Why the collapse of the economy would be GOOD

[Dante]

I envision a world with no bureaucracy, no complications. Just fighting for survival. Territory to be guarded fiercely, food to be grown and hoarded. Great battles fought hand to hand rather than with guns. A world of anarchy with small pockets of feudalism in the form of the groups of people fighting a kind of worldwide gangland warfare.

I call it 'good' because it is better than this choked, pacifying, stagnating junkheap of a world we live in.

[Acriku]

Go live in the wild?

[Dante]

Nobody to fight.

[Caid Ivik]

I would say, if you lack fightning, move to Congo or Somalia, there you'll haev enough action. And if you are white, it will be double...

[quoudam72]

Nobody to fight.

It is impossible Dust Scout what you ask for will bring about the same sitution(s) that you want to escape. Society is not what any of us may want it to be but what efforts have we put forth to make it better. The collaspe of our societial systems (political, etc.) is anarchay. As much as I dislike the powers that be and their abuse if your plan(s) are not any better it is bound to make the same mistakes of it's predecessors.

[Dude_Doc]

Dust: why don't you try out some kind of Martial Arts? It may not be real fighting and killing, but you get to fight at least, with your hands and arms... 8)

[Wolf]

I think that even the most ardent communists here would say that the American Revolution at least accomplished a break from feudal monarchy. No more lords, barons, counts, earls, and dukes. Granted, the American revolution made everyone equal, if by everyone you meant white, land-owning, males. If feudalism returned, we would be warring everywhere.

Scout, I do like the idea of medieval/ancient society, but how would it be different from today, at all? Today, metal, oil, machines, and industry is what lets people survive. Bullets, bombs, missiles, and nukes are what lets people make war. To me, it seems that a resource is a resource, no matter what it is, or how its fought over. You're just as dead from swordwounds as you are from bulletwounds. Maybe the swordfight is more romantic than, say, the indiscriminate death dealth out by modern day artillery commanders, but how is the death any different? How would each feudal house be any different from its own warring nation? How would life be simpler? It would be more complicted, how could I pay my taxes to my lord, fight bandits away from the village with fellow farmers, get my ass conscripted into an army, and then, have to till my field not just for myself and my family, but for whatever soldiers m'lord demanded stay in my house? Each era had its own problems. At least today, if I'm slashed to pieces, I can be sewn together, given shots, and blood transfusions. At least I can vote. At least I can live in a world where I can travel away from my home and visit pretty much anyplace in the world in less than a day. No bureaucracy? It's not a big deal. Government got bigger because people demanded that it did. We wanted the government to fix the economy, we wanted them to pay for medicine, for senior citizens. Even up until the Stock Market Crash of 1929, American Government had very little role in its economy. Calvin Coolidge once said that "America's business is business", that businesses do whatever the hell they want. The government has gotten because we wanted it to. We didn't want to run ourselves anymore, we WANTED life to become simple, and for our lives to be simple, free from the burden of running our own lives, we MADE the government what it is.

This is why, though I recognize the ideals of socialism and communism, I am still skeptical. How MASSIVE must the government be that will take care of my job, medicine, social security, pension, secondary education, and EVERYTHING else? How little freedom will I have when the government is so big, that it requires virtually everyone to work for it? What checks and balances exist in that society? Thomas Jefferson, like you, Scout, thought that the clean, agrarian life was best for us all. He also said that the government that rules less rules best. He broke from the tradition of feudalism that would result from a regression en masse into medieval history, because in that society, there was no clean, agrarian, freedom. The two best conceptions of government I have ever seen in history was the Roman Republic (not Empire) and the American Republic before corporate politics.

I do some martial arts myself, but if that doesn't do it for you, Caid's right. Somalia or Congo would give you more than your fair share.

[Acriku]

Without the economic gain from capitalism, it's a wonder how the government can support all the people with free healthcare, public schools, etc. Wolfwiz did say this, but I thought it should stand out on its own for everyone to see.

[Dante]

Caid: If I just move for extra violence it will be with guns. Guns = cheating. :D

quondam72: I don't want to change things for the better, I want to destroy everything and live in the breif period of chaos that would result. What happens afterwards isn't my concern. I plan to be dead by then.

Dude_Doc: Nobody to kill.

Wolfwiz: I don't care about warring everywhere. In fact I'd like it. Provided there were no aircraft, bombs, nukes, or guns, or anything similar. Since all of these things depend on electricity to be constructed, eventually with the collapse of electricity (due to the collapse of the economy and hense politics) would lead to these weapons being obsolete, replaced with far more interesting weapons. Old weapons. Bladed, blunt, whatever. Even longbows and crossbows.

You say that being able to vote is good. Personally I prefered the days where you killed whoever had the position of power and took their place. And so what if we made the bureaucracy? Now we can destroy it! Government is fine so long as it is feudalist and doesn't pry too much into business etc. Time was when pensions didn't exist because old people didn't exist.

I don't want the government to run all of those things, I want them to run themselves. Schools for example. You pay for an education. Fine. Of course in my little anarchic dream everybody would be too busy fighting for survival to go to school...

And I LIKE feudal monarchy.

Acriku-: Meh. Free nothing. If people paid for those things, then fewer would get it, it would become more exclusive, and the jobs market wouldn't be so damn cluttered. Feudalism.

[Acriku]

Provided there were no aircraft, bombs, nukes, or guns, or anything similar.

You can make some hefty bombs without electricity, as well as guns (they had such guns before electricity).

[Dante]

Yes, but nuclear bombs? Worldwide bombs? Chemical or biological warheads? I think not. I want a time where 'biological warfare' involved plague-ridden blankets given to the enemy.

And as for guns... Well that would take special knowledge. Those that can make them, can make then. So long as there are no automatics or machine guns, etc.

[Acriku]

Yes, but nuclear bombs? Worldwide bombs? Chemical or biological warheads? I think not. I want a time where 'biological warfare' involved plague-ridden blankets given to the enemy.

Well, yes, you can make chemical bombs and toxic gases. Any advantage possible in the land of chaos, eh?

[Caid Ivik]

Caid: If I just move for extra violence it will be with guns. Guns = cheating. :D

There were many attempts to restrict some weapons...

[Edric O]

...and all of them failed. Crossbows were banned in medieval Europe for a long time, just as gunpowder was banned in Japan for some 200 years. But, in the end, the restrictions were lifted. If a new technology is invented, it will be used, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Edric O]

I think that even the most ardent communists here would say that the American Revolution at least accomplished a break from feudal monarchy. No more lords, barons, counts, earls, and dukes.

Are you kidding me? The most ardent communist here (myself) is also the greatest admirer of the American Revolution! Capitalism is superior to feudalism in every respect. The American Revolution accomplished far more than "a break from feudal monarchy", it established the basis for future republican revolutions across Europe and the eventual fall of absolute monarchy.

In a battle between two different systems, communists will always support the most progressive of the two. That is why we support capitalism against feudalism and fascism, and why we support left-wing capitalism against right-wing capitalism.

This is why, though I recognize the ideals of socialism and communism, I am still skeptical. How MASSIVE must the government be that will take care of my job, medicine, social security, pension, secondary education, and EVERYTHING else?

No more massive than corporations are today. But corporations do not answer to the people, while the government does. That is why it is better than them.

How little freedom will I have when the government is so big, that it requires virtually everyone to work for it? What checks and balances exist in that society?

Democratic checks and balances, actually. The government will be big, but the people will hold power over it, not the other way around. In fact, the reason why the government exists at all in socialism is because the task of planning and organizing the economy must be carried out by some sort of organization that represents the interests of the people (and, of course, because there must be a democratic body that upholds the law and that is authorised to use force against those who break it).

Without the economic gain from capitalism, it's a wonder how the government can support all the people with free healthcare, public schools, etc. Wolfwiz did say this, but I thought it should stand out on its own for everyone to see.

Capitalism is not the only way to achieve economic gain. As a matter of fact, planned economies have always had better growth rates than market economies. The only thing that can bring a planned economy down is a decrepit, corrupt and incompetent government, who does not answer to the people. That is what brought down the Soviet Union, and that is why democracy is vital to socialism.

[Wolf]

Good points all around, Edric. You've just about addressed every issue I've had with communism, lol. I guess I never really knew that much about it. I still have questions, though, does a communist society have to be Single-party, or can there be multiple parties? As long as parties did not become slaves to corporate engines, I'd be fine. Also, I'm glad to see that you're an admirer of the American Revoltuion, I didn't quite know how you would take it, so I'm trying to phrase things... more nicely.

Scout; You're right that medieval warfare is far more romantic and noble than modern warfare. Knights going toe-to-toe with sword and shield is preferable than indiscriminate death by artillery, bombing, and machine gun. However, once the technology has been made, THERE IS NO GOING BACK. Pandora's box has been opened. Read the BattleTech novels, if you ever get the chance, the only way a society can regress backwards is if actual knowledge is lost. You need to destroy MORE than the economy to put us in the Dark Age, you have to destroy every modern book, engineering text, and university on Earth. You have to to destroy the knowledge of modern weapons. Otherwise, some Lords and Kings will simply work hard to build a few modern weapons and kick ass with those few. Instead of thousand-tank armies, we'll have armies of knights and infantry with basic rifles or muskets, and a single tank that will wade into the battle and own everyone in one huge carnagefest.

[Acriku]

Capitalism is not the only way to achieve economic gain. As a matter of fact, planned economies have always had better growth rates than market economies. The only thing that can bring a planned economy down is a decrepit, corrupt and incompetent government, who does not answer to the people. That is what brought down the Soviet Union, and that is why democracy is vital to socialism.

Planned economies? Could you elaborate how a planned economy can benefit more than a capitalist economy (done like the U.S.), and any examples in real-life would help?

[Edric O]

Wolfwiz:

Good points all around, Edric. You've just about addressed every issue I've had with communism, lol. I guess I never really knew that much about it. I still have questions, though, does a communist society have to be Single-party, or can there be multiple parties? As long as parties did not become slaves to corporate engines, I'd be fine.

I'm glad I answered your questions. :)

A communist society must be a no-party system, because communism means that the people govern themselves (either through direct democracy, a network of councils, a system of communes, or something similar).

So I suppose you meant to ask about a socialist society. Lenin tried to create socialism with a one-party system. He justified this by pointing out that Russia was surrounded by hostile capitalist neighbors, and that if they allowed opposition parties, those parties would receive massive foreign support and would eventually overthrow socialism. What he did not take into account was that the communist party itself could go off track and overthrow socialism if there were no democratic checks and balances to control it. That was Lenin's fatal error (along with his belief that his comrades were incorruptible). You could say that he gambled everything on a single card. And lost. Once Lenin died and Stalin took power, the Soviet Union was already doomed. Socialism turned into stalinism, and the rest is history...

We have made a horrible mistake in the past, and we must never repeat it. The one-party system can only lead to corruption and oppression. Democracy is vital to socialism, and this means a full, multi-party democracy.

And, actually, I already talked in another topic about how a socialist multi-party system would work:

First of all, in socialism there won't be any corporations that sponsor their favourite parties and candidates, because there won't be any corporations at all. Political parties will receive funding which will be proportional to their number of members. This will ensure that equally sized parties will also have equal financial means. Second of all, the people will have much more power over their elected representatives. The people will have the power to vote them OUT of office at any time during their term, and there will also be a measure of direct democracy (the matter of just how much direct democracy will have to be decided then, based on local circumstances).

Also, I'm glad to see that you're an admirer of the American Revoltuion, I didn't quite know how you would take it, so I'm trying to phrase things... more nicely.

Well, here's a topic I made on the 4th of July...

Acriku:

Planned economies? Could you elaborate how a planned economy can benefit more than a capitalist economy (done like the U.S.), and any examples in real-life would help?

It's quite simple, really. A market economy does indeed guarantee that the quality of products always keeps increasing (because of competition), but it's also extremely wasteful. A huge amount of resources are wasted in the process of making your product sell better than the other guy's product. The money spent on advertising alone would probably be enough to feed and clothe the entire population of several African countries. Sometimes it's more expensive to advertise a product than to actually make it! And remember, you are the one paying for those advertisements, every time you buy the product.

A planned economy is very efficient in the use of resources. Almost nothing is wasted, because the use of every resource is carefully planned ahead. On the other hand, the lack of competition means that the quality of the products suffers.

So, obviously, the best kind of economy would be one that combines the best aspects of the two models. It would have to be a planned economy, so that it uses resources efficiently, but it would also have to give workers an incentive to make better products. So if you make a better product, you get paid more.

As for real-life examples, look at the Soviet Union in the 1920's and 30's. It had the fastest economic growth ever recorded in history. The standard of living of the average Russian soared up to incredibly high levels (compared to the time of the Tsars). Workers could even afford to buy their own cars. Of course, this was stalinism, not socialism, so you only got to benefit from the new standards of living as long as you didn't look at a government official the wrong way...

[Anathema]

Caid: If I just move for extra violence it will be with guns. Guns = cheating. :D

There were many attempts to restrict some weapons...

Didn't the catholic church try to outlaw crossbows at one time?

[Acriku]

It's quite simple, really. A market economy does indeed guarantee that the quality of products always keeps increasing (because of competition), but it's also extremely wasteful. A huge amount of resources are wasted in the process of making your product sell better than the other guy's product. The money spent on advertising alone would probably be enough to feed and clothe the entire population of several African countries. Sometimes it's more expensive to advertise a product than to actually make it! And remember, you are the one paying for those advertisements, every time you buy the product.

So, a capitalist economy cannot be a planned economy, as well? It seems like you're looking at what capitalist economies have done, instead of what they could have done.

[Caid Ivik]

Caid: If I just move for extra violence it will be with guns. Guns = cheating. :D

There were many attempts to restrict some weapons...

Didn't the catholic church try to outlaw crossbows at one time?

Even on both Councils of Laterano! But no one followed it, see the doom of Richard Lionheart... But it is always, same djihad was against guns, submarines, planes, tanks, armored warships, missiles, mass-destructive weapons, space warfare and global defense systems. And everything was broken in time. Best way was to accept everything, and then stay in cold war. MAD theory formed our mind enough to keep cool our nukes.

[quoudam72]

quondam72: I don't want to change things for the better, I want to destroy everything and live in the breif period of chaos that would result. What happens afterwards isn't my concern. I plan to be dead by then.

Dust Scout I know you have different views and I respect that but that is the most complete b*******t I have ever heard coming from you. You want everything destroyed so you can live in the brief period after only to die what a waste of the human energy.

[Dante]

Everything is a waste of energy because there is no point. There is no point to life, I discovered that a long time ago. No worthwhile one anyway. Everything is petty. I've said this before when I was depressed (and I am again) so I shouldn't repeat myself.

There is no good cause, so why not just waste energy on a bad one? It's not like it makes a difference.

[Wolf]

In my humble opinion, Depression is of the mind, you are only hopelessly depressed if you think you are. If you believe that you are depressed, then depressed is all you will ever be.

You can claim that you may be genetically and physically disposed to depression. Fine, I will not argue with you. But, I want you to read "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl. The mind is everything, according to that book. He cites a case where one man had a dream that he would be freed on May 15th. In the following months, he was happier and healthier than ever before. May 15th rolled around, and he was not freed. May 16th he caught the flu, and May 17th he died. As long as you believe you are evil, that is all you can ever be. Dune itself says that if a man is convinced that he will die, he will find a way to make it happen. In that camp, many of them found ways to combat depression, genetically, physically, or situationally caused. I like to think that we all can beat the traps created by our own minds.

A lot of human existence is the mind over the matter.

Anyway, back on topic. Dust, you HAVE to read BattleTech, it touches on your topic. With 300 years of constant warfare, universities, technology, and factories are practically obliterated. Considering that mankind is spread over 1000s of worlds, the only way to keep nations alive is to go feudalism. A destruction of the economy won't do crap. Espec. since its mainly capitalism, capitalism always finds a way to survive, because it has no inhibitions. You need to destroy the knowledge.

At least, that's how I would do it, at any rate. Not that I want to.

[Caid Ivik]

But also there are Clans in Battletech, fightning against the fallen feudal Inner Sphere. Pure militaristic societies, with one target, rebuilding of democratic Star League, even tough Clan societies are deeply oppressive. Only luxury they have is knowledge, view, that they do it for something good, something what was and just our stupidity destroyed it. That was why Kerenskij and his sons are better known than Amaris, who de facto created the society of Inner Sphere. In fact, without some ideal you can't win, even survive. Theodore Kurita limited his own power, mercenaries considered them as better place and then we have victory over Jaguars on Luthien.

I don't have to talk about whole crap of Battletech, point is easy: you need ideal to live. If you can't find some, you must create it.