Trumps "20,000 lies"

The following is a response to a YouTube comment after one user, "Spyke 0511 1", kept talking about Trump and his 20,000 lies. This user, despite many times of asking, never once provided a source for this fact. So, I decided to look it up myself and came across an interesting article, which was rather easy to pull to pieces. Here is what I had to say to this user, edited slightly to make it more readable on this platform.

So, after you not providing a link, I decided to do a search for these "20,000 lies of Donald Trump" and I came across this from the Washington Post (which is hugely anti-Trump, so no surprises there).

They only have a few of the "lies" there, but if these are the "highlights" then they are not particularly good.

Firstly, it's worth noting that it's not just straight lies, it also includes "misleading statements"... well, all politicians deliberately make misleading statements, so you can probably find a whole stack for every leader of every country. But regarding the ones on the article above, in order:

- "did not want" I suppose implies Trump knew Obama's motive. Such a statement was based of the action of scaling back the program, which could certainly give the impression of not wanting to give the surplus to the police, and could well have been a pretext for something more. I guess we'll never know. It's an implied inference at best, but not a lie.

- "tremendous support" from the African American community. Well, what counts as "tremendous support"? Is there a line? Is there a particular number? The article says "no polling shows this". Well, just because polling doesn't show it, doesn't make it false. A lot of the black community do, in fact, support Trump. Have a watch of the movie "Uncle Tom" (2020) and you'll see a bunch of blacks supporting Trump. But does "tremendous support" imply numbers? Even one person doing a big thing could be considered "tremendous support". Washington Post is plain wrong on this one.

- The media is desperate to prove that Trump is a liar. Could it possibly be that the local officials are lying, in order to appeal to their base? I've heard speeches from Trump where he says the National Guard is ready to act if needs be. Maybe the local officials don't watch his speeches? (Maybe because CNN doesn't air them??) Sounds to me more like the local officials are either lying themselves, or they are uninformed. Considering they keep calling the riots "peaceful protests", either is a realistic option. Added to the fact that they don't want their authority to be seen to be undermined. Hence they want people to think they weren't forced to act, but did so "on their own".

- A "per capita" or "per million" coronavirus testing rate is not a particularly reliable metric as it only gives the proportion of the country that is tested. You could test the whole population of Vatican City in an afternoon. Monaco has "973,180 tests per million people" (that's 97.3% of the population), yet it only has a population of 39,262. The size of the country and availability of testing kits is also a huge factor. The truth is that the US has tested more than any other country (with the exception of China, but their stats are rather dodgy and they are currently trying to do everything possible to look good and humane). What Trump says about this is true and can be verified with basic maths skills. But the media hope that if they shove enough stats down people's throats, then people won't bother to fact-check the maths. Data mentioned above can be found here.

- The "2016 Russia collusion" narrative is slowly falling apart: the Steele dossier is now proved to be false; operatives in the CIA are proved to have known this, and Obama and Biden were known to have been involved in the issues regarding Michael Flynn. Fox seems to be the only News media to report this, likely because the other channels don't want their viewers to realise that they've been misled for the last few years. Every week that goes by shows that there is more evidence to show that Trump was right.

- "disgraceful" is an opinion. The only "fact-checking" you can do on an opinion is whether the person holds the opinion. "Spyke0511 1" may think this comment is "disgraceful" (because it supports Trump and knocks back the sources he holds dear). It would be idiotic for me to claim that such an opinion is a "lie". That's dishonesty from the Washington Post.

- a "private, self-contained living unit" is an interesting description. I don't think "solitary confinement" is too far removed (it's far more dishonest to call immigration detention facilities "concentration camps", but the hypocritical media loves to give AOC a pass on that one), and anyway, Washington Post says "according to some reports" Capone was in solitary. Which reports? Fake media loves anonymous sources (Ukraine whistleblower, anyone??). The only thing I could find was a very brief statement by Capone's niece that his treatment of syphilis made him violent and angry and apparently had to be put in solitary confinement. That's one, secondary, anecdotal source. Not hugely reliable. Would love to know more about that. At best, Trump's statement could be seen as an exaggeration, but certainly nowhere near the exaggeration of certain Democrat statements.

- "In 2020 no records have been set" is a dishonest statement... we're only part-way through the year and lots of stats for this years hasn't been released yet. However, 2017 had the lowest number of foreigners apprehended since 1971 (remember that back then and before, freedom of movement was much more limited). 2018 had the highest number of foreigners determined to be inadmissible (meaning, border protection were doing their job and making sure people were entering the country legally) certainly since 2005. Data can be found here and here.

I, myself, am a legal immigrant, and I feel rather strongly about people entering countries illegally, especially if they then go on to commit other crimes ("other" because the first crime is to enter the country illegally).

In order to prove Trump a "liar", Washington Post would need to provide facts/statistics. They have not. That's dishonest.

- "Trump frequently suggests" is the media putting their own spin on it. The only quote of Trump they have here is: "We've rebuilt the military, 2.5 trillion dollars." It's disingenuous to take his (factual) statement and put spin on it to make out that he was implying more than what was actually there.

- By what metric are we measuring the economy? Need some clarity here. Sure, Trump may well be being hyperbolic, as all politicians. To call it a lie? Possibly a bit far-fetched. But here's where the Washington Post does their selective fact-checking: in amongst their big explanation is a brief statement that "the president once could brag about the economy". This is an admission that Trump did have a great economy. But the "fact-check" they do isn't about the US economy in isolation, but regarding his comparison to "the history of the world". In other words, they take his most extreme statement, "fact-check" that part, then use it to convince their readers that the whole statement is false. The article also says "by just about any important measure" but unless they state what metric they are using, it's a disingenuous statement. This is the same economy that Bill Maher admitted was good and needed to collapse in order to hurt Trump.

- Border wall "fact-check" is hugely disingenuous as well. Washington Post even links to another article that they published regarding how people get through the barrier. Their anonymous "senior administration official" mentions there have been breaches (which forms the vast majority of the narrative), and also states that it's only "a few instances" and that the fencing "significantly increased security and deterrence". So is the wall a failure? It seems the media views it as a failure if there's even one single breach. That's not how it works, and the media are disingenuous for making people believe it. If there are only "a few breaches" then perhaps Trumps statement of "virtually impenetrable" is actually true. The article they linked to is here.

Another part of this supposed "lie" is that there are only 3 miles of border wall on ground that previously didn't have a wall. Anyone with a brain would know that you put the initial resources to where the biggest problems are. Why did some of the border have a wall previously? Could it be because that's where the issues were? And people found a way to get through, so they needed to reinforce that area first? The media assumes their readers can't think logically about the situation. And they get away with it because their readers (a) hardly ever read the whole article, and (b) don't fact-check them but believe everything they say!

- Regarding the "biggest tax cut", I'm out of "free articles" on the Washington Post website, and I'm certainly not paying to keep a fake news site running, so I can't access the article they link to to verify what they are saying (a nice little gimmick to force people to pay to find out they are disingenuous fakers). However, they "fact-check" according to a percentage of the GDP. If Trump was just talking about a straight dollar-for-dollar cut, he may be right (as I said, unfortunately I can't verify this). Whilst there is some benefit to "fact-checking" using a different metric than the one used in the original statement, it is disingenuous to then call him a "liar". At best, "misleading", but that's why the headline is "false or misleading" but most people emphasise the "false" part because the readership is predominantly Trump-haters who don't want to admit that all politicians make misleading statements, as it would send the message that Trump isn't actually any worse than other leaders.

Trump's "penchant for repeating false claims"... only because the anti-Trump media have decided something is false and Trump has repeated it. Showing the fake news media to be fake regarding one statement Trump makes means that they are also fake every time they repeat that Trump has repeated a "false" statement. Hence, of these "500 instances", only one needs to be disproved for them all to be disproved. But by saying Trump has repeated the statement 500 times, it makes the readership think that Trump has made 500 other false statements. That is incorrect. He has made one statement 500 times, which needs to be determined to be true or false. It's clever and deceptive reporting.

This false logic is then confirmed with the "Fact-Checker" (I'd be interested to know what this is... Snopes is a very biased "fact-checker") which is stated to have given Trump a "Bottomless Pinocchio" because he said the same thing multiple times. It's just dishonest. It's based on taking advantage of the fact that the level of logic and mathematical ability is slowly diminishing, putting out "stats and figures" to sound authoritative and hoping the audience isn't smart enough to work it out for themselves. Anyone who says "we've done this so you don't have to" (a tag-line from Huckabee on Fox, amongst others) is essentially wanting you to believe them without checking up. It's dishonest. It's demeaning. It's disgusting.

I'm not going to go through all "20,000 lies" (many of which are likely repeats, from what I've said above). If those mentioned here are the highlights, then the rest will only get worse, more far-fetched and more dishonest.

This is why I get fed up with people quoting News media as their sources for information. You want to convince me? Quote a statement Trump has made, along with the actual data (e.g. as I did above regarding immigrants) to show that what he said was false. News media is twisted and biased. Don't even quote Fox at me.

Communism vs. Capitalism

The following is a conversation I had with the user "John Table" on this YouTube video. He was trying to explain to me why Communism was better than Capitalism. Although lengthy, I thought the conversation was worth putting up for others to see the sorts of arguments and lines of reasoning that come from both sides.

(Edited purely for readability and language.)

ME:
Under a capitalist system, people can be greedy, hoard their wealth, etc., but they can't prevent people from creating their own wealth. Under a communist system, the state declares what the "living wage" is for everyone... and if they are greedy, they can make it so that their "living wage" is higher than everyone else's. This is why they don't want to give up their power, and why there will always be a class/elitist system. And the rest of the populace can't generate more wealth for themselves because they are prevented by the state.

JOHN TABLE:
The end goal of communism is statelessness, so if it hasn't achieved that, it by definition isn't communist.

ME:
Well, by your definition, a communist society has never existed, nor ever will exist. It will always be out of reach unless you can deal with the issue of human greed (aka, in religious circles, sin). Otherwise all you have is a superior "elite" class and a LOT of poverty. No thanks.

JOHN TABLE:
You can deal with human greed.

ME:
Please, enlighten me.
And, while your at it, explain why you would prefer a communist society.

JOHN TABLE:
Some prefer vanguards, some prefer mass uprising, some think it will happen naturally as society decays under capitalism. Take your pick really.

Now to answer the second question, why I favor communism. The eradication of worker exploitation and state control by the few in order to fully liberate the individual and move humanity past it's predatory stage, embracing their potential as a community-oriented species without hierarchy.

ME:
You really think vanguards, mass uprising or natural occurrence will deal with human greed?? You do realise that it's not only the rich people who are greedy? All the looting seen this month across the US is fuelled by greed. People who think that just because an item (such as a TV) exists, that they are therefore entitled to it... it's just greed. As I said earlier, by your definition a communist society has never existed, because they have never managed to deal with human greed. You haven't put forward solutions to the problem, only a misplaced hope with no backing, evidence-based or theory-based.

How are workers exploited under capitalism? If I dislike my job, I have the freedom to change. Under communism, changing jobs will not change my personal or financial situation and I will be forced to live with whatever "wage" the state imposes on me. What guarantees are there that the elite few who impose communism upon a society will be altruistic and give up their power once their goal has been reached? This is why, by your definition, a communist society has never existed... because the elite few never gave up their power.

Communism is great in theory, but while there is still sin on the earth, I would never want to live in such a society, because it greatly paves the way for the elite to exploit the underclass. Find me a sinless human, appoint him (or her) as leader, and I would gladly follow.

JOHN TABLE:
Yes, a communist mass uprising would deal with that. If it were vanguards, it would be on a case by case basis. What "wage?" There is no money under communism. No state.

ME:
You are still not offering any solutions. HOW would a "mass uprising" or "vanguards" deal with human greed? The best they can ever do is to take away people's money. The root of the problem is in the human heart. That can't be dealt with by any method you've mentioned. The communist society would have a huge black market and people would find ways to accumulate wealth... those in charge will simply do it by hoarding all the money from the populace.

"Wage" is simply how someone is paid for their work. No money? Then the wage becomes the food a person is allowed to eat, the clothes they are allowed to wear, or the house they are allowed to live in. For "equality", houses would have to be identical: all 1-person houses a certain size, all 2-person houses a certain size, etc. Who decides this? Similarly for food: every meal would have to be identical, because why would one person be allowed to eat caviar while another is forced to live on spam?

Or do people get the choice as to what they want to eat? Very quickly the chefs will realise that they get paid the same whether they cook up a fancy meal or slops. No decent restaurants, no entertainment venues. Or do people have to cook every meal themselves? Do they have some form of "vouchers" on which to live? If one person eats all their allocated food too fast, will they be forced to starve until their next voucher?

Money solves all these problems. It is the universal trading item. Take it away, and something else will take it's place. In prison, it's often cigarettes. With Covid, it's toilet paper and hand sanitiser.

JOHN TABLE:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

This principle would be the unifying factor behind such a movement. Communists inherently share the value of human life over accumulation of wealth, and would work towards that goal.

You do things that interest you, and because no one is indebted to a capitalist class, there is no need to separate one's interest from what is considered "work." There wouldn't be any "wage." That doesn't mean food replaces money, that means the very concept of rewards for labor is erased. There is enough for everybody at this point. Nobody has to starve, because we aren't one bad season away from shortages. It says a lot about you if you think the only driving force behind a person's actions is money.

We don't get rid of paper currency, we get rid of currency ENTIRELY. Resources are owned by the community. You need something, you go and get it without having to take it from someone else, because we have enough for everyone.

ME:
And again, you ignore the state of the human heart.
What incentive is there for me to work? There are currently a lot of people on welfare, and there would easily be more if it weren't for the laws that prevent those from milking the system. This is the very reason why a communist society has never been properly established, because it falls at this hurdle. The only solution is to force people to work, so that enough food is produced. And then you have authoritarianism.

I have no issues with communism in theory, and if every human heart was altruistic, it would work. But unless there are practical steps towards dealing with the evil (no matter how small) in the human heart, communism is just idealistic fantasy.

JOHN TABLE:
"Human heart." Shut the f*** up with this immaterial horsesh**. People behave according to their experiences, there is no "capitalist gene."

If people are not indebted to a capitalist class, the line between what is considered "work" and basic function is blurred and may even be erased entirely. The amount of people we have in the populace and the current level of technological advancement makes the amount of labor necessary for any one person miniscule.

A communist society hasn't been established because communism cannot function within a capitalist paradigm, as they conflict on a fundamental level. Capitalists will seek the increase in wealth at the cost of destroying lives, including that of communists and any systems they establish.

ME:
Your first paragraph illustrates my point nicely:
Experience shows that people need to be trained to be good, but not trained to be bad. No parent has ever had to tell a child to do bad things, they figure that out by themselves, and are conditioned out of it by the negative consequences. It has nothing to do with a "capitalist gene", and I never said or implied anything of the sort. Society shows that not all parenting works: there are still murders, theft, destruction, etc. The only way to completely eradicate greed is for a fairly extreme form of social conditioning... and because parenting fails and cannot be trusted, this would have to be enforced by the state. Authoritarian control, as I mentioned earlier.

Technology is great, but people need to innovate and experiment to develop it. Plus, people need to repair it. There are already enough kids in schools who don't care about their education. If everything (food, shelter, etc.) is given to them for free regardless of what job they have, which implies regardless of how much they study... it's a downward spiral. There is no reward (or bonus) for hard work.

I agree that debt (such as student debt) is a bad thing, and there ought to be a revolution of the education system so that there is quality education (teaching unions are the worst) and qualifications are worth the paper they're written on.

You want quality education? It needs a good dose of logic. They have dumbed down mathematics, which is where the majority of logic is taught (implicitly). As a consequence, people find it difficult to theorise about things (such as communism) and think ahead as to what possible consequences might be. So many young people simply don't think their actions through. No wonder so many of them fall for the communist ideology.

JOHN TABLE:
People act in accordance with their experiences. Do you think murder and rape happen because people have ditched their previous conscience developed throughout their life?

When I say "indebted," I'm referring to the reliance on a constant wage to survive, as well as all other forms of debt. So there are no old communists and never have been?

ME:
Yes, I do believe that some murders and rapes are committed by people who have ditched their previous conscience. I also believe it can be a product of their experiences. For example, a person who has a good reputation has his family gunned down, may well go on a vigilante exercise to kill the gunner. Bad experiences do all sorts to human emotion. A mature person keeps those emotions under control. Emotions are also things that I would consider are "human heart" issues.

I don't think "indebted" is the correct word for what you're saying. I don't think people feel like they "owe" the capitalist system anything. The vast majority of people take advantage of the capitalist system to earn more than they need "to survive" so they can live in relative comfort. Personally, I don't want those in power telling me what is "necessary to survive" and denying me things that I would otherwise be able to afford in a capitalist system. Under communism, is everyone allowed to have a 50-inch TV? Who decides in what order people can receive these things, because the factories won't be able to produce them fast enough? What about products made abroad? Will the communist country still trade with other countries? How are the purchased products distributed?

I didn't say there were no old communists, just that a lot of young people are swept up by this utopian fantasy, usually lacking the brain capacity to think logically at what it would mean. This is why logic and thinking ahead really need to be taught in school. Games like Chess help develop those skills, but now people prefer the violence of COD and GTA. It makes me wonder if there's a correlation with that and society's recent events...

JOHN TABLE:
Yes, everyone who wants a 50-inch gets a 50-inch. But I guess to you, the trade-off of having a chance at a 50-inch TV is worth the suffering of millions.

"People don't feel like they 'owe' anything to a capitalist system." Are you f***ing serious? How f***ing sheltered and dismissive of working class struggle do you have to be to think this?

What is your excuse for lifelong communists who have reached their positions through countless hours of research and deliberation spanning years or decades?

There is no communist country in a capitalist world. When it is here, it will not be national, but international. Communism does not concern itself with the notion of "purchasing" or mandating "distribution." It is a situation of free association without money or a state. You have a need, you get it. The destruction of superficial materialistic gains and the culture surrounding it is one of many goals we have.

ME:
Have you ever seen the difference in prices at the local store for the same product under different brands? Some are made in sweatshops in China and India, others do not use slave labour. Why do you think there's a big push in Western countries to buy things that are made from within one's own country?

I disagree with your choice of word: I don't think people ever feel like they "owe" a system of governance anything (well, except under communism, where you would be forced to work for whatever the system allows you in return). Under capitalism, many people change jobs, better themselves, and work to earn more money. Sure, there are the "working class" who stick in one job for their working life, but I would question how many of these people are unhappy and would prefer a communist state.

So your communist utopia is global in reach? Right... global domination is an interesting concept. And you will certainly face clashes with other world powers, even communist ones such as China. Basically, your utopian fantasy is either doomed to fail (either due to not enough support from your own country or due to losing a war with another nation who doesn't like your version)... or else it will quite literally be built on the dead bodies of all who stand in your way.

Nice to know something about your character...

JOHN TABLE:
In a communist society, nobody is able to force you to work or tell you how to work. That's not what communism is. No country as it stands is communist. Do you think "working class" means people who work one job? Because that's incorrect.

ME:
(This message was sent as an addendum to my previous one, before I was notified that John Table had already replied.)
And, in your communist utopia, what's to prevent everyone saying, "I get food, shelter and clothes anyway... why should I work?" I hope you're not so naive to think that it won't happen.

JOHN TABLE:
If you get to see the direct benefits of your labor for the society you live in (which includes you), you don't think people would be fine with working a miniscule amount? Let alone the fact that you would be able to provide something for society simply by living your life and doing what interests you?

It speaks volumes on your part that you think the only way to possess any function is the threat of death. How many people do you honestly believe have no interests that they would take part in were it not for all of their time and labor being used up just to survive?

ME:
If everyone pursued their interests, how can you be sure that all the farming gets done to provide the food?
Why do you think your communist utopia has never been realised? Because it always gets to the point where a certain level of production has to take place, which means a certain number of workers, which means somehow they would need some form of carrot/stick to motivate them. Under capitalism, it's a carrot of money and personal property; under communism, "stick" is a massive understatement.

If you want to provide a watertight argument for why communism is better than capitalism, you need to think of every eventuality and explain how your system overcomes it: "watertight". You're doing a very poor job of that.

JOHN TABLE:
People take turns working minute amounts on a farm every once in a while, and this is made even easier by people who actually enjoy cultivating and gardening food, as well as modern farming technology? Just one idea.

Communism hasn't been brought about because the conditions for it to be fully implemented (industrialization, international class struggle) have not been able to supplant capitalism. That's it. It has nothing to do with production inefficiency and everything to do with the fact that the ruling class does not benefit from it and therefore will not allow it to come about peacefully.

It doesn't have to be watertight, either, we just have to do away with the current system. If you could give a person the choice between having everything they would ever need, with all the technological advancements we have, and only needed to work a miniscule amount with no bosses or ruling class, why would they choose capitalism?

ME:
You're avoiding the question. What if there are insufficient people who want to run the farms? I've mentioned previously, I have no issue with communism in theory... but it relies on human altruism, which simply is not there. I would want to know what assurances I have that:
(a) I will not be forced to do something I do not want to do.
(b) There will not be a person (or group of people) amassing wealth/possessions at the expense of others.
(c) There really will be enough of everything for everyone.
(d) Every person will be happier than under capitalism.

In your communist utopia, I would like to spend my days reading and studying. I do not want to work on a farm, or in any other capacity. I would like a large house with a few pets. Can I expect people to build and maintain my house and to provide my pets and me with enough food (including exquisite recipes) while I pursue my interests?

JOHN TABLE:
Yes, exactly. Everything you just described. We already know we have enough for everyone and the reason people don't get what they need is because people hoard at the expense of others. Farms aren't run by any one person, although I suspect people who enjoy farming would end up having the largest hand in producing crops because they would be investing the most time and effort, not by any force of hoarding resources, but as a result of free association. "To each according to their need." That's exactly WHY we want communism.

There are already people who study architecture and culinary arts because that's what they like doing. It wouldn't be "your" house. People would just leave you alone if you wanted to be completely isolated, because we don't base housing on the exorbitant displays of wealth, but a matter of practical space (yes, again, we have enough if you want to be alone).

ME:
Yes, I agree there is already enough food to feed everyone: it's just poorly distributed. But that doesn't mean that everyone working in farming actually wants to work in farming. For example, a huge number of fruit pickers in many countries are backpackers... people who travel to other countries, earning money by picking the fruit, to fund their months-long travel. In communism, these people could travel and not have to pick fruit.

If people could choose whatever job they wanted, then we can say goodbye to public toilets and we'd all have to take our trash to the local waste disposal place... because I sincerely doubt there would be enough people choosing that job. Actually, the waste disposal plants probably wouldn't operate either, because people wouldn't choose to work there. Same for sewerage. So there would likely be an increase in disease. But hey, I suppose that's one way to de-populate the planet...

So, I don't have "my" house. Meaning someone could just move in. Or alternatively, I could just move into someone else's house. Awesome. And there's sure to be no conflict there?

Like I keep trying to say, the theory is great, but it requires altruism. No selfishness, no laziness, etc. That simply won't happen. If you don't believe in "human nature", then more fool you. The only way to make it work would be to have an element of social conditioning. Is that really the "utopia" you're advocating for? This is why you need to have a water-tight (or very close to) case for it... having a society without laziness and selfishness sounds very much like wishful thinking. They are not products of capitalism; they are products of humanity.

JOHN TABLE:
This is false, the selfishness you describe is a direct consequence of living within a capitalist society. It is not inherent to humans and can change with the environment people live in. Again, same issue with "who will farm." Anyone who wants their community to have clean water would help. The idea of trading labor for money is abolished, and with that people contribute directly to projects that they wish to succeed, without wages.

You don't just move into someone's house because that would annoy them and vice versa, unless you both wanted to do that. What is the need for moving into a house that has been setup and decorated for someone else if you already have one?

ME:
"This is false, the selfishness you describe is a direct consequence of living within a capitalist society."
Prove it.
We disagree on this fundamental. If you can find me a culture, either present-day or historical, that was not capitalist, had no objects of trade, and therefore had no selfishness, then we can discuss that.

JOHN TABLE:
This is a non-sequitur. Selfishness is not an analogue to capitalism, and capitalism not analogous to trade. Trade is a component that can exist within capitalism but is not exclusive to it. The selfishness you are describing, as in "no one will work without wages or abolish property," is a direct product of capitalism because of the way it causes the people who are born into it to develop - with the threat of being deprived of needs if they run out of money. All that has to be done to remove this is realize that it can be moved beyond. The very existence of communist revolutionaries and free territories would support this. That is how you live without selfishness. You abandon it and attempt to change the world you live in to do the same. We are not looking to revert to anything of the past, and have no need to look for inspiration or confirmation in past societies, as it is something entirely new (relatively speaking, a couple hundred years at most).

ME:
It's not that no one will work without wages, it's that a lot of people won't work if they don't see a personal reward for their work. Imagine two people working to make something. One makes 10 items, the other only makes 9 of the same items. The next day, the same one makes 10 items again, but the other makes 8 items. How long do you think it will be until the one making 10 items says, "I'm working hard every day to make my 10 items, but this person never makes as many as me. I could work a bit less and still have everything I need." I already see a lot of people not working hard when they are rewarded well for their work. If you take away that reward, I strongly believe their productivity will drop to near zero.
"For the benefit of the community" is a pretty weak motivation.

And it's not about "the threat of being deprived of needs if they run out of money". It's about learning to be sensible and make good choices. It's about a motivation to work. It's about not wasting the reward for your labour on things like TVs, X-Boxes, etc. until you have enough to pay for food. Some people don't like these lessons (including you, by the sounds of it). People who work harder are rewarded more: a good motivation.

Why would I need to work if I can have everything? Like I said, I want to kick back and read and study. If it's about "to each according to their need", then you have to separate "needs" and "wants". Someone has to say "these things are necessary for survival" and "these things are not". Those "wants", I would bet everything I have, will be left behind. And before you say that "needs" and "wants" don't need to be separated... I would like I big TV, a big place to live, lots of books, etc., etc. Will I be able to have those things? Or are they only available if someone has the motivation and desire to make them?

Under capitalism, I can say, "Look, I don't have the skills or talents to make this thing, but I'd really like it. I'll reward someone to spend their time doing it." And that's how society advances. Under communism, it's essentially about "if someone can be bothered, it will be available."

There's a reason it hasn't been properly implemented in the past.

JOHN TABLE:
What if I told you the actual amount of labor needed to keep society running is much lower than either of the people in those examples?

It has nothing to do with lessons about budgeting money and everything to do with the exploitation and suffering capitalism has directly caused.

People would see the direct benefits of their labor. That just wouldn't be money. "Needs" includes things necessary to survive. Food, water, shelter, healthcare. All of the things you "want" don't magically disappear under communism. That mentality of "if someone can be bothered" is the selfishness that develops under capitalism. Someone can always he bothered because again, people do not do things just for money, but because they see a "need" or a "want" to exist. People already like to study things that will move society forward.

I'm honestly surprised you'd discount the fact that people do things out of enjoyment. Maybe you haven't met anyone that does this.

The reason communism hasn't been implemented is that it is a relatively new idea, and one that directly threatens the interests of a small group of people.

ME:
Yes, the amount of labour needed to keep society "running" is relatively small. But to have advancement? That's a lot higher.

Yes, capitalism has caused exploitation, such as the sweatshops in India and China. Certain brands add their logo because they know some idiots would pay even more for something produced in a sweatshop. I don't know many people who have a problem with bringing factories and the workforce back into one's own country (in the UK, part of the reason factories were moved abroad was to reduce the UK's CO2 emissions... I always pointed out that it didn't affect the global emissions, but no one seemed to care).

I still want to know your reasoning for your contempt at the mention of "human nature" and your proof for why selfishness isn't part of it.
I simply don't believe you and think you are seriously misguided on this.

I have absolutely no issue that people do things out of enjoyment. I just don't think that hard work day in, day out, is one of them. I wouldn't give up my job, even having done it as a volunteer for a while before I got paid, simply because I enjoy it. But if everything I needed was given to me anyway, I'd probably just work 1 day a week, or even just a couple of hours a day... if I felt like it.

I think the "game-testing" industry would sky-rocket under your plans. A huge number of teenage boys would love to game test the latest COD. There would pretty much be a generation of people who can't do the things needed for society to "run", and those who actually enjoy it would feel like they can't take a break.

You want to convince me? Show me some numbers.
From all these philosophical meanderings, I feel even more sure that I certainly would not want communism if it's anything like what you describe.

Certain members of the political elite are trying to convince the population of the benefits of communism, so that they can take the power and have control. It's just a power-grab, bringing people to their cause on false pretences.

JOHN TABLE: 
How am I supposed to "show you numbers" for a society that hasn't existed because of its novelty and threat to the current system? The entire point is that it is something entirely new, and would require upheaval on an international scale. I can't show you numbers because it is impossible for communism to be brought about within and coexist with the current paradigm.

The very idea of "work" is abolished in that you are witness to every benefit your contribution brings about, and in a communist society, would not need to hoard things that are produced, by yourself, or anyone. Everything generated would be readily available because property as a concept no longer exists. Society "runs" not because you're paid such and such per hour at the plant, but because people want things to run for their own benefit and everyone around them. You wouldn't be interested in having a say in the design and construction of that big house, that TV, nor would you want to have some kind of hand in physically putting it together? I know I would (if I wanted such things).

It isn't so much a philosophical question, but one of being able to change the psychology of people to favor their fellow man and themselves over capital, and to want to live free of the constraints of money and the state.

I do not subscribe to "selfishness" as described being natural to humans because I do not have it, and plenty of others do not, either (as evidenced by them favoring communism). That's not to say it doesn't exist, only that it can be changed. One could've made the same argument about subservience being a part of "human nature" to justify feudalism, and yet we have done away with it.

ME:
What evidence supports what you say? That's what I'm asking for: anything that might show something about what you say being true. "It's so novel that there's no evidence" is not a good line of reasoning. Surely there's something out there that might help to prove your point?? I'm not willing to take that blind leap of faith, especially when there's so much evidence to the contrary.

We've discussed before that if communism can't exist in the current paradigm, that it's a global change, then you're going to have serious issues getting China on board. They will stomp all over you and not care one ounce of the freedoms that the Western capitalist system you hate so much has given you. The CCP has no issue being the distributors of the wealth/resources, because they can keep an amount for themselves. They'll take that part of your communist ideal, but they won't relinquish their power. I think you are deluded if you think otherwise. Just look at what they are doing in the South China Sea, with Taiwan, with Hong Kong. This is the result of their bloody communist takeover under Mao.

Back to your "utopia". What if a construction engineer wants to build something big? The world's largest and tallest building? They want to show the greatness of their ingenuity and the advancement of the human race. They may even convince people that it will benefit society because all people are welcome there, to use it for whatever they want. It'll be the greatest wonder. Will they be allowed to soak up the world's resources for their tower of Babel?

Are there a set of laws in this brave new world? How are they enforced? What if an underground movement begins that seeks to hoard wealth to create their own society?

I would be very, very surprised if you have managed to get rid of selfishness. I believe people can go a long way towards getting rid of selfishness, but by the very support of communism, you show it:
You don't want rich people to be able to hoard wealth and property. But instead of merely encouraging them to be generous, you want to take over the current system to prevent anyone from doing it again. That's a form of selfishness.

Selfishness is in every human being, whether rich, poor, kings, peasants, whatever race, etc. Subservience clearly is not part of human nature because, in the feudal system, the ruling class are free of it. Those under it could see the difference and knew they did not have to be like that. Hence the English civil war and Oliver Cromwell making the ruling class accountable to the people: the foundation of democracy. The US Declaration of Independence was to declare independence from the British who were trying to rule over them (ironically, people are now being brainwashed into thinking that there was no freedom in it... it may not have been freedom for blacks, but it was a step closer, and the binding documents created at that time paved the way for Martin Luther King, Jr.). The civil rights movement was because black people found that white people were able to do things they could not, and it brought equality. Selfishness is found in every level of society, which is why it is part of human nature, but subservience is not.

But people don't want equality, people want to be "one up" on their neighbour. This is a more extreme form of selfishness, with the current manifestation being "black lives matter": they don't want to pay attention at school to get educated to better their lives; they want all the benefits that others (except those with a good inheritance) have, but without the hard work to get them there. I have worked very hard to get where I am. I'm from a poor family who have always had just enough to get by. With the excess I have, I give to others. I support humanitarian groups who are making a real difference (not just supporting Democratic campaigns). You're telling me that I'm not longer allowed to choose who I support, that I am to have no extra reward for my labour than someone who chooses to be a lazy slob, and you say you have no selfishness?

If those in the community I live in don't pull their weight in keeping the place clean then I'll have to take up the slack... when I was at university (where thankfully I escaped the communist brainwashing), I had communal living. I know I did way more than my fair share of the cleaning. If people can't even learn to be decent people in the current system, I have no faith in humanity to do it under a communist system... and that's assuming there isn't an "elite group" who don't want to relinquish their power.

You've been sold a lie, mate.

JOHN TABLE:
You've been born into a society that tells you a better world isn't possible and you believed it. I want equality and the abolition of property, so do many others. I don't just want rich people to pay a bunch of sh** back to society, I want the eradication of property as a concept, myself included. You get to choose whoever you support directly, in a society of free association. There is no "reward," you simply have the benefits of the uses held in whatever you've produced or contributed to. That is the reward. There is no need for "humanitarian" aid in the monetary sense because there is no money here.

Of course there's opposition, that's why we rely on the working class and fight for it. The sheer size of an international populace is enough topple any structure.

Are you insisting that communists (those that advocate for abolition of money, the state, private property), have this selfishness? If so, how is seeking the mass liberation of people from money and the state selfish?

ME:
No, I was born into a society that told me that there are no limits to innovation and ingenuity, that anyone, no matter their race, religion or financial background, is able to achieve. I've been born into a society that says hard work pays off, than even poor people (like me) can make it, and that it's down to the choice of the individual. I've been born into a society that says you can keep your reward if you want to, or you can let your personality change for the better by being generous - it's all about personal choice. But the society that I've been born into says that if you want to be lazy, there are consequences... you may struggle to have everything you want, but the government will at least take pity on you and give you what you need to survive.

I've also been born into a society where those freedoms cherished by so many have allowed certain individuals to indoctrinate others into believing that their society hates them, and that true liberation is only found by destroying the hard work of others, by allowing lawlessness to go unpunished and by laziness being rewarded.

You are more selfish than me because you feel that in order for you to be "free", you need to destroy every other civilisation and opponent to your cause for a risk that by doing so "altruism" will be a "natural product" of those actions. Whereas I feel that being free allows me to express my views, you to express your views, and for all of us to work as hard or as little as we want and be rewarded accordingly... and even those who choose not to will still have enough to survive.

You are ignorant to the fact of how free Western civilisation is. If your way were ever to happen, China would stomp all over it. Your communist dreams would be trashed. My evidence for this is the very fact that that's what happened in China under Mao: he sold the communist lie to everyone, and it still prevails in the very title of "people's" republic of China. But it very much is not free or owned by the people. The elite operate in US dollars, raking in money for themselves, while having the local subcurrency of reminbi which keeps the populace poor and under control. Any advancement by an individual is taken over by the state, with CCP members being put on their boards so as to do their will. Dissent is punishable by death. That's how they keep control of the people.

Your version of communism has 2 outcomes:
(1) Succeed in overthrowing Western democracy, only to be overrun by China.
(2) Succeed in overthrowing global civilisations, only to find that those who led the "revolution" enjoy their high position to the point that they won't give up their power willingly, leading to another revolution, and another, and another... keeping the world in a state of continual bloodshed.

That's where the evidence points.
That's why I want you to show me some snippet of evidence to support your view.
That's why, until then, I simply do not believe you and think you're deluded.

Are you educated or not?

JOHN TABLE:
Other outcome: the capitalist class is overthrown, and the leaders of the revolt cede power to increasingly localized forms of councils that are entirely democratic. Or this is done immediately, in the case of anarchists.

You believing in the universality of class mobility would be a joke were it not so sad and dismissive of the struggle of millions of people.

It doesn't matter what I need to feel "free" so much as it is being able to recognize an oppressive system for what it is and desiring to remove it. We do not wish to destroy anything but chains.

ME:
So people who support capitalism (like me) are not welcome in your new society? Well, that's tolerant... and unselfish... I am no longer allowed to live the way I wish to live, because people like you say so. Awesome. This is why a communist takeover is always bloody. This is why communism always has the massacre of people who disagree. And you say it's not oppressive?? You "do not wish to destroy anything but chains"??? You destroy many, many lives in the process!! What hypocrisy!!

The reality is that you've been told that capitalism is oppression, and you chose to believe it. In a free society, you are free even to believe untruths such as that you are not free. In a communist society, you are not allowed to believe anything other than what the leaders want you to believe (see China). Any society will have a form of oppression (dare I call it a part of "human nature"?) by those with impure motives. Under communism, I won't be able to escape. Under capitalism, I have the freedom to change where I work, where I live, etc. The "oppression" people (probably much like you) feel is usually perceived and not real. Please enlighten me on the oppression you feel.

It seems to me that either something has got under your skin, and you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in your tantrum. Or you've gone through something like university (or just watching a load of communist videos on YouTube) not realising the communist undertones of the lectures and lecturers, not critically analysed what they've said, but simply assumed that because of their position, they must be speaking truth... and the result is that you've been brainwashed into believing their lies about the "oppression of capitalism".

In my life, I see no chains. I see plenty of annoyances with society... endless paperwork, people in offices detached from real life give their stamp of approval/disapproval, a restrictive education system, and people going overboard with toilet paper... but I wouldn't call these annoyances "chains". I don't feel bound up by them. If I ever felt these annoyances were going too far (such as not reopening the country I live in after the coronavirus restrictions), then I would do something about it. My freedom allows me to do that. My freedom allows me to pursue politics if I wish. I do not see that I would be this free under communism, assuming I survive the war it would need to be established.

And before you go on again about "China isn't real communism" or "real communism doesn't have a ruling class"... as I've mentioned before, I simply do not believe you on that: you provide no evidence whatsoever that your communist utopia has even a smell of truth and reliability. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.


(At the moment, John Table hasn't replied and the discussion might be over. If there is further discussion, this may form a new blog post.)