A question to Communists:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iron triangle.

The iron triangle wouldn't function without outside money from powerful private institutions, it wouldn't function if bureucrats had greater induvidual responsibility, and also, I believe in a decentralized government and low bureocracy: Such a racket wouldn't form in a highly democratic decision structure. I mean, the iron triangle is formed by various factors, including broad things like the intellectual culture and mainstream doctrine, both of which are extremely important factors in this system just as they were important in the soviet government.

Actually, what is your arguement?
 
Because I'm lazy. I refuse to work, period. I simply live off everybody else's labor.
That would be boring, wouldn't it? You'd perhaps find a hobby to pass the time- art, photography, music, reading, watching films. Perhaps the hobby might end up being a productive thing for others. Think- if you spent all day watching television you'd soon become something of an expert- and why not use your expertise to work at a TV station? It wouldn't even seem like a job.


If there is no welfare check and no currency, how do you distribute goods? When BasketCase walks up to the food dispensary and asks for his allotment, how do you determine whether he's entitled to it?
Denying someone food is akin to murder. Needless to say it's highly coercive to expect people to work or die. But here's the deal- working under anarchism would not be a terrible thing. It would be more entertaining to get out and maybe interact with people on a non-hiearchical basis than sit at home doing nothing. People who didn't work despite being able to would be uncommon.
 
The iron triangle wouldn't function without outside money from powerful private institutions, it wouldn't function if bureucrats had greater induvidual responsibility, and also, I believe in a decentralized government and low bureocracy: Such a racket wouldn't form in a highly democratic decision structure. I mean, the iron triangle is formed by various factors, including broad things like the intellectual culture and mainstream doctrine, both of which are extremely important factors in this system just as they were important in the soviet government.

Actually, what is your arguement?

It's too idealistic to assume that beaurocracy can be more efficient when it is rational for them to look for a constitiency that is not their natural one for the sake of their own power.

Bureaucrats are still an organization much like the rest of government and corporations. What makes you think that they cannot lust power, or more fundamentally, have a self-interest, either? I mean, it's not like you are going to get people to like beurocracy; hell, disliking it is probably the only thing that I can think of that unites most americans, why Reagan was elected and stuff, precisely because of the problem that they still are fundamentally part of the system.

How can you have a highly decentralized structure that is not fundamentally in a way a large government? Decentralization doesn't mean that government is fundamentally smaller, just that it's spread out in different levels. How can you work to make this system work when the mainstream ideology of America today is fundamentally against your solution?

It's really just the main problem I have with libertarian socialist stuff. It's incredible when it comes to idealism, and is quite internally consistent, but crap when it comes to realism.
 
Here's a question I've been meaning to ask the Commies in here. Advance warning: this question is a booby trap.

Suppose we all did live in a Communist state. Perhaps the Communist Federation of Cyberspace (CFC). :D

In this Communist state, you have a guy named BasketCase. He's not only a complete slacker, he's a crook. He doesn't have a job and never did. His monthly Welfare check provides all the money he needs for food and rent. When he gets injured, he strolls over to the free-medical-care hospital. But BasketCase does not work; he does not contribute anything to society.

The question: what does the Communist system (or the honest working-class citizens in it) do about this?

You get what you deserve.

You don't work very hard and put in minimum supposrt to the community. You should be refused some of the higher up 'luxuries' that promote further laziness.

Seeing as you feel the minimum is acceptable you are to be givin the minimum ammount of quality food. You should be refused things such as game consules and you could probably be given the least quality housing.

Of course, enforcing these measures is a completly diffrent story, this is all just my opinion and I believe its a damn good alternative to the Gulag.
 
So in other words, everyone should be allowed to earn according to their abilities and desires to work? Well that sounds an awful lot like a system we have in the U.S.
 
So in other words, everyone should be allowed to earn according to their abilities and desires to work? Well that sounds an awful lot like a system we have in the U.S.

I believe my own idea far from that of the USA's.

Explain to me how they are similar then I will try my best to explain further.
 
Communism is about greed. Its about people wanting more than they deserve, and using force to take what they want from other people who happen to have more than them.

So, the factory worker deserves lesser money working hard, recieving permanent damages to his body, than the boss sitting in his office drinking coffee, reading newspaper and getting all the profit?
 
Explain to me how they are similar then I will try my best to explain further.

You get what you deserve.

Ok.

You don't work very hard and put in minimum supposrt to the community. You should be refused some of the higher up 'luxuries' that promote further laziness.

Right. Now, in a capitalist world (which we already have):

You don't work hard at your job. Therefore, you don't make a lot of money. You are refused some of the higher up luxuries that promote further laziness because of the lack of money you have.

Seeing as you feel the minimum is acceptable you are to be givin the minimum ammount of quality food. You should be refused things such as game consules and you could probably be given the least quality housing.

Since you feel that the minimum is acceptable, you live off welfare and are given scraps of food and refused more luxuries and you might live in one of those overnight shelters.

Of course, enforcing these measures is a completly diffrent story, this is all just my opinion and I believe its a damn good alternative to the Gulag.

And money enforces all of these measures.

So, the factory worker deserves lesser money working hard, recieving permanent damages to his body, than the boss sitting in his office drinking coffee, reading newspaper and getting all the profit?

The boss probably fronted some of his own money and risked his well-being on this capital venture. Plus, bosses don't sit in offices and drink coffee and read the newspaper. They work with their minds. This is what separates the blue collars from the white collars; the better jobs tend to be done with the mind. And that's why they get paid more.
 
Perhaps I was misunderstood...

The ammount of money recieved does not change, but in the case of the lazy worker he is given the option of quality or guanity.

He will be payed the same ammount but his access to said luxuries will be limited. He will be able to buy a home for himself (and, if he weren't so lazy it could be fixed up if he were willing to put the effort into the matter)
 
Perhaps I was misunderstood...

The ammount of money recieved does not change, but in the case of the lazy worker he is given the option of quality or guanity.

He will be payed the same ammount but his access to said luxuries will be limited. He will be able to buy a home for himself (and, if he weren't so lazy it could be fixed up if he were willing to put the effort into the matter)

So what, now people have to look people up in a database to see if he's "qualified" to enjoy luxuries? What if the government arbitrarily limits a person's access to said luxuries because he was a political dissenter?

Why can't we just use money to determine this? It's so much easier. Think: Occam's Razor.
 
So what, now people have to look people up in a database to see if he's "qualified" to enjoy luxuries? What if the government arbitrarily limits a person's access to said luxuries because he was a political dissenter?.

As I said I am currently not sure what measures would be used to enforce this scenario...

Why can't we just use money to determine this? It's so much easier. Think: Occam's Razor.
Easier isn't always better.
 
Easier is better in the sense that it's actually feasible. :lol:
 
[I thought it was a good idea. Can't expect everyone to agree I suppose.
 
[I thought it was a good idea. Can't expect everyone to agree I suppose.

Political doctrines exist for what a society can be like for practical purposes, not theoretical purposes. We'd all love utopias, but the methods that are required to actually create one in a non-voluntary manner (since you arn't going to get people in power to voluntarily give up their power) would be fundamentally immoral. You need to take into account humanity as an ends, not just a means. I distinguish myself on what society "ought" to be and what society "must" be - in the former, which is dedicated solely for myself, I'm quite technocratic and authoritarian; in the latter, I'm something between a social liberal and a libertarian.
 
You get what you deserve.

You don't work very hard and put in minimum supposrt to the community. You should be refused some of the higher up 'luxuries' that promote further laziness.

Seeing as you feel the minimum is acceptable you are to be givin the minimum ammount of quality food. You should be refused things such as game consules and you could probably be given the least quality housing.

Of course, enforcing these measures is a completly diffrent story, this is all just my opinion and I believe its a damn good alternative to the Gulag.
You get what you deserve. People deserve what they earn.
 
As I sit here reading, just a few points float into my brain...

1) It is perfectly possible for money to still be around in a true Communism. Instead of it being it being the be-all and end-all for life, it will instead simply be a ration ticket for goods and services. It will be valued by how much it costs to produce, rather than how much capitalism will get away with charging. If I want to spend my £x on subsriptions to the Adult Channel, cider and kebabs, I can. My call. A tool itself is not evil - only the ends it is used for. Money is a tool like no other.

2) 'People are paid what they are worth' - No offence to any intended, but I now need a big bucket. Who do you think values people's occupations - the capitalist elite does! Some of the highest paid occupaitons are ones which directly serve the elite - the lawyers to protect their power and wealth, and the bankers and stockbrokers to make this wealth grow larger. It's not like they are completly usless, it's just that there are far too many of them for the some 85% of the opressed people.

3) This assumption that there are no lazy people in capitalist society. There are! The idle rich is still around. George W. Bush is a good example of this. There is also lazy people in all groups, from the unemployed worker hiding from their ReStart officer to the career jobsworth working the bare minamum to avoid being fired. The capitalist society can carry them, a true communist one can too.

4) Yes, the USA is elegitarian. I've heard this many times. Shame it is not really true anymore. The elite has become self-replicating, class divisions (as a true Marxist, I hold that race is usally an issue of class in disguise) have remained stubbornly strong and income disparity is increasing. The UK is not, so I am told by popular culture. Wrong. The land of Kings and Earls has the same amount of social moblity as the Land of the Free, and inter-racial links are on the whole better in the UK than the US. This is not opinion, but facts. Details on request.

5) It's almost impossible to read Marx. I've been dealing with him for years now and it's still like reading Chaucer. And I've been educated in Politics, Economics and Sociology to a good level. I personally recommend the Iron Heel by Jack London as a primer. It's not too long or difficult, and it expains a hell of a lot of Marx by only mentioning him once.

6) BasketCase - completly correct.:clap: A Co-Op is nearly identical to a traditional corperation. Nothing wrong with that. A corperation looks after it's shareholders. Period. They may say they look after other groups and people, but only because it is good for their bottom lines in the end. A co-op (or worker's council or whatever you call it) is just the same but it now looks after the public at large. New driver, same engine. Again, tool and uses.

7) Every capitalist elite starts out with a few self-made men. They pass their wealth and advantages to their children, and a few more self-made men join their 'club'. A few generations pass, with this happening. This group beomes completly seperate with the rest of society, and finally becomes large enough to become self-replicating, actully needing no new blood from below. A few will fall out or leap out, and a few will wiggle in to the elite group, but it will become even harder to do so every generation, as it hardens. The US is again an exellent example of this. For resoning why the elite does this, read 1984 by George Orwell. I can't be bothered.

8) I think I agree with Wob Shop on the Ronco™ Compact Showtime Rotisserie. The food does look tasty, though. Naught against the guy though, unless he delibleratly designed it to fall apart or blow up 45 seconds after the warranty expires. Then he should be put up against the wall. But think - what would happen if every family in the world demanded one? Or every adult on earth demanded a new car every three years? It would be an utter enviomental catasphophy! It is phyically impossible for the whole world's populations to have the same standard of living as the US.
 
So, @LightFang, the people who doesn't have extremely high chances to die of a badly paid work are all right to be paid higher, because they are smart?
 
Very good post, I basically agree on the whole of it, but on a few things I have to make a dissent though.
As I sit here reading, just a few points float into my brain...

1) It is perfectly possible for money to still be around in a true Communism. Instead of it being it being the be-all and end-all for life, it will instead simply be a ration ticket for goods and services. It will be valued by how much it costs to produce, rather than how much capitalism will get away with charging. If I want to spend my £x on subsriptions to the Adult Channel, cider and kebabs, I can. My call. A tool itself is not evil - only the ends it is used for. Money is a tool like no other.
Agree.

2) 'People are paid what they are worth' - No offence to any intended, but I now need a big bucket. Who do you think values people's occupations - the capitalist elite does! Some of the highest paid occupaitons are ones which directly serve the elite - the lawyers to protect their power and wealth, and the bankers and stockbrokers to make this wealth grow larger. It's not like they are completly usless, it's just that there are far too many of them for the some 85% of the opressed people.
:goodjob:

3) This assumption that there are no lazy people in capitalist society. There are! The idle rich is still around. George W. Bush is a good example of this. There is also lazy people in all groups, from the unemployed worker hiding from their ReStart officer to the career jobsworth working the bare minamum to avoid being fired. The capitalist society can carry them, a true communist one can too.
Of course.

4) Yes, the USA is elegitarian. I've heard this many times. Shame it is not really true anymore. The elite has become self-replicating, class divisions (as a true Marxist, I hold that race is usally an issue of class in disguise) have remained stubbornly strong and income disparity is increasing.
As far as I can see, it is a myth that USA was ever egalitarian. Heck, the country was founded by wealthy slave owners and grew powerful by genociding other people.
And the argument about class is a good and important one.

The UK is not, so I am told by popular culture. Wrong. The land of Kings and Earls has the same amount of social moblity as the Land of the Free, and inter-racial links are on the whole better in the UK than the US. This is not opinion, but facts. Details on request.
I would also be grateful for getting saome facts about the myth of social mobility in the USA.[/QUOTE]
Here is a request: I would be very grateful if you could provide me with more facts than I already hold on this topic.

So, so far so good, but so comes a few problematic points:
5) It's almost impossible to read Marx. I've been dealing with him for years now and it's still like reading Chaucer. And I've been educated in Politics, Economics and Sociology to a good level. I personally recommend the Iron Heel by Jack London as a primer. It's not too long or difficult, and it expains a hell of a lot of Marx by only mentioning him once.
Here I must respectfully disagree.
Marx is not at all that difficult, and neither is Chaucer for that matter. But the Iron Heel is a great novel.

6) BasketCase - completly correct.:clap: A Co-Op is nearly identical to a traditional corperation. Nothing wrong with that. A corperation looks after it's shareholders. Period. They may say they look after other groups and people, but only because it is good for their bottom lines in the end. A co-op (or worker's council or whatever you call it) is just the same but it now looks after the public at large. New driver, same engine. Again, tool and uses.
Just a small warning. Be careful with whom you agree sometimes.Remember what happens if you embrace a pig.
I think it is doubtful and misleading to compare shareholders with members in a commune, and thus can't agree at all on this.

7) Every capitalist elite starts out with a few self-made men. They pass their wealth and advantages to their children, and a few more self-made men join their 'club'. A few generations pass, with this happening. This group beomes completly seperate with the rest of society, and finally becomes large enough to become self-replicating, actully needing no new blood from below. A few will fall out or leap out, and a few will wiggle in to the elite group, but it will become even harder to do so every generation, as it hardens. The US is again an exellent example of this. For resoning why the elite does this, read 1984 by George Orwell. I can't be bothered.
While the argument is a good one, it might be valuable to discuss if every capitalist elite really sets out with a few self-made people, when seen in a historical context.

8) I think I agree with Wob Shop on the Ronco™ Compact Showtime Rotisserie. The food does look tasty, though. Naught against the guy though, unless he delibleratly designed it to fall apart or blow up 45 seconds after the warranty expires. Then he should be put up against the wall. But think - what would happen if every family in the world demanded one? Or every adult on earth demanded a new car every three years? It would be an utter enviomental catasphophy! It is phyically impossible for the whole world's populations to have the same standard of living as the US.
Agree again.
 
In this Communist state, you have a guy named BasketCase. He's not only a complete slacker, he's a crook. He doesn't have a job and never did. His monthly Welfare check provides all the money he needs for food and rent. When he gets injured, he strolls over to the free-medical-care hospital. But BasketCase does not work; he does not contribute anything to society.

The question: what does the Communist system (or the honest working-class citizens in it) do about this?
We let you get cheap treatment for your depression.

Any idea how . .. .. .. . life is when you're long-term unemployed?
 
Lemme ask you this: the first guy to become a wealthy capitalist couldn't possibly have had wealthy capitalist parents to get him his education. So how did the first wealthy capitalists come about? Was it the chicken or the egg???

They became rich by obtaining control of shared assets.

Consider all the Russian billionnaires who bribed officials
to transfer industries to them for a mere pittance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom