The Venus Project

[vxv]

vsxv, just a short comment on profit, which is apparently a pejorative in your vocabulary:

The surplus remaing when production exceeds consumption is called profit. It is essential if society is to advance. If people consume all they produce (ie no profit), the society is static.

If you love people, you must also find ways to get their production to exceed their consumption. This has nothing to do with greed, though some people or perhaps even most might be greedy. Profit itself is moral, desirable, good.

I hear you, and thanks for the diplomacy, however you are correct in the fact that I see profit as an abuse of our culture by an endless rape of our social nature, just to survive and justify a means to an end.

I love people, one thing is a fact though, slaving them at their expensive to “fat” over indulged shylocks and charlatans by removing them from their family, friends and life itself - and in turn convincing them this is why they have a right to live….IS NOT LOVE.

Production should be limited to the effective enablement of the life not for trade. We just mentioned before that a resource based system will remove you from your freedom of existence, it’s ironic though, and this worse, ensuring life as long as you can slave to the economy. Almost like being eternally damned.

 

[BTTB]

BTTB,
I must say. I am disappointed with the fact that they sell things.

Perhaps Mr Fresco is no Mark Shuttleworth, but at least Mark does not peddle his wares.

Did you take note that they are selling their Venus Research Facility today?

 

[vxv]

Perhaps Mr Fresco is no Mark Shuttleworth, but at least Mark does not peddle his wares.

Did you take note that they are selling their Venus Research Facility today?

Yes I did, I must be honest, however strong their intent, the philosophy is a good foundation, the practice is something we need to follow and see. Most probably with disappointment…but we need to change this. The more constructive donations and enablement without skimmers the better the end result - generally speaking.

I must mention as well, a symbiotic system like this will NEVER work in the US.

 

[PeterCH]

Yes I did, I must be honest, however strong their intent, the philosophy is a good foundation, the practice is something we need to follow and see. Most probably with disappointment…but we need to change this. The more constructive donations and enablement without skimmers the better the end result - generally speaking.

I must mention as well, a symbiotic system like this will NEVER work in the US.

Thank heavens for that. Coming from a country which had such a symbiotic system imposed on it, I do know that my relatives and friends would also
be happy not to implement this panacea for social evils too.

 

[vxv]

The US is too self-righteous to even comprehend synergy.

 

[PeterCH]

The US is too self-righteous to even comprehend synergy.

Let's hope they stay that way. You can sell synergy to North Korea or PRC instead. I'm sure those party bosses will implemment those ideas with immediate effect.

 

[PeterCH]

I would buy the idea of the Venus project if it actually featured it's namesake. A beautiful, nubile woman who was willing to be studied - by me.

 

[vxv]

 

[km2]

History should be a compulsory subject in all schools around the world, to teach people that the same ol' garbage has come before us and has caused incredible harm.

Yes, but one would have to change how it's taught at schools. Currently it's treated as a kind of cultural cheerleading, "how we won through our awesomeness". If it was based on a "people tried this, then this happened, why did this happen, what can we learn from that in future", then it would be phenomenally useful.

With a profit model the banks will own all of our property in the end. We were born on this earth to have a right to own and the banks are slowly reminding us that we have no right to property.

Wheras with a socialist model it wouldn't be a "few banks" owning all the property, it would just be "one state". It's not like that property would then be any more yours than it was with the banks. The state would control who can use the property, it would be the same story except with no hope that you could ever "buy" a piece of land.

It's this slippery communist idea that the "people" control everything. This doesn't help you, because the "people" ends up being "other people". If you have R10 and your friend has R100, do you feel good because you as the "people" have R110? No! In the same way with communism you end up with a small group of leaders who have to "control the resources" to direct it in the way of the "common good". Now you have the same system where a few people control the resources of the world. Except now they control the army too.

Ok, but all you need then surely are good honest leaders:

There is nothing wrong with socialist ideals as long as they don’t have any leaders or propaganda with conflict.

Yes, but where do you get these leaders? Trying to find leaders that strike a perfect balance is incredibly hard. We know that even with democracy we get totally self-serving politicians, and I still can't see this better way to choose them?

Heck, this was the theory of a monarchy to begin with. "Lets pick someone who will look after our social needs, put all the land under his control, and he'll look after us. Then he'll be able to train up his children to be experts in administring the land too."

The problem with having everything in the hands of one leader (economy, military, culture), is that if you choose wrong ONCE, you're screwed forever. If "Dear Leader" holds all the cards, theres no way you're going to be able to unseat him once he shows his true colours. In capitalism, politicians, banks, and industry all act as something of a counterbalance to the centralisation of power.

Once again this is the fundamental problem with these fragile kinds of societies. They do not deal well with "problems". They can't handle bad leaders. They can't handle greedy people. They can't handle basic human desires. And when they get into the real world and these problems pop up, you end up having to implement all kinds of draconian solutions to keep people down.

 

[vxv]

Yes, but one would have to change how it's taught at schools. Currently it's treated as a kind of cultural cheerleading, "how we won through our awesomeness". If it was based on a "people tried this, then this happened, why did this happen, what can we learn from that in future", then it would be phenomenally useful.

Wheras with a socialist model it wouldn't be a "few banks" owning all the property, it would just be "one state". It's not like that property would then be any more yours than it was with the banks. The state would control who can use the property, it would be the same story except with no hope that you could ever "buy" a piece of land.

It's this slippery communist idea that the "people" control everything. This doesn't help you, because the "people" ends up being "other people". If you have R10 and your friend has R100, do you feel good because you as the "people" have R110? No! In the same way with communism you end up with a small group of leaders who have to "control the resources" to direct it in the way of the "common good". Now you have the same system where a few people control the resources of the world. Except now they control the army too.

Ok, but all you need then surely are good honest leaders:

Yes, but where do you get these leaders? Trying to find leaders that strike a perfect balance is incredibly hard. We know that even with democracy we get totally self-serving politicians, and I still can't see this better way to choose them?

Heck, this was the theory of a monarchy to begin with. "Lets pick someone who will look after our social needs, put all the land under his control, and he'll look after us. Then he'll be able to train up his children to be experts in administring the land too."

The problem with having everything in the hands of one leader (economy, military, culture), is that if you choose wrong ONCE, you're screwed forever. If "Dear Leader" holds all the cards, theres no way you're going to be able to unseat him once he shows his true colours. In capitalism, politicians, banks, and industry all act as something of a counterbalance to the centralisation of power.

Once again this is the fundamental problem with these fragile kinds of societies. They do not deal well with "problems". They can't handle bad leaders. They can't handle greedy people. They can't handle basic human desires. And when they get into the real world and these problems pop up, you end up having to implement all kinds of draconian solutions to keep people down.

Strong argument.

 

[PeterCH]

Strong argument.

Good, hopefully you've been cured of your Marxist dreams.

 

[vxv]

Good, hopefully you've been cured of your Marxist dreams.

Never, KM2 had a good argument but something to strive in to resolve.

 

[PeterCH]

Never, KM2 had a good argument but something to strive in to resolve.

Bullet to the back of the head or deportation to the Karoo for the next 50 years should fix all counter-revolutionaries, ne?

 

[Arthur]

Ever notice how the language of collectivists and statists is peppered with "ought", "should" and "must"? Of course these imperatives are always applied to lives and property of others.

Once these loonies with their quasi-religious high moral mission get their hands on the State, with its monopoly on police power and prisons, it's no surprise to see the jackboot and gulag.

The really perplexing thing is that despite all the evidence they just can't make the connection, which raises serious questions about their mental ability and sanity. Socialism works out badly in practice precisely because it is theoretically even worse. As an idea or ideal, it is sheer lunacy. When implemented, it's not long before people die.

 

[PeterCH]

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
("Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)

"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia."
- V. I. Lenin
(Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow [London: Arrow Books, 1988], p234)

"... whoever recognizes class war must recognize civil wars, which in any class society represent the natural and, in certain circumstances, inevitable continuation, development and sharpening of class war."
- V. I. Lenin
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [London: HarperCollins, 1994], p196)

"Until we apply terror to speculators - shooting on the spot - we won’t get anywhere."
- V. I. Lenin
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p55)

"Let them shoot on the spot every tenth man guilty of idleness."
- V. I. Lenin
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p55)

"When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism."
- V. I. Lenin
(Robert Conquest, The Human Cost of Soviet Communism [Washington: Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, 1970], p10)

"Dictatorship is rule based directly on force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained through the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws."
- V. I. Lenin
(Stephan Courtois, "Conclusion," in The Black Book of Communism, ed. Stephane Courtois [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999], p741)

"Do not believe that I seek revolutionary forms of justice. We don’t need justice at this point... I propose, I demand, the organization of revolutionary annihilation against all active counterrevolutionaries."
- Feliks Dzerzhinsky
(Michel Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich, Utopia in Power: A History of the USSR From 1917 to the Present [London: Hutchinson, 1986], p54)

"[The Red Terror involves] the extermination of enemies of the revolution on the basis of their class affiliation or of their pre-revolutionary roles."
- Feliks Dzerzhinsky
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p114)

"Root out the counterrevolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service..."
- Leon Trotsky
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [London: HarperCollins, 1996], p213)

"As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life.’"
- Leon Trotsky
(Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [London: New Park Publications, 1975], p82)

"... the road to socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the state… Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the state, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of state, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction..."
- Leon Trotsky
(Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [London: New Park Publications, 1975], p177)

 

[Amerikanse]

I believe this statement stems from a basic lack of understanding of the world. The profit that the so-called rich and powerful classes produce trickles down to us middle-class and poor people. The profit their companies produce is shared in the forms of stocks and bonds that a huge number of people partake in through the form of mutual funds and the like. Oil companies? ALL mutual funds own oil company stock--just as an example.

I believe your statement stems from a culture of narrow-minded economic slaves. I will never bow down to a boss, company, oil, bank, stockbroker, auditor or any bean counter to ensure that I have a right to live. The fact that you are so positive about this is scary, I hope they bail you out when your house or car is repossessed due to the millions they made off your money.

I am positive because the local evil bankers have lent my family money which the bank owns and we were permitted to use with a reasonable rate of interest to buy a home which we now have almost %50 equity in (I believe that is the right term) because of years of hard work. You do realize that banks would not be in business of no-one borrowed, right? Sounds to me like you would rather go back to medieval times when you could only have a decent standard of living if you owned a few thousand acres of land. You call me an economic slave (another term straight out of Marx and Engels) but you ignore the fact that a strong economic system like the one in use in the West is totally symbiotic. We use the banks, the banks use our money. Everyone wins. If you happen to have more capital, you can do more with it. Super. I fail to see how this is unfair. Please elaborate.

I hope you are not looking for the perfect system. Capitalism is the reigning system because it works well and operates on the basic principles of human nature--greed and/or the desire to improve one's circumstances--and not have to share hard-earned success. Karl Marx thought he could do better, but his plan failed for the exact reasons capitalism has succeeded. It is not perfect but it does a very good job.

Yes we are. Greed is not human nature, it might be a religion for you, but it is not human.

This is really the crux of our disagreement. Capitalism presupposes greed: communism presupposes human goodness.

Every human has done bad things. Even people who have a next-to perfect upbringing do bad things. Humans hurt other humans. I would love you to prove me wrong and say that somehow, some way, humans can be perfect or even innately good.

Go to Kenya and give a dollar to a kid starving at the age of 4. He will eat it. It’s ironic though, this seems to be religious nature, give someone food and enable them and you are selfless with respect and gratitude, give someone a dollar and you own them…

This is why people of my particular religious persuasion always tend to provide material support and services to the helpless and poor as opposed to money. You have an excellent point here. I personally know many people who have gone to Kenya on their own dollar to render medical aid in the bush.

Marxism again. It has failed every time it has been tried. Here in America, anyone can rise as high as they want to with enough ability and drive.

The leaders of Marxism failed. A methodology always fails due to those who lead it, any methodology can be effective if the intent is true and benefits all without conflict and force.

You just proved my point that human nature is innately bad. The leaders of Marxism failed because they were evil, from Lenin on up to Gorbachev. Whom do you know whose intents are always true, and benefit all without conflict and force, that can bring about the Marxist vision?

America is a joke, I can see how effective the country is…Make a sh@tload of money and your GOD.

Our materialism is lamentable, but so is your bomb-throwing.

Clinging to guns and religion ever since 1630.
This is not propaganda, this is freedom of thought. IT’s worth more than freedom of speech in your country. That’s the nice thing about guns, they always end up being used against yourself.

That's exactly what the Jews were thinking as Stalin exterminated them.

 

[PeterCH]

This is really the crux of our disagreement. Capitalism presupposes greed: communism presupposes human goodness.

I think it's more complicated than that. Read some of Marx' quotes above.
The issue is that to reshape society, to create the new man, no amount of killing and suffering was wrong. It was ok to kill the Kulaks, Ukrainians, white sympathisers, those discontent with the terror, previous bourgeoise, other ethnic minorities, even random people in great numbers to terrorise people into submission, etc in the formative years of the Soviet Union to achieve the one goal of socialism - a fully egalitarian state without private wealth or property and class distinction or individuality or even religion for that matter.

It was only the leftists from Marx, thru Engels, Wells, Bernard Shaw, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Beria,
etc who advocated and ultimately implemmented mass killing. For the new system to succeed the killing of millions was acceptable or even necessary.

The people who advocate these leftists ideas would no doubt do the same if given the opportunity to come to power. There is after all no other way to convince those pesky property owners, the rich and the bourgeoisie to part with their freedoms and wealth and surrender to the big brother - the State.
Marx and Engels learned hard lessens from the fall of the Paris Communes in the first half of the 19th century, you need to be hard on the opposition,
and assume an uncompromising attitude, that is kill or exile them all OR the utopian system will fail.

For those reasons, I don't think that Communism even presumes human kindness and altruism. I think that's what they want the ordinary person
to think, the suckers who believe their naive fairy tales, the core of their own private message is to have a small politburo run the country with no-one to
answer to, those people will know what is good for you, me and everyone else left alive on earth.

 

[Albereth]

For those reasons, I don't think that Communism even presumes human kindness and altruism. I think that's what they want the ordinary person
to think, the suckers who believe their naive fairy tales, the core of their own private message is to have a small politburo run the country with no-one to
answer to, those people will know what is good for you, me and everyone else left alive on earth.

Yeah. You'd get the impression that communists were a bunch of hippies whereas the reality was one of moving wealth and power from one group to another, namely themselves.

And anyone who professes to love everyone has been hitting the whacky weed way too much.

 

[Arthur]

This is really the crux of our disagreement. Capitalism presupposes greed: communism presupposes human goodness.

I can't disagree more! The very opposite is true!

Capitalism recognises the right to private property because it recognisees the right of the individual human person to fruits of their own labour, because it recognises that each individual 'owns' his/her own body and mind. That is why any curtailment of the freedom to own or dispose of one's property as one chooses is an assault on the integrity of the human person. Capitalism requires that the exchange of goods and services be free and voluntary, without force or fraud (because force of fraud are immoral curtailments of the right to own oneself and one's property - people who use force of fraud use illict means to obtain values such as property, and this is illegal in a free society built on the right to private property). Where this sort of liberty is recognised and practised (sadly, never fully anywhere in history), the basic operating assumption is that humans are fundamentally good - it is this presumption of basic goodness and social sensitivity that allows capitalism to 'risk' having people free. As both an ideology and in practice, capitalism has a profound respect for people and their free choices precisely because it assumes people will generally make good, moral choices, because people are basically good and moral. The legal regime (ie State) is there to protect that freedom, to arbitrate disputes, and to enforce contracts. Force or fraud in human relations is illegal in societies built on this conception of individual freedom.

Communism (or any other form of collectivism such as fascism, socialism, apartheid) is foundationed on the belief that the ownership of property is located in the collective (however defined) and emphatically not in the individual. Softer forms of socialism in the West do allow small personal property as a practical though ideologically undesirable concession. Collectivisms of all stripes presume humans are avaricious and greedy and, if left alone, will arrogate vast amounts of property to themselves. It is this greed and avariciousness that needs to be rendered impotent by limiting or abolishing private property and locating ownership in the collective. Communism takes a very dark view of human nature, darker even than Luther or Calvin's 'total depravity' theologies. In theory it is illogical, irrational and offensive. In practice it is an atrocity and the greatest engine of human suffering in all history.

 

[Arthur]

Another thing:

Capitalism bans the use of force in human relations, except in self-defence, and then only in the most dire circumstances of direct threat to life or livelihood.

Collectivisms (such as communism , socialism, fascism, apartheid, etc) entrench the use of force because they use police power to prevent me from entering into economic relations with others except as the State permits. Individuals are prevented by law -- ie police power, ie force -- from owning all or certain types of property. In this country I am prevented by police guns (and the threat of prison) from starting my own telecommunications company, for example, or my own electricity generation business! At one stage it was illegal to sell soap after 6pm! This is an outrage.

Apartheid is a form of collectivism because it prevented people from owning or disposing of their property as they wished, qualifying property rights through membership of a racially-defined collective. Like its Big Brothers socialism and communism, it prevented individual people from selling their labour as they wished. For example, it made it illegal for black people to own land or businesses or sell their labour in certain geographies, thereby mitigating or stunting their right to property and thus their economic development. White people were also negatively affected (though not to nearly the same degree as non-whites): it was illegal for whites to enter into a whole range of economic relations with the majority of their countrymen.

Apartheid is thus a species of collectivism, just like socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, and the like. It matters not a jot how you define the collective ... race, class, group, state, society at large, the elite, whatever ... what really matters is that individual property rights, private property rights, are mitigated, reduced, qualified, eroded, or abolished. That is the prime evil of collectivism - it expropriates the individual in the name of the collective. That's why all legally-enforced collectivist systems produce corpses.