The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have been thinking about this for a long time now and I really think it would work but it would completely change the world. If everything was free.
It may he hard to get your head round it at first, but just think how good our lives would be if we didnt have to pay for anything...
... Thought about it? well I'll start with food, becuase it was in a supermarket when I thought of it...
In the world where everything was free.
You go shopping for food, and you can take whatever you want, and how much you want of everything. But we have the problem of supermarkets running out of food, so they have rules like you cant take more than 20 loafs of bread and things like that. But you then think how will the supermarkets buy the food to keep it in stock? That is the first hurdle mankind would have to overcome. You dont have to buy anything! nothing costs money. Ah but if you buy a tin of tomato soup. first the tin needs to be mined and that's expensive, no it isnt because the machinary and work force is free, it costs no money. So we have free tin, it then goes to factories and the electricity for the factory and the work force and the building was free so no money needed there and we have tins for the soup.
Now there isnt any money needed for fertiliser and seeds so our ingrediants for the soup is free. So the entire food is free, no costs. You can build your own house, because it wont cost you to have it as lavish as possible.
You see If everything was free, then our lives would be a whole lot better, you would have to have a job to take (mustn't use that work buy) things from shops, and there's your only problem solved.
Just think about it and it will all make sense!
Seeya
It may he hard to get your head round it at first, but just think how good our lives would be if we didnt have to pay for anything...
... Thought about it? well I'll start with food, becuase it was in a supermarket when I thought of it...
In the world where everything was free.
You go shopping for food, and you can take whatever you want, and how much you want of everything. But we have the problem of supermarkets running out of food, so they have rules like you cant take more than 20 loafs of bread and things like that. But you then think how will the supermarkets buy the food to keep it in stock? That is the first hurdle mankind would have to overcome. You dont have to buy anything! nothing costs money. Ah but if you buy a tin of tomato soup. first the tin needs to be mined and that's expensive, no it isnt because the machinary and work force is free, it costs no money. So we have free tin, it then goes to factories and the electricity for the factory and the work force and the building was free so no money needed there and we have tins for the soup.
Now there isnt any money needed for fertiliser and seeds so our ingrediants for the soup is free. So the entire food is free, no costs. You can build your own house, because it wont cost you to have it as lavish as possible.
You see If everything was free, then our lives would be a whole lot better, you would have to have a job to take (mustn't use that work buy) things from shops, and there's your only problem solved.
Just think about it and it will all make sense!
Seeya
Page:
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Ah well. maybe my argument was flawed, but I'm happy living as we do
> now. And if any politician in the future ever suggested communism I
> wouldn't vote for him ! It may not be a perfect world we live in but
> "there 'aint no world but this one, and its gone to
> hell"
(anyone know what film the quotes from ? If you do
> then the reply that is given is quite thought provoking )
You can't vote for Communism, it is not a party line or an ideal, it is a theoretical stage of industrial development. That was the point I was making earlier if you take a look at my earlier posts.
I don't know if people have missed the point I was trying to make in my earlier posts. I was not defending or advocating Communism, I was simply pointing out that what people were talking about was not really communism. Russia and China were dicatatorships. This lovely idea that people are talking about (which would be lovely in pricnipal) is not communism either - it is some kind of utopian socialism.
I would just like people to use the terms a bit more specifically otherwise, if you lump lovely ideals of sharing AND violent dictatorships both mistakenly under the banner of Communism, people are going to get confused on what aspect you are talking about.
> Ah well. maybe my argument was flawed, but I'm happy living as we do
> now. And if any politician in the future ever suggested communism I
> wouldn't vote for him ! It may not be a perfect world we live in but
> "there 'aint no world but this one, and its gone to
> hell"
(anyone know what film the quotes from ? If you do
> then the reply that is given is quite thought provoking )
You can't vote for Communism, it is not a party line or an ideal, it is a theoretical stage of industrial development. That was the point I was making earlier if you take a look at my earlier posts.
I don't know if people have missed the point I was trying to make in my earlier posts. I was not defending or advocating Communism, I was simply pointing out that what people were talking about was not really communism. Russia and China were dicatatorships. This lovely idea that people are talking about (which would be lovely in pricnipal) is not communism either - it is some kind of utopian socialism.
I would just like people to use the terms a bit more specifically otherwise, if you lump lovely ideals of sharing AND violent dictatorships both mistakenly under the banner of Communism, people are going to get confused on what aspect you are talking about.
In theory Communism should work
In practice, it hasn't.
hmm, why?
because someone must be in control, however idealistic it may be, not everyone can be equal.
And it seems each time communism has been attempted, it has been done so using force, meaning that people were not happy with it.
Just look at the stats.
In practice, it hasn't.
hmm, why?
because someone must be in control, however idealistic it may be, not everyone can be equal.
And it seems each time communism has been attempted, it has been done so using force, meaning that people were not happy with it.
Just look at the stats.
Ah well. maybe my argument was flawed, but I'm happy living as we do now. And if any politician in the future ever suggested communism I wouldn't vote for him ! It may not be a perfect world we live in but "there 'aint no world but this one, and its gone to hell"
(anyone know what film the quotes from ? If you do then the reply that is given is quite thought provoking )
(anyone know what film the quotes from ? If you do then the reply that is given is quite thought provoking )
It only wouldn't work because we've become accustomed to greed, and the sudden release from the clutchs of money would ascend the world into madness.
Money may be the root of all evil, perhaps, but it is certainly the bane of dreams.
Money may be the root of all evil, perhaps, but it is certainly the bane of dreams.
Communism will come about when money is abolished. Only when the the human race sombines to live in harmoney with no greed and only a drive to expand our knowlage will the ideas of Comunism be embraced and utilised.
There was no attempt in Russia to create a Communist society. Nor is free speech in any way cotadictory to comunism.
The point is that they are not real world examples, as I stated Hitler calling himself a national socialist did not really make him one.
There were some very short lived communist and anarcho-syndicalist communities (for example in Spain during the civil war) but these were short lived.
The fact is that there have been no 'real world' attempts at communism as that would be impossible. Communism was not a simple political ideal, it was thought to be a historical inevitaility. It was based on very precise economic and social conditions which would lead to a specific revolutionary workers consciousness. The fact is that capitalism did not develop in the way that the communists believed as it made concessions to workers rights and trade union cosciousness improved conditions.
Russia and China were overwhelmingly peasant countries at the time of the revolutions. Communism could only happen in a industrialised society by its very nature (workers seizing control). Therefore, they cannot have been communist in any sense. In Russia and China it was simply a small band of revolutionaries attempting to shape a peasant country to its own agenda. That is not commuism.
The point is that they are not real world examples, as I stated Hitler calling himself a national socialist did not really make him one.
There were some very short lived communist and anarcho-syndicalist communities (for example in Spain during the civil war) but these were short lived.
The fact is that there have been no 'real world' attempts at communism as that would be impossible. Communism was not a simple political ideal, it was thought to be a historical inevitaility. It was based on very precise economic and social conditions which would lead to a specific revolutionary workers consciousness. The fact is that capitalism did not develop in the way that the communists believed as it made concessions to workers rights and trade union cosciousness improved conditions.
Russia and China were overwhelmingly peasant countries at the time of the revolutions. Communism could only happen in a industrialised society by its very nature (workers seizing control). Therefore, they cannot have been communist in any sense. In Russia and China it was simply a small band of revolutionaries attempting to shape a peasant country to its own agenda. That is not commuism.
The problem with the idea of Communism is that the whole world has to be Communist with no corrupting influences for it to work whereas the free speach model works in all enviroments which is way it is used as a principle is almost all the worlds successful countrys.
sandman wrote
>You are confusing Communism with the states like the
> Russia and China who call themselves Communists. >Lenninsm/Stalinsm
> is very far removed from the writings of Marx etc and >could not
> reasonably be called Communists in any objective way.
I might be confusing them, but these are real world examples of communism i.e not from a book. Its okay saying they arent what was meant in a book but they're what happens when hte ideas meet the real world. If an idea becomes so warped when it is tried in the real world then maybe that says something about its validity.....
>But
> not for the predjudiced and narrow-minded reasons you >think.
lol, prejudiced because its the truth ? :)
>You are confusing Communism with the states like the
> Russia and China who call themselves Communists. >Lenninsm/Stalinsm
> is very far removed from the writings of Marx etc and >could not
> reasonably be called Communists in any objective way.
I might be confusing them, but these are real world examples of communism i.e not from a book. Its okay saying they arent what was meant in a book but they're what happens when hte ideas meet the real world. If an idea becomes so warped when it is tried in the real world then maybe that says something about its validity.....
>But
> not for the predjudiced and narrow-minded reasons you >think.
lol, prejudiced because its the truth ? :)
Ashley wrote:
> If everything was free then there would be no incentive to produce
> as no one would want to work as there was no money needed and then
> there would be no free stuff to have as it won't have been produced.
> Would a farmer go ot andgrow the wheat for the bread for noothing
> out of the kindness of his heart. A few maybe but most wouldn't.
What would he live in? What would he wear? The whole point is that he woudn't be producing out of generosity but in order to live, other members of society would produce the clothes and houses he needs, he would provide the food. That part of the idea isn't hard to grasp.
> If everything was free then there would be no incentive to produce
> as no one would want to work as there was no money needed and then
> there would be no free stuff to have as it won't have been produced.
> Would a farmer go ot andgrow the wheat for the bread for noothing
> out of the kindness of his heart. A few maybe but most wouldn't.
What would he live in? What would he wear? The whole point is that he woudn't be producing out of generosity but in order to live, other members of society would produce the clothes and houses he needs, he would provide the food. That part of the idea isn't hard to grasp.
Page: