The actual name for pure Communism as proposed by Marx is "Scientific Socialism".
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-05 20:31
Funny how Marx wasn't scientific at all.
Name:
2ch2005-01-06 1:38
あほぅやな。
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-06 1:41
I talked to someone from Cuba once, he said Castro made the water free and then everybody started wasting it. Sounds a lot like the stories you hear out of Russia about what happened to their work ethic under communism.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-06 5:20
Yeah, those damn lazy communists!
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-06 5:52
Free Air and Water, oh noes!
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-06 11:20
thank god we capitalists are smarter than that and charge $1 for bottles of watter.
Look at it this way: does it feel right to have to pay for your culture? Plays, music, stories, before copywriting it could all be free and adapted from place to place, if culture didnt start free we would have no culture, no desire to paint, make music, or make plays. Why would you pay for music you could get free, but wait, thats a crime in many Capitalist nations (exluding Canada), but what if it were socialist. Theres free artistry in cuba as long as it isnt counter-revoulutionary.....
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-12 17:36
>>54
But if the music or story I create was completely free, then there would be not be as much benefit for me. So I write the next kicking song, and since it's free, Sony comes along and distrubutes a recording of my song (perhaps they had a guy with a tape recorder in the audience at one of my shows). I offer it for free, but I don't have the network for it distributing, so they make a huge profit on it, despite charging for it. Admittedly with the internet, the possibility for distribution is much higher, but whatever I can use, Sony can use twelve times better. Every one knows www.sony.com. No one besides my friends know www.geocities.com/~anonymous.
If that happens, why should I bother writing music? I mean I dig the whole for the good of humanity scene, but that doesn't pay the bills. Since I can't make a profit off my music, I have to get a "real job" and that cuts into my musical productivity.
This isn't to say that recording companies and their ilk aren't horrible things. The original copyright laws were good. They would allow me more than enough time to profit off of my work, while eventually freeing my work to the public domain. This freeing to the public domain also invited me to innovate since there was only so long I could solely benefit from my work. But then Disney came along and lobbied to extend them to stupid lengths, because they had to protect that fucking mouse.
Name:
Canuck2005-01-12 20:57
what if the state offered to pay for housing etc, and if it is a single unionised "nation" like canada, there will be no corperation within the borders, plus there could be int. law passed banning this. I dont see sony stealing musical techno/rap/rock from china korea, or cuba.....
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-12 23:32
>>56
Because it's not profitable to do so when everything can be stolen so easily there. Why should Sony bother when copies are already availible at fine pirate shopping outlets everywhere? Multinational corporations also are working hard at getting those lax piracy laws changed in the countries you mentioned. Float enough money China's way, and see how long they cling to the Glorious Revolution. In addition, they know that it won't sell over here. People will pick up a Britney Spears CD long before they think of listening to DJ Kekeke and the Cultural Revolution.
The abolition of corporations doesn't stop a group from getting together and doing it themselves. I mean, they're not registered as a corporation, so no problem, right? They're just a group of guys who consolidate their power to distribute music further than the artists can. They're good guys, right? Or is it illegal to make a profit off of any action you do ever? And International Law is flaunted all the time. Just because it's illegal doesn't stop everyone, or should I say, doesn't stop anyone.
Futhermore, though health care and food may work good socially, housing would not work well at all. What happens when you screw a groupie and need to move to a bigger apartment to take care of your twin rockers? Ready to fill out all the paperwork to request to move to a bigger government paid house? Ready to wait for one to come availible, while dealing with two twins? Ready to move to the middle of the Yukon because that's the only place where one is availible? Ready to stay where you are because the Housing clerk decided to take it for himself, and gladly threw your application into the rubbish bin? Well, what you're left with is getting a job so that you can afford to pay for a bigger house, presuming that's even possible in your dream country.
Plus on Cuba, didn't you hear about that singing troupe that cleverly used a world tour stopping in the US to defect and ask for political asylum? Yeah, it's only one example, but I bet most Cuban artists would love to do the same. Cuba is far from your idea happy-happy socialist paradise, as the United States is far from the happy-happy democracy where even the poor are rich as hell those Cubans are expecting.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-13 18:25
Sony wouldn't have the right to sell your song. Though anyone could copy it to and from anyone, only the original creator is allowed to charge for it. So Sony couldn't make a buck on your music, only you could. You could simply charge for gigs, or set up a donation account: if others want your music, plead for them to donate some money. This is how it could be done(and has been done, before people started selling records). If they like it, and possibly want to support future production, you would encourage them to chip in.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-13 19:20
>>58
OK, that's fair enough, though I have doubts on whether donations could be enough (I know that it works sometimes, but it often fails also). What about the other part that copyrights protect?
So I make my song, and then a politician comes along and uses it in one of their ads (This actually happened with Bush-Cheney this year). I hate said politician, but as he is not doing it for monetary gain, I have no grounds to sue him. The ads are a hit, and soon I become associated with this politician, despite my incredible dislike for him and his policies. If I can sue him in this case, because he used it for his political gain, then you have to decide where to draw a line. Is playing my song for your girlfriend and therefore getting a little something-something from her that night using my song? I know that's a bit silly, but there are more ways to use music than just make money.
Or how about this? Instead of Sony recording me and selling that recording, they take my recording and use other musicians to copy it exactly. They have the right to copy the song that way, right? It's not my recording, so then could they sell it? And if they can't, then we've just come back around to copyright laws.
The problem with the system you're suggesting is that it becomes incredibly hard for me to claim a song as mine. You don't hear about Don McLean complaining about Madonna butchering American Pie (at least I never did), because he makes money off of it. If he didn't have a copyright on it, there would be nothing stopping Maddona from taking that song and making it hers. I'm not talking about in the minds of the people like say Softcell did with Tainted Love, I'm talking fully and legally.
In conclusion I talk too much, and am taking the internet too seriously.
Name:
TheCanuck2005-01-14 9:19
lol, Internet is serious buesness.
Well The main restriction there is cuba is anti-socialist/communistic artistry. Artists are able to produce all the art they want, but if it is counter revolutionary it will be taken off where ever it is and the artist is imprisioned. Im not saying cuba is a communist mecca, it is far from it. For some restrictions it is the peoples own greed that caused some things. Fidel lifed the water rationing and people wasted it, so he re instated it,same goes with other things. But if for example of artistry in general There would need to be a law passed stating any artist producing any song/painting/song/poem/etc would have to sign documents provided by the "state" clearly making what ever they made theirs. Also having to provide proof of some sort, like lyrics, original painting, or what have you. This would HELP the problem of theft, but wouldnt entirly end it.....There would still be possible theft, but it would be more under control. Thats all I can really say on the subject.....
Name:
Artificialist2005-01-20 9:13
There is one thing I have to say about classless societies:
It seems that in an attempt to end class warfare, there are two greatly separated classes:
1. The government and people who work with it
2. Everybody else.
And the wealth is not at all shared fairly. The gov't has most of everything, leaving everybody else with little.
Name:
Canuck2005-01-29 21:28
the anarchic "state" for a lack of defining a nations meaning is good, when I went to chiristian it was quite a vibrant community, and the people were quite friendly, plus they have good hash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Christiania
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-01 0:33
it's still not *truly* anarchic. there'll never be a real anarchic state because it'll have to be isolated and independant and all of the citizens will have to be brainwashed.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-01 14:24 (sage)
Anarchy has existed. Albania in 1996 was anarchic. Somalia has been anarchic for over a decade.
Such places are not generally regarded as fun vacation destinations.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-03 0:30
Libertarian socialism is called anarchism apparently.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-03 1:03
Hmm. Do we need a word to distinguish between that hypothetical ideal condition and the real-world anarchy such as prevails in Somalia? Or does the existence and nature of the latter constitute empirical disproof that the former is possible?
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-06 5:54
>>66
i think they call it "chaos" or something, where there is violence and more violence i suppose
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-06 5:56 (sage)
or "anomie" which means without any rule or law etc
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-18 7:58 (sage)
what about chirstiana free hash and internet
what more could an anarchist ask for
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-24 2:41
>Or does the existence and nature of the latter constitute empirical disproof that the former is possible?
Empirical disproof of an a priori assertion? Preposterous!
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-24 5:32
>>66
I agree with the with the statement implied within the rhetorical questions you pose, save the stipulation that Somalia is a real-world anarchy, in that same sense Democracy may as well be a real-world ideal Anarchy. Conglomeration of power by warlords in Somalia negates an anarchistic dynamic. The moment you apply the mechanics of ideal theoretical anarchy to the real-world, is the moment in which it ceases to be classified succinctly as "anarchy"... each individual real-world application would require long lists of caveats to continue using the term anarchy
Ideal anarchy exists in the theoretical realm alone, and therefore you are correct about your empirical disproof, but >>70 is also correct in that there was really nothing to disprove since the terminology itself is so strict. In the real-world context of free-thinking societies of human beings exhibiting human tendencies toward hierarchical structures... anarchy will remain inherently theoretical