Thankyou Xaenn!
If you're an agriculturer in a capitalist society, you will have the same working hours as that of a farmer in a Marxist society, like you said, in capitalism, you have the freedom to put in as many hours as you want to because agriculture is hugely an enterpreneural sector, but for a good stock and healthy output you will have to put in a good amount of hours as well, thus your argument there isn't valid. And as for more working hours in communism, you've obviously got the whole idea wrong, because, the one thing that workers can bargain for are decent working hours. I agree that it's unfair that A works for 5 more hours as B but gets the same wages, but hey! who said capitalism is all that fair? And the fact that the system survived existing as an analogy of an anomaly in a system, is commendable.Originally posted by NimaGraven
If we all ended up in a marxist society, we'd probably work longer hours than 9 to 5.. Probably more like 6am to 7pm.. Especially if you're in agriculture. I don't want to labour this way, so why should I? And you talk about the final way the Marx system is implemented.. At it's final way.. You really believe people could drop work as a farmer and do programming? I think a lot of people would find farming boring. Wouldn't that cause civil unrest, don't you think?
Since when did the "govt. controlling you" = facism? How can you say that any kind of civil unrest=anarchy, when there is a system of law and order in communism, you do know that communism is not primitive communism or a form of direct democracy, it is a system where each person is accountable for his own actions, and I honestly think you've used the words "civil unrest" quite loosely in your posts, which implies that communists are a bunch of ruddies with nothing better to do in life except sit on their asses, and grow money plants and continually cause civil unrest which henceforth cannot be controlled.Originally posted by NimaGraven
In any kind of civil unrest you will either get anarchy or the government controlling you.. I.e. fascism.. That's constraining your civil liberties. And believe me, because of the way humans are, you would get civil unrest. You get it now, you'd get it even worse in a Marxist society.
I assumed that with your extensive knowledge of biology and genetics that you displayed earlier, that you would notice two apparent flaws in your statement above:Originally posted by NimaGraven
We bring up starvation again, eh? As mentioned in another post, Marxism isn't the only answer to cure starvation of people. Like I said, if everyone became vegetarians, you could stop starvation that way as the corn, etc you use to feed animals could be used to feed the many starving in Africa and Asia and heck even in our own societies.
1)if everyone becomes a vegetarian, then the food cycle will be disturbed which will lead to dissonance and imbalance in nature, so that wouldn't be a fabulous solution to starvation.
2)What does feeding corn to the starving Asians and Africans, have to do with becoming a vegetarian? The damn animal still has to be fed something, or did you forget that?
Don't you think that instead of depriving animals their food we grow more food and practice agriculture more extensively than we currently are? That's the problem with the capitalist attitude, take from one, give to the other, screw the former, you see, Robin Hood wasn't really a communis ; )
The human race will never acquire perfection, because we always strive to get better, there's no end to what 'perfect' means, and as the human race gets better, so does communism, sadly capitalism tells a different story about the quality of human beings.Originally posted by NimaGraven
Until the human race is perfect, you'll never acquire true perfection
There are different ways of getting people together and getting them to work together, you know, being part of a community doesn't always mean being associated with religion, it could be a community of farmers, a community of craftsmen, etc. And charity doesn't have to have religion as a cause. Why do you think Marxism can't help in any of that, I fail to understand and would like you to elaborate more on that, so I can get a clear perspective on your stance.Originally posted by NimaGraven
Yes, but the way you go on about Marxism and natural resouces.. You make it sound like some kind of cross between puritism and doomsday. And if you are born dirt poor in Africa that's why you have people trying to help them with charitable work in the first place.. How would Marxism help any of that? If you end up in "communities" of say 20 people and you feed YOUR community, how do you feed people in Africa?
They have DONE it that way, maybe you don't know or something else, but Communism is still surviving, and through ALOT! The US branding all communist countries as either dictatorial or evil or some bull shit, they're facing economic embargos, maybe if US cut them some slack, they might be able to get a hold of their country and govern it independantly and then maybe we'll decide if communism is a faliure or not. Right now, if you are abreast with world developments you might know that every communist country is having a hard time in the international scenario because its branded, just for following an ideology! It has been a success, and it has to evolve as an ideology, or else it will become redundant, however to say that it has NEVER been successful would be ignorant of the past.Originally posted by NimaGraven
I mean, let me see. If they really wanted to make it work that way in the first place, they would have DONE it that way..
You are wrong there, Marx believed in a stateless society, and however much it has not been implemented fully in communism, it has adhered to the fact that it wants the state to gradually wither away. And communism is possible even today.Originally posted by NimaGraven
Oh nope. Have no problem with that. What I did say was in a left wing economic state, the government wants to have a lot more say in your life. Marxism and Communism is an extremely left wing economic ideal.. When it spirals out of control, you end up with more governmental control enforced upon you. Either that or you can live in an anarchy.
The true defination of a democracy is for the people, by the people and of the people, and more so, a country where people have the power to vote IN their representatives.Originally posted by NimaGraven
The true definition of a democracy (in a very basic form) is a country which has the power to vote out its leader.
That makes Iraq under Saddam Houssein's reign a democratic country. Sure you could either vote him or vote to "die" but it still had terms and a ballot paper.
Are you aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein conducted a referendum under international scrutiny in 1995 (I'm not too sure about the year) which conferred upon him the right to rule for the next 7 years and then the great US hailed it's accusations of wmds.
