Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Communism Pwned

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 11:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In response to the following thread: http://www.debate.org... I have decided to make this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2011 12:38:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 11:06:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
FAiL

http://cdn.inquisitr.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Dmetal
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 12:50:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So what the USSR fails, so that means socialism fails? Look, I don't think anyone could say the USSR was socialist. Socialism requires that a country's resources are distributed equitably. That did not occur in the USSR ever. All forms of capital were concentrated in the elite sectors of society. The difference here, between looking at the failure of capitalism and global markets is that it's GLOBAL; it isn't just the USA or Britain; it's EVERYWHERE capitalism is. Socialism has been somewhat successful in places like Norway and Germany albeit they are some what mixed between a market economy and a socialist state, more like a social democracy.
TheFreeThinker
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 1:25:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's the dumbest argument in the defense of socialism ever!
And by the way the reason that it failed, is failing and will always fail.

You can't distribute resources equally. And usually what happens when you put government in charge of that, is you create the perfect conditions for waste, corruption and inequality.

Socialism doesn't work not because it has not been tried, but because its rudimentary theoretical assumptions are flawed.
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 10:02:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?

My neighbours are deadbeat bums and they don't deserve any of my damn grain!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 10:24:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?

Okay, now what is the incentive for the farmers who harvest the grain, to continue to grow grain knowing that it will be simply taken away.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 12:25:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 12:50:45 AM, Dmetal wrote:
So what the USSR fails, so that means socialism fails? Look, I don't think anyone could say the USSR was socialist. Socialism requires that a country's resources are distributed equitably. That did not occur in the USSR ever. All forms of capital were concentrated in the elite sectors of society. The difference here, between looking at the failure of capitalism and global markets is that it's GLOBAL; it isn't just the USA or Britain; it's EVERYWHERE capitalism is. Socialism has been somewhat successful in places like Norway and Germany albeit they are some what mixed between a market economy and a socialist state, more like a social democracy.

So by your definition, the USSR wasn't socialist, so socialist doesn't lose any credibility, but because you assume the US is definitely capitalist, capitalism must be a failure of a system!

Such hypocrisy.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 7:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 11:34:43 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

How is that impossible or difficult?

Why don't you do it?

I would. But I would need a thousand AnComs and a large piece of land.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 7:55:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 7:52:13 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

I would. But I would need a thousand AnComs and a large piece of land.

No you would not, I am asking why don't you do it personally. It is self-evident you do not so the answer is why don't you act according to that why you claim is optimal.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 8:07:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 10:24:58 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?

Okay, now what is the incentive for the farmers who harvest the grain, to continue to grow grain knowing that it will be simply taken away.

Because as an AnCom they would all be doing their part in society. The people in the society working to provide many different needed services.

If the farmers don't like it then they can just leave. It's not their grain, it's the society's grain. They get to have their fair share (100lbs annually) by working and being a member of the society. The farmer doesn't have to harvest the grain. He can do something else if he likes it more, or he can choose to leave the society all together.

Everybody has a choice and everybody has a voice... But if you disrupt the harmony, you will be exiled or suspended from the society.

Basically, if you don't like it...then leave by choice. If you don't leave by choice, but continue to be a problem in the society, then society would have no choice but to forcefully exile you. (fix or erase the problem)
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 8:16:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 7:55:41 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/10/2011 7:52:13 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

I would. But I would need a thousand AnComs and a large piece of land.

No you would not, I am asking why don't you do it personally. It is self-evident you do not so the answer is why don't you act according to that why you claim is optimal.

I am not part of an AnCom society Cliff. I am part of the failure we call American economy. Your question answers itself.

Also, don't tell me what I would or would not do. If I had the right people and resources to form such a society in America, I would do it.

I'm sure such societies will form after the apocalypse happens.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 8:17:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 8:07:51 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

Basically, if you don't like it...then leave by choice. If you don't leave by choice, but continue to be a problem in the society, then society would have no choice but to forcefully exile you. (fix or erase the problem)

Your argument is that anarcho-communism is a stable and optimal society because the driver for behavior is that if one does not subscribe to the political philosophy then all of their property will be taken by force by the ruling majority and redistributed as they see fit? Have you actually lived in that type of society or is this just a personal theory?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 8:19:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 8:16:29 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

Also, don't tell me what I would or would not do.

I am not telling you what you would do, I am asking why you do not live by the philosophy that you ascribe is optimal. By the way claiming that you need X amount of people and Y amount of land is directly against the philosophy you are describing.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 11:12:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also Justin_Chains, please tell me if you have 12 million prices, in which all prices are interrelated, how are you going to determine the price of a good or service? How are you going to decide what is going to do what? How is production going to become more efficient if there is no profit-incentive? Are you going to stop voluntary trade in an anarcho-communist society?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2011 11:24:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Justin, what do you do if a farmer utterly fails at farming out of sheer laziness? How do you keep everybody working if their work hardly changes their benefit? And who is checking to make sure that everybody is working?
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 9:50:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 11:24:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
Justin, what do you do if a farmer utterly fails at farming out of sheer laziness? How do you keep everybody working if their work hardly changes their benefit? And who is checking to make sure that everybody is working?

The evil slave-master makes regular rounds to make sure everyone is working.
kfc
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 11:23:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 8:07:51 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/9/2011 10:24:58 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?

Okay, now what is the incentive for the farmers who harvest the grain, to continue to grow grain knowing that it will be simply taken away.

Because as an AnCom they would all be doing their part in society. The people in the society working to provide many different needed services.

If the farmers don't like it then they can just leave.

Stopped reading here. I'll leave, thanks.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 10:24:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/10/2011 11:24:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
Justin, what do you do if a farmer utterly fails at farming out of sheer laziness? How do you keep everybody working if their work hardly changes their benefit? And who is checking to make sure that everybody is working?

People might be lazy to the point of destruction under communism, just like people can be predatory, greedy, etc. to the point of destruction under capitalism.

I'm not a communist by any means -- I just think it's hilarious that capitalists always appeal to humanity's negative traits in their criticism, as if under capitalism everyone's potentially destructive traits would suddenly disappear.
President of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 11:55:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 10:24:48 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/10/2011 11:24:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
Justin, what do you do if a farmer utterly fails at farming out of sheer laziness? How do you keep everybody working if their work hardly changes their benefit? And who is checking to make sure that everybody is working?

People might be lazy to the point of destruction under communism, just like people can be predatory, greedy, etc. to the point of destruction under capitalism.

I'm not a communist by any means -- I just think it's hilarious that capitalists always appeal to humanity's negative traits in their criticism, as if under capitalism everyone's potentially destructive traits would suddenly disappear.

There is more mutually assured destruction under Capitalism than Communism, despite the cutesy connotations of the terms.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 12:01:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?

It is not impossible or difficult, it is just inefficient.

In order to be efficient, you must be able to equally satisfy every person's resource need to the same level. Your example is fundamentally flawed as you are assuming every person equally needs 100lbs of grain. People are wildly variable.

Socialism would be best implemented in a society of clones.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 12:30:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 10:24:48 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/10/2011 11:24:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
Justin, what do you do if a farmer utterly fails at farming out of sheer laziness? How do you keep everybody working if their work hardly changes their benefit? And who is checking to make sure that everybody is working?

People might be lazy to the point of destruction under communism, just like people can be predatory, greedy, etc. to the point of destruction under capitalism.

I'm not a communist by any means -- I just think it's hilarious that capitalists always appeal to humanity's negative traits in their criticism, as if under capitalism everyone's potentially destructive traits would suddenly disappear.

They won't disappear, no. They would just be harnessed. In communism, laziness leads to less for everybody and greed leads to attempt to take more than what the government deemed the "fair share," while in capitalism, laziness leads to self-destruction and greed leads to hard work. Usually. There are those who will steal under capitalism, but they would also be stealing under communism just as well.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 11:04:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 10:24:48 AM, Danielle wrote:

I'm not a communist by any means -- I just think it's hilarious that capitalists always appeal to humanity's negative traits in their criticism, as if under capitalism everyone's potentially destructive traits would suddenly disappear.

The argument is they are more in tune with (or less a perturbation against), not that they cease to happen.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2011 4:45:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 12:30:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/12/2011 10:24:48 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 6/10/2011 11:24:10 PM, mongeese wrote:
Justin, what do you do if a farmer utterly fails at farming out of sheer laziness? How do you keep everybody working if their work hardly changes their benefit? And who is checking to make sure that everybody is working?

People might be lazy to the point of destruction under communism, just like people can be predatory, greedy, etc. to the point of destruction under capitalism.

I'm not a communist by any means -- I just think it's hilarious that capitalists always appeal to humanity's negative traits in their criticism, as if under capitalism everyone's potentially destructive traits would suddenly disappear.

They won't disappear, no. They would just be harnessed. In communism, laziness leads to less for everybody and greed leads to attempt to take more than what the government deemed the "fair share," while in capitalism, laziness leads to self-destruction and greed leads to hard work. Usually. There are those who will steal under capitalism, but they would also be stealing under communism just as well.

And this article serves as evidence to this point: http://www.popsci.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2011 4:46:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 12:01:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/9/2011 9:58:39 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/8/2011 3:52:30 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
If even distribution is required for a nation to be socialist, then no nation was ever socialist. Even distribution is impossible due to how many variables there are.

Impossible? It's more about making resources equally available to all people.

Say there is a community and the community produced and stored 100,000 lbs of grain.

There are 1,000 people in the community. Each person gets 100 lbs of grain for the year.

How is that impossible or difficult?

It is not impossible or difficult, it is just inefficient.

In order to be efficient, you must be able to equally satisfy every person's resource need to the same level. Your example is fundamentally flawed as you are assuming every person equally needs 100lbs of grain. People are wildly variable.

Socialism would be best implemented in a society of clones.

And this is when the Technocrats come into play.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.