[d0rkyd00d]

Do we blame the rich for all our problems?

Really?

And the rich would fight to stay rich,
so a communist revolution would require a war with the rich.

When the commies get the rich's money and assets,
who gets them, after that? The government?
Or do they split it up equally between peasants?

How to stop people from becoming rich again:
Suppression.

If everyone had equal money, they would all be equally happy?
Money buys happiness, appearantly.

More later.

Hi Dan! I have been attempting to start a similar conversation in other threads, when lo and behold the conversation I sought was right here all along!

Not sure if your OP is tongue and cheek or if you are playing devil's advocate, but the problem as if you have portrayed it seems like a caricature. Capitalism is a spectrum, not an all-or-none proposition. Our system in the USA used to be designed to extract and redistribute more of this wealth, and it seemed to have a net positive effect vs. the opposite. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Dan~]

I believe in high tax capitalism basically.
And also i want to abolish paper money and replace it with gold and silver.

[ArmChairPolitico]

I believe in high tax capitalism basically.
And also i want to abolish paper money and replace it with gold and silver.

And why, exactly, would you like to do that?

From my understanding, the boom and bust cycles before the introduction of a central bank were much more severe.