Philosophy Now Forum

.




Dawn you wrote in your original post on this thread: I think it could be possible to have a communist attitude towards 'basic needs' (defining basic is difficult) and a capitalist attitude towards 'luxury items'.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Chi ... 66439.html

Apparently Dawn, China believes basic human rights, religious freedom, the ability to earn a living wage, and basic environmental protections are luxury items. I get it.

Please, in your mind, make this more complicated.


I do have to thank you for having the resolve NOT to look at that video I provided in my earlier post on this thread and I commend you for NOT clicking the link that I provided in the same post.


I wish Typist was about thirty years younger. I think you two are made for each other.



.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




Dawn you wrote in your original post on this thread: I think it could be possible to have a communist attitude towards 'basic needs' (defining basic is difficult) and a capitalist attitude towards 'luxury items'.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Chi ... 66439.html

Apparently Dawn, China believes basic human rights, religious freedom, the ability to earn a living wage, and basic environmental protections are luxury items. I get it.

Please, in your mind, make this more complicated.


I do have to thank you for having the resolve NOT to look at that video I provided in my earlier post on this thread and I commend you for NOT clicking the link that I provided in the same post.


I wish Typist was about thirty years younger. I think you two are made for each other.



.

Again, most of China's problems are not because of Communism but because of over population. Communism is a necessary reaction to China being over populated. Solving the population problem is an entirely different debate and a matter of applied ethics and not of politics (though naturally there is always crossover with ethics). Also Age is irrelevant to sexiness **see Alan Rickman or David Bowie for details** x

dawnmathieson wrote:Solving the population problem is an entirely different debate and a matter of applied ethics and not of politics

Everything is political.

John wrote:

dawnmathieson wrote:Solving the population problem is an entirely different debate and a matter of applied ethics and not of politics

Everything is political.

Thats why i said crossover was inevitable. Over population requires communism but communism does not require over population x

dawnmathieson wrote:

John wrote:

dawnmathieson wrote:Solving the population problem is an entirely different debate and a matter of applied ethics and not of politics

Everything is political.

Thats why i said crossover was inevitable. Over population requires communism but communism does not require over population x

I'm not sure why over population requires communism. How are we defining over population anyway?

John wrote: I'm not sure why over population requires communism. How are we defining over population anyway?

Not particularly in generalities, just in the unique circumstance of China. You should read my post on employment in China and chinas circumstances to see why (even though its quite simplified you can look up anything mentioned if your interested). If you dont agree then how would you solve China's problems? its the million dollar question baby. I dont agree with a lot of things in China, but I fail to see many alternatives that could realistically work x

dawnmathieson wrote:Thats why i said crossover was inevitable. Over population requires communism but communism does not require over population x

How do we explain that for much of its history China could have been considered over-populated but did not have communism?

The link between population and communism is utterly bogus.
!Kung San society consists of groups of no more than 40 individuals; they are the best example of an egalitarian life-style.
China has, for most of its history been considered to have the largest population on earth. In a 100 years it has swung from being considered "imperialistic" to " communist" and now "capitalist" all the while having the largest population.
Other countries regardless of their population or population density have tried communism.

But even if there was a one-to-one link between the two, that would not be a sufficient explanation for assuming a necessary casual link - you would also have to demonstrate why it was not purely co-incidental.

.



I'm injecting some facts into this discussion although I know that this discussion is not about facts, it's about feelings.

There is a certain taste, a feel, of some discussion topics presented here at the Philosophy Now Forums. The topics themselves seem like they start out in left field and the authors of those topics already have the answer that they faun looking for.

I don't listen to mass media over the airways here in America. Haven't for years. I think this is where a lot of this bullshit arises from in many countries.



Anyway, the correlation of China's population and it's relationship to necessitate Communism as a form of government does not exist. What Dawn is parroting is false.

More directly it is a lie. Dawn is not not lying, it's just that she, along with much of the world population is being fed lies. Many people just blindly accept those lies. Because the lies are delivered without challenge, those lies are generally accepted. The reason the subjects are complicated is because the viewpoints delivered are actually lies. Horrendously destructive lies.



Dawn won't read this post and, if this thread continues, she will, like Typist, Spike, & others morph the conversation into something else that is irrational, convoluted, or, as Dawn would put it, complicated.




In the end all is just. Philosophically I am content that peoples lives live-out in a manner that reflects justice.

Don't change Dawn. Don't change your views Typist. Justice is just. Justice just is.



List of world's most over populated countries in order of density






List of Communist countries:
http://geography.about.com/od/lists/tp/ ... ntries.htm


As I have referred to many times in the past, there are currently five recognized Communist countries existing on the earth today:
1. China
2. Cuba
3. Laos
4. North Korea
5. Vietnam


From the extended above graph we see that China is the #29 most densely populated country on earth. China is only the second Communist country that appears on the list.

China is the #29th most densely populated country on earth.



Cuba is the #30th most densely populated country on earth.

Laos is not even on the top 77 list of overpopulated countries

Korea Republic is the #4th most densely populated country on earth.

Vietnam is the #47th most densely populated country on earth.






The short answer Dawn to your ORIGINAL question of this thread, Can Capitalism and Communism be Combined?

Yes.

It's face is horrific to humanity in the most explosive mix found today in China.

It's marriage is effecting each and every country in the world and is threatening to destroy mankind even as we speak.

Yes Dawn, they can be combined.



China may only be the vessel or the beacon of the world's new God; Profit.

Profit at the expense of animal rights.

Profit at the expense of religious freedoms.

Profit at the expense of environmental regulations.

Profit at the expense of worker rights.

Profit at the expense of human dignity.

Profit at the expense of facts.

Profit at the expense of truth.


Yes Dawn, Capitalism and Communism can be Combined.

Rounding out the new Holy Trinity is Profit.

Capitalism, Communism, & Profit.





.

The natural tendency of unbridled capitalism is the polarisation of wealth and power.
By the 1900 we had a situation where those that worked the hardest were paid the least; has less access to education, lived the shortest lives, least access to health care and healthy housing. The richest were able to, by and large, sit on their laurels or the laurels of their ancestors and live of the fat of the land, with work being to result of choice and based on leisure pursuits rather than necessity.
It is socialism that changed all that by moderating the worst consequences of capitalism. And we all here on this forum owe so much to the late Victorian and early 20thC intellectuals who, acting partly from shame, changed to face of the political landscape by demanding free education, the vote, public health and law enforcement, for people like us.

People who regard socialism as a dirty word, not only are willing to participate in their own exploitation and oppression but demonstrate a shocking lack of a sense of their own history.
Be warned; the exploitation and oppression I talk of is immanent in our system, ready to re-emerge as it so often does.

Bill can you link the graph - it seem to be ranked by "dependancy" (whatever that is) - i love to see countries with low dependancy and to know what it means.

chaz wyman wrote:Bill can you link the graph - it seem to be ranked by "dependancy" (whatever that is) - i love to see countries with low dependancy and to know what it means.

I was also curious chaz and I tracked the source down to this article in the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... rpopulated

The full list can also be found on that page as a pdf but for convenience here's a link to it: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/overpo ... nindex.pdf

The pdf explains that "The Index assesses the extent to which a country can support itself from its own renewable resources, by measuring per capita consumption, or ecological footprint in global hectares per capita, against per capita biologically productive capacity (biocapacity) in global hectares.
The proportion of consumption sourced from outside a country gives a dependency rating ranging from 0 to 100 per cent: the higher the dependency rating, the greater the overpopulation."

I would imagine these figures are controversial in some areas but if we take them on face value the UK for instance has a dependency rating of 74.2% meaning it can only sustain 25.8% of its population from internal resources alone. The USA has a dependency of 50.9% so it can support about half its population from its own resources. Interestingly, China has a dependency of 53.9% so it's only marginally less able to support its population internally than the USA is. China also has a relatively low eco footprint per capita though so its ability to sustain its population will decrease as living standard increase.

.


Thank you John for the links.


Chaz, I am gaining so much respect you and your ability to state a concept or viewpoint.


Your post above deserves repeating:

The natural tendency of unbridled capitalism is the polarisation of wealth and power.

By the 1900 we had a situation where those that worked the hardest were paid the least; has less access to education, lived the shortest lives, least access to health care and healthy housing. The richest were able to, by and large, sit on their laurels or the laurels of their ancestors and live of the fat of the land, with work being to result of choice and based on leisure pursuits rather than necessity.

It is socialism that changed all that by moderating the worst consequences of capitalism. And we all here on this forum owe so much to the late Victorian and early 20thC intellectuals who, acting partly from shame, changed to face of the political landscape by demanding free education, the vote, public health and law enforcement, for people like us.

People who regard socialism as a dirty word, not only are willing to participate in their own exploitation and oppression but demonstrate a shocking lack of a sense of their own history.


Be warned; the exploitation and oppression I talk of is immanent in our system, ready to re-emerge as it so often does.

That is awesome...



Well done.
slow clap

.

Thank you matey.


A while back I asked you to provide a link for one of your images from China.
Maybe you missed my request?
I looked like a baby in a bowl of soup. I was a bit disturbed by it and need to know more.
Can you help
The posting also included Chinese tanks at Tianamin (sp?) Square if that helps.

.


Sorry Chaz, I meant to post this for you.


http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/v ... i7jo/w/mpo


Odd story...



.