A question to Communists:

[amadeus]

You said that you'd terminate a salesperson if he is making bad sales.

Yes, if that person is a liability to the organization, I'd have no qualms about terminating his employment.

I disagree, the business should provide health insurance benefits and retirement plans, to all of their employees, not just the full time elite (or in some companies, the part time and full time elite).

That's an unreasonable request; should part-time jobs at McDonald's offer 401k plans to high school sophomores? You'd better have a few Franklins out the next time you drop by to pick up your Big Mac, then.

So you have no quarlms tossing that employer into the streets without any means to pay off his or her debits? Regardless if it's a chromic problem and liability, the individual shall remain in their position.

There was a country that tried this once. Actually, it was a whole "bloc" of countries. Can you guess what happened?

Oh they will, all they have to do is go on strike.

But they are still negotiating out of the interest of themselves and their business rather than that of the strikers. You can't force someone to care about an issue or a person.

In a planned economy in Communism, the potental employers are obliged to hire me in anyway.

Yes, and look how their economy turned out.

Proofs that Capitalism is just a cold hearted being. However, it should be the responsibility for them to give the worker benifits. How do you expect an employer to pay off medical bills and other medical related costs without any help from medical insurance? How do you expect an employer to buy medical insurance if he or she has low pay?

I don't expect them to, but I do expect of them to be reasonable about the way they conduct themselves. Not too far back, I lacked insurance, yet I survived and even got a bit healthier when I did.

The interest of the business is to provide for the social good, not ignoring them and treating their employees as just space heaters that can be replaced at whim.

Well, then I can only say that you're living up to your reputation for being erratic about your thoughts on economic policy.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes, if that person is a liability to the organization, I'd have no qualms about terminating his employment.

That's a cold hearted thing to do. But I guess the all mighty dollar is more important than the employee's wellbeing .

That's an unreasonable request; should part-time jobs at McDonald's offer 401k plans to high school sophomores? You'd better have a few Franklins out the next time you drop by to pick up your Big Mac, then.

McDonalds makes plenty of money to offer benifits and 401k plans to them. And No, I'd wont a $100 burger (But thats not my concern since I dont eat at McDonalds anyway).

There was a country that tried this once. Actually, it was a whole "bloc" of countries. Can you guess what happened?

The poison of Capitalism seeped into their countries.

Yes, and look how their economy turned out.

China, North Korea, and Cuba are still going strong .

I don't expect them to, but I do expect of them to be reasonable about the way they conduct themselves. Not too far back, I lacked insurance, yet I survived and even got a bit healthier when I did.

Not everyone is healthy as you are, accidents happen as well too.

Well, then I can only say that you're living up to your reputation for being erratic about your thoughts on economic policy.

I'm sorry, but I don't have any erratic thoughts on economic policies nor do I have a reputation ya Capitalist . So this is your new tactic is attacking Communists and Socialists? Calling them out having erratic about thoughts on economic polices? .

I gave up on this whole nonsense of Captialism when I could not advance in the company due because of a disiplanary action placed on me that prevents me from transfering to a better paying full time job within the company for a year.

 

[GenMarshall]

Delete me, double post due to laggy forum

 

[mdwh]

I don't know what you mean by saying that I advocate exploiting workers. I ask that you explain that in more depth.

I think he's asking, how do you expect to get a house and land without (a) paying for it, or (b) taking other people's materials and/or having them build it for you.

That's exactly what the slick weasels at the Conservative Party info table told me. I don't think that it is as simple as you say to "start your own business-" you need capital and things that

So how would you get this capital under anarchism?

people born into the richer strata of society have more readily than those born into the working class.

This isn't a capitalism vs anarchism issue, as this problem would still exist under anarchism. In fact, it would be more of a problem - at least with a state, you can have things like inheritance tax (indeed a 100% inheritance tax would be one way of solving it). Inheritance tax seems to be unpopular though (see the other thread on that).

And even if I had my own business I would still be exploiting someone else's labour

So now working is exploitation? Can you explain how your society would work?

If anarchy doesn't even allow people working together, because even someone who believes in anarchism would end up exploiting them, I can't see how anything can work without this "exploitation".

I guess you could have a society where everyone works for themselves - most of civilization was like this for thousands of years, but it means most people's time is used up just growing your own food.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't know what you mean by saying that I advocate exploiting workers. I ask that you explain that in more depth.

Well, you do need to feed and house yourself, don't you? And you did go on at some length, in an earlier post, about how employers exploit your needs to force you to work for them.

So, how does Wob Shop get food and a house? By your own rules, you can't force a farmer to farm for you; you can't force a carpenter to build you a house. So what do you do?

You have to offer them money or other goods. Regardless of what actual stuff you offer, the basic concept remains the same. And pow, just like that the roles are reversed--the farmer and carpenter are being forced to "sell their bodies", as you rather dismally put it.

Do you have a third way to entice a farmer and carpenter to do stuff for you? If so, by all means post it.

You have some misplaced and truly wrong conceptions of what anarchism is. It is understandable, that's how the bourgeoisie media functions, by spreading falsehoods. Anarchism is not the absence of rules, it is the opposition to all forms of hierarchy and coercion.

How do you prevent evil people form imposing heirarchies, from coercing others?

By force. In other words, coercion. Same result again--anarchy, by your own definitions, is not possible.

Here:
For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.

Are you willing to overthrow said authority even if a majority of the voters around you want it? If so, then what you are doing is imposing your will on the majority by force. In which case it's you who is now the authority. Or, if you do not overthrow it, then that authority is imposed on you. Either way, authority must exist.

Same result again. Anarchy is NOT POSSIBLE.

If we all refused to help one another we, as a species, would die a miserable death.

I need you to help me out by repairing my car. I promise I'll pay you for it......honest.

See? Trust alone isn't sufficient. If you help me, and I refuse to help you, you die a miserable death and I don't. Anarchy profits the smart ones (i.e. the thieves) at the expense of the honest. It DOES NOT WORK.

Anarchism means the equal right of all individuals to develop without anyone infringeing upon that desire by exploiting, ruling, or harming them. So your tirade about Mother Nature is false- we do believe in rules, only rules that are made by all people on an equal footing in the interests of all and not just some.

Once again--NOT POSSIBLE. It's impossible for "all" the people to make the rules, because they disagree on what those rules should be. The people can't agree on how health care should be structured; how much military power we need; how mind-altering drugs should be dealt with; what religion we should practice. Hell, I could go on listing stuff until the CFC server crashes, but you get the basic idea. No matter what decision you make on any of those items, some people will have voted against them.

In short, some fraction of the voters will ALWAYS have laws imposed upon them against their will. Always.

Your definition of anarchy is something impossible to create in the real world. I have demonstrated this in about 20 different ways now. Need another twenty? I've got 'em. Sing it and I'll bring it.

 

[holy king]

i guess all of you have worked through this: http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Capital-...bs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199280760&sr=8-5,
or else you wouldnt be able to discuss communism, would you?

and i'm sure basket case has read some of those:
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mi...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199280979&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/What-Property...bs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199280979&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Anar...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199281022&sr=1-2
or else he couldnt just start to bash anarchism, since he wouldnt know anything about anarchist theories, right?

 

[Newbunkle]

So you have no qualms of underpaying someone who hold a Bachelor's Degree?

I would offer them what their skills are worth to me. They can either accept or not.

People will naturally whine that they are undervalued, but perhaps it's them who has the wrong idea. Maybe they value themselves too highly?

However, I expect more than just getting paid. I expect health benifits, retirement plan, job security,

Those bonuses are nice if you can get them, but an employer isn't a charity. Leave welfare to the government.

and oppertunities for advancement. I dont see any opportunities for advancement after being disciplined (have to wait one year to have that discipline cleared) thus cant transfer from a Permtemp possition to a Full Time.

What did you do to get disciplined? Maybe another employee would have acted differently? (and may be more deserving of advancement?)

I would rather have a choice of working than to be unemployed.

Yes, that would be nice, and society can loo after people who can't find work (but not the work-shy). Again, I'd never advocate total capitalism.

I don't see how that is far worse for you. Being given food, cloating, and shelter should be a blessing. Less impact on your income and debts.

You're assuming it would be free, and the cost of providing this stuff wouldn't be deducted from their employee's wages. I would rather be able to choose for myself. Something cheap if I need it, or something nice if I want to invest the cash in it.

Provided you have enough money .

Why wouldn't I have the money if I work for it? I started work in junior level office positions, and I've never been short of cash. I don't spend beyond my means though.

Neather do I, but I dont see the good in the cold hearted Beaurocratic beast of Captialism.

I don't see the good having my rights violated.

However, you are still at the mercy of your employer. He or she can fire you (or in soft terms, lay you off).

If the company is doing well, and I'm a good employee I wouldn't need to worry about it.

Plus, I can also leave them in the lurch by quitting my job if I don't like it (as I have done before), leaving them with a shortage of labour. It can take some time to place an ad for the job, collect applications, arrange interviews, and wait for their employee to work through any notice they had to give to their other employer.

Provided you have enough .

Well, if I didn't make enough I could get benefits from my government. I don't overspend though, so I've never had that problem.

---

In case they were missed, I'd also like to re-post these questions about commune-life, plus a couple more I thought of (the answers would be interesting):


I don't know what you would use for currency (if any). How do convert the work you do into the things you want? Do you have to put requests in to the community at large for the specific rewards you want? If I wanted my own PC for reasons of privacy (if I wanted to chat to friends on the net, and send/receive photo's) would the community get me one? Or, would I be restricted to a communal PC, where everyone might have access to my messages and pictures?

What if a member has family or friends abroad and wants to visit them? If they can't save up their own money for a plane ticket, how will the community help them get there, and what will they do for food and shelter when they arrive? Rely on the charity of their relatives? What if they want to visit a place where they don't know anybody?

Also, work without a boss doing what exactly? What kind of lifestyle are you talking about? Is there no kind of authority of any kind? No experts giving the orders? Who decides who does what, or is it a free-for-all? What if vital tasks aren't being performed? Do you bring in workers from outside, or force community members to do it? If you bring the labour in, what is their incentive?

Fast forward a generation or two...What if your young people want to leave because they don't like it? How can they move into another society with no way of supporting themselves? What would your old people do with nobody to do the chores?

What about the disabled and elderly? If you set up a voluntary commune, would you turn these people away? What if they applied in droves? How would you handle having such a large population that couldn't work?

Do your kids go to school, and who decides what they learn? Will they be able to learn advanced skills like medicine? What if you can't find anyone with the knowledge?

If all your farmers think they can get a better deal elsewhere, or in another commune, how would you entice them to stay?

 

[JerichoHill]

If I cannot provide that service, I should not be terminated from the position. Workers should be protected from unjust terminations.

So if you can't do your job, you shouldn't be fired? I mean, I'm all in favor of laws making termination illegal for things like race, gender, age, disability, etc etc (legal standards) but if you just don't perform well on your job, how is firing you then unjust?

And we're not talking about bad performance for a week. At least a month

 

[JerichoHill]

If social mobility is that easy then why are there 37 million people in America below the poverty line and only 3 million millionaires?
--80% of millionaires are new (ie first generation) in the US

--50% of millionaires are immigrants to the US.


There is quite a bit of fluidity in American economic strata. A person in the US can easily go from upper-middle to below povery and back to middle class within 2 years.

A better statistic would be to see how many Americans are permanently residing under the poverty line. However, the best I can find is the 2006 ACS survey of poverty status in the last 12 months by educational attainment:

10% of Americans were under the poverty line in the last twelve months according to the US Census's 2006 American Community Survey


1% of Americans with a college degree were under the poverty line in the last twelve months according to the US Census's 2006 American Community Survey

Of those under the poverty line in the last twelve months, 36% did not attain an high school degree. 33% had a high school degree or its equivalent.

 

[cubsfan6506]

No one that currently visits this forumn is that bad off because of capitalism. Cough Civgeneral Cough. Those who are really negatively affected are those who work i sweat shops. I am certainly not negatively affected by capitalism.

 

[amadeus]

That's a cold hearted thing to do. But I guess the all mighty dollar is more important than the employee's wellbeing .

They aren't looking out for the dollar, they're looking out for their own wellbeing.

McDonalds makes plenty of money to offer benifits and 401k plans to them. And No, I'd wont a $100 burger (But thats not my concern since I dont eat at McDonalds anyway).

McDonald's wouldn't be the only company affected, and it would impact you.

The poison of Capitalism seeped into their countries.

If only we could return Slovenia and Estonia to the glory of their socialist past, right?

China, North Korea, and Cuba are still going strong .

I can't tell if you're kidding or trying to be serious.

Not everyone is healthy as you are, accidents happen as well too.

You'll be treated in an emergency even if you don't have insurance, so that's out the window.

I'm sorry, but I don't have any erratic thoughts on economic policies nor do I have a reputation ya Capitalist . So this is your new tactic is attacking Communists and Socialists? Calling them out having erratic about thoughts on economic polices? .

24 and prefer capitalism.

I gave up on this whole nonsense of Captialism when I could not advance in the company due because of a disiplanary action placed on me that prevents me from transfering to a better paying full time job within the company for a year.

That's because you should have been disciplined! You just got up and left your post without notifying your supervisor or applying for that time in advance. Unless there was some kind of horrific tragedy, there is no excuse for your leaving so abruptly.

 

[amadeus]

No one that currently visits this forumn is that bad off because of capitalism. Cough Civgeneral Cough. Those who are really negatively affected are those who work i sweat shops. I am certainly not negatively affected by capitalism.

Sweatshops are a necessary stage in the development of the advanced industrial economy, cubsfan. The U.S. and Europe had them in the 19th century, many East Asian countries had them in the 20th century, and now other countries have them in this century.

Not too long ago, people associated sweatshop labor with Taiwan. When you think of Taiwan today, do you think of a crowded textile mill, or a high-tech service economy?

 

[Phlegmak]

I gave up on this whole nonsense of Captialism when I could not advance in the company due because of a disiplanary action placed on me that prevents me from transfering to a better paying full time job within the company for a year.

It sounds like you did something wrong. How is it that your lack of advancement is due to Capitalism? Sounds like you did something wrong and now your bosses or whoever rightly don't trust you. Based on the incredibly small amount of information you provided, it looks like you got what you deserved.

 

[GenMarshall]

I would offer them what their skills are worth to me. They can either accept or not.

People will naturally whine that they are undervalued, but perhaps it's them who has the wrong idea. Maybe they value themselves too highly?

Perhaps they value themselves rightly. Would a person who is flipping burgers and holds a batchellor's Degree would want a higher pay? More than likely, but the greedy Capitalist wont pay him what he is worth and thus would leave the job for a better one.

Those bonuses are nice if you can get them, but an employer isn't a charity. Leave welfare to the government.

The employer should be the charity. The welfare should be in place in BOTH the government and the employer.

What did you do to get disciplined? Maybe another employee would have acted differently? (and may be more deserving of advancement?)

Left work early to attend a test that was important. Even put in a Personal Time Out for it (but it was denied), even though I have informed them about it. I was charged for work/job abandonment because The supervisor I was assigned to could not grant me an Early Time Out/Leave because I was an esential employee at the time.

You're assuming it would be free, and the cost of providing this stuff wouldn't be deducted from their employee's wages. I would rather be able to choose for myself. Something cheap if I need it, or something nice if I want to invest the cash in it.

Why would you rather choose for yourself? It's much better to just give it to you at the cost of the employer.

Why wouldn't I have the money if I work for it? I started work in junior level office positions, and I've never been short of cash. I don't spend beyond my means though.

Good for you. What does that mean to me? Absolutely nothing cept jealous that you have a better paying full time job with benefits. You got it, and I have to wait a year till the discipline is cleared off my record before I can transfer to a better paying and full time job with benifits.

Capitalism, has left me

I don't see the good having my rights violated.

In Communism and Socialism, your rights are not violated.

If the company is doing well, and I'm a good employee I wouldn't need to worry about it.

In the eyes of the employer, no employee is good in a Capitalistic society.

Well, if I didn't make enough I could get benefits from my government. I don't overspend though, so I've never had that problem.

That is if your government is not run by Republicans and taking out such benifits from the government. Also, you have to be qualified (IE be in a specific income range) for government benifits. I'd rather have my employer give me the benifits than the government.

If all your farmers think they can get a better deal elsewhere, or in another commune, how would you entice them to stay?

There wount be any other communes

They aren't looking out for the dollar, they're looking out for their own wellbeing.

It seems to me that they are only looking out for the dollar. How on earth are they looking out for their own well being if they treat their employers like dirt?

McDonald's wouldn't be the only company affected, and it would impact you.

How would it impact me? It woulnt.

If only we could return Slovenia and Estonia to the glory of their socialist past, right?

More like the golry of USSR's socialist past.

I can't tell if you're kidding or trying to be serious.

Being serious here.

You'll be treated in an emergency even if you don't have insurance, so that's out the window.

Sorry, not out the window. You still have the bills to pay for the emergency.

24 and prefer capitalism.

Nice try, that was before I found out that my possition as a Permtemp did not grant any benifits and way before that I was prevented transfer to a better paying possition after I was disciplined for leaving work early to attend to a test (EVEN after I informed them before hand!)

That's because you should have been disciplined! You just got up and left your post without notifying your supervisor or applying for that time in advance. Unless there was some kind of horrific tragedy, there is no excuse for your leaving so abruptly.

However, I shoulnt be disciplined. I didint just got up and left my post. I informed my supervisors and managers that I had an important test that day.

I guess you have no quarlms disciplining workers who have an important test that they have to attend to. I guess so since it appears that Capitalists care more about dollars and business than they do of other worker's sceduals outside of work.

It sounds like you did something wrong. How is it that your lack of advancement is due to Capitalism? Sounds like you did something wrong and now your bosses or whoever rightly don't trust you. Based on the incredibly small amount of information you provided, it looks like you got what you deserved.

However, I didint do anything wrong. I simply left work early to attend a test that I had to take. It's not something that I deserve.

 

[amadeus]

Being serious here.

Then there's no sense talking to you.

 

[GenMarshall]

Then there's no sense talking to you.

Why? Just because I rejected Capitalism?

I don't see how good Capitalism is to me.

What good has Capitalism done for me?

 

[Godwynn]

More like the golry of USSR's socialist past.

What good has Capitalism done for me?

Comparing capitalism to the "golry of the USSR's socialist past" I would say it has given you enough food.

 

[kulade]

More like the golry of USSR's socialist past.

I'm glad someone here understands what true glory is. There's nothing more glorious than a nation whose people are standing in breadlines, with the agrarian class resorting to cannibalism while the supreme ruling party devotes the entirety of the national resources to building weapons of mass destruction to promote global fear amongst the opposers of the Revolution. Never in all time have any people been more happy. I'm sure the prisoners in the frigid concentration camps of Siberia were elated, thinking, "God, I'm I glad I don't live in one of those countries with economic freedom! Surrendering the entire national economy to the government was the best decision Mother Russia ever made!"

 

[LightFang]

CG, you are one of those people who believe in a nanny state, i.e. that you can do no wrong and obviously the big bad businessmen have exploited you. Obviously the state should provide you with a job with money that you "deserve" (what does this entail, a six-digit salary and free housing and you only have to work Wednesday for six hours?)

You didn't have to take this vaguely defined "test". The employer doesn't have to let you do that, you know.

In either case you've flipflopped so many times in the past, and your position on economics has changed as well. You used to be a rabid socialist/communist until you got that casino job or whatever. Then you proudly proclaimed to me, "Lighty, I love capitalism now!" That is until now. Now you're back to being socialist again. I don't understand how your core principles can change so much depending on your position. It's like, you expect the state to provide for you until you get what you want, then you want the state to stop doing it so you can get what you want.

I expect I'll be kicked in #fiftychat for this but I will accept that. It's my freedom of choice.

 

[Godwynn]

More like the golry of USSR's socialist past.

Oh yeah the glory of their economy...