A question to Communists:

[uat2d]

communism is wrong because Stalin

 

[Swedishguy]

communism is wrong because Stalin

I beg your pardon?

 

[Traitorfish]

So, how do we prevent people from being enslaved into a life of servitude??? Simple: allow them to choose their own profession. Oh, wait--capitalism already does that.

But in capitalism, economic background determines the level of education a person has access to, thereby determining their career options. Sure, the middle class can usually choose their own profession, but the rest of the world isn't always so lucky.

 

[Newbunkle]

I hate the "capitalism is about greed" argument. Anyone can make up a trash like that. Try these:

Communism is about envy. Its about people who already have the necessities of life, looking at people who have more than them and turning into little green-eyed monsters.

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.

Communism is about sloth. It creates a situation where people don't have to work as hard as they can or take responsibility for their lives, because everyone else will rush to their aid.

 

[bathsheba666]

I hate the "capitalism is about greed" argument. Anyone can make up a trash like that. Try these:

Communism is about envy. Its about people who already have the necessities of life, looking at people who have more than them and turning into little green-eyed monsters.

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.

Communism is about sloth. It creates a situation where people don't have to work as hard as they can or take responsibility for their lives, because everyone else will rush to their aid.

The fact that you hate it is mildly interesting.

Describing it as trash does not make it untrue or invalid.

The rest, as you admit, you are making up.

 

[Richard Cribb]

The fact that you hate it is mildly interesting.

Describing it as trash does not make it untrue or invalid.

The rest, as you admit, you are making up.

Well said, except for the first phrase.
The fact that this particular individual hates it is totally uninteresting.
Except for that, the continuation of this thread seems to suggest that Tocqueville's description of the American society is still valid, at least when the little paladins of plutocracy is concerned.

 

[BasketCase]

But in capitalism, economic background determines the level of education a person has access to, thereby determining their career options.

Odd. I myself met a large number of students who put themselves through college with NO help from the parents.

You lose, thank you for playing. Please try again.


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???

So, obviously, it must be possible for people without wealthy parents to break the education barrier and get into the upper class. Classic existence proof. The proof doesn't show us how, only that it's possible.

So, if you're not a wealthy capitalist, you can't blame your parents for being in the wrong class--the real reason is, you're just a sissy. Getting into the upper class takes a lot of work; you're not willing to do the work.

 

[Wob Shop]

Odd. I myself met a large number of students who put themselves through college with NO help from the parents.

Watch as student loans eat them alive. Most people will end up in debt, generally.

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???

Before capitalism was feudalism. A merchant class sprung up to counter the power of the aristocracy and in many ways it was better than fuedalism. But there ought to be something better than capitism also.

 

[Princeps]

I hate the "capitalism is about greed" argument. Anyone can make up a trash like that.

What do you mean trash?

It's not trash, it's institutional analysis, whereas your attacks on socialism are nothing but subjective believes. It's not controversial that capitalism is about greed: the predominant institution of capitalism is the corporation. Corporations are by law defined as greedy.

 

[BasketCase]

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).

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?

 

[mdwh]

Well, we don't really have an example of a society where education has been entirely capitalist - so plenty of those people who become rich with poor backgrounds may have had state education.

On the other hand, there's no reason why a society has to be entirely capitalist or entirely socialist - the criticisms that Traitorfish gives are why capitalist countries still have a significant amount of state education. But that's not a criticism of capitalism as a whole, because it doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[BasketCase]

Watch as student loans eat them alive. Most people will end up in debt, generally.

Nope. Most of them did it via scholarships and side jobs. The campus did a lot to help out there--many of the on-campus jobs (in the bookstore, running the campus pizza parlor, running the pool hall) were filled by students.

Some of them did in fact go the student loan route. Some have already paid off their loans (I myself graduated around eight years ago, if that reference point helps). Some did in fact get themselves in financial trouble. But then, that's no different from Bank of America taking out a loan and then getting itself in a financial hole. And frankly no different from George Bush getting us in a financial hole. Handling a loan correctly takes fiscal responsibility. Whether you want to take out a loan--and from whom--is your choice. That's what freedom is all about. It must include the freedom to screw up.

 

[Bill3000]

I hate the "capitalism is about greed" argument. Anyone can make up a trash like that. Try these:

Huh?

The very idea that the corporation's only social responsibility is to give profits to its shareholders is the very essential component of capitalism. The argument is that such a self-interest thing would lead to better welfare overall. And that moral sentiments and self interest (which does not mean selfishness) would always lead to the same thing.

It is the very advantage of that counterintiutive reasoning which makes it appealing to, well, market fundamentalists.

 

[Wob Shop]

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).

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?

Your conceptions of communism stem from a stereotype. Please, read Kropotkin, Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta- hell, even Marx- before you make assumptions based on Reaganite propaganda. There is an entire strand of socialist theory- the anarchist current- that is very rarely mentioned today because of the loud-mouthed presence of state socialism. But it does exist and has done so for perhaps 360 years, when the Diggers and Levellers proposed a free society of common ownership. This is what I will attempt to describe for you.

Firstly there would be no "state." Secondly there would be no "welfare check" because there would be no currency. But we would deny no one the right to live or be healthy. If someone doesn't work they will not be forced to nor will they be starved into submission. But we would try to figure out why they didn't work. If they wanted self-employment they would be given it. If they wanted to work at something that under capitalism might be beyond their reach- they would be given every opportunity to acheive that goal. Think about it- how many people are on welfare because they will never work at anything and how many are on welfare because they cannot work at the job they truly desire?

 

[BasketCase]

But there ought to be something better than capitism also.

Maybe. Of course, the only way to know is to actually find it. Or, maybe capitalism is indeed the best way there is, and maybe we will spend an eternity searching in vain for something better.

Several times, in past CFC threads about Communism and Socialism, I tried actually walking the leftists in the thread through the process of changing the system. I went digging for specific things the socialists in the thread would change.

Every single time, the result was the same. Once I got them past the nifty slogans and actually got them to describe nitty-gritty details, the socialists always came up with processes and government bodies that were functionally identical to modern-day capitalism. For example, one guy said that instead of corporations, he would group laborers of various professions into "workers' federations". I went digging for details about what a "workers' federation" actually was (took a good deal of digging too), and the description I finally squeezed out of him was no different from a modern-day corporation.

The core of the problem is this: when all the workers in that "federation" all have an equal share in running the company, what you actually get is a group of people who control that federation--those who are not in that federation do not control it. And just like that, you've torpedoed the system by creating a body of authority--those people who have power over the federation. And you've got Microsoft all over again.

 

[Traitorfish]

Odd. I myself met a large number of students who put themselves through college with NO help from the parents.

You lose, thank you for playing. Please try again.

I'm not talking about working class western kids, I'm talking about those from countries were it is simply impossible for a disadvantaged person to achieve any significant level of education. What good is college if you can't even get a loan to pay for it yourself?
Besides, whether or not this is the case, it still means that those who put themselves through college suffer the long-term financial disadvantage of paying back substantial loans, one not shared by wealthier kids who's parents paid their way.

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???

That example only really works in a self-contained, pure free market universe, one where the capitalist class did not emerge over the course of centuries as an off-shoot of already wealthy merchant and land-owning classes, two classes with intertwined economic interests.
There was no "first wealthy capitalist", there was just a pillaging thug with an axe and a guy who sold him it.

So, if you're not a wealthy capitalist, you can't blame your parents for being in the wrong class--the real reason is, you're just a sissy. Getting into the upper class takes a lot of work; you're not willing to do the work.

Except that Social Darwinism only makes any sense in a universe where every human starts off on an equal level, as opposed to the real one, in which, as I've said, the economic background of he parents is a substantial factor, one which is, ultimately, determined by how good your ancestor was with a sword.

 

[BasketCase]

Firstly there would be no "state." Secondly there would be no "welfare check" because there would be no currency. But we would deny no one the right to live or be healthy. If someone doesn't work they will not be forced to nor will they be starved into submission. But we would try to figure out why they didn't work.

Because I'm lazy. I refuse to work, period. I simply live off everybody else's labor.

What do you do?

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?


Trust me, Wob--you don't want to go this route. I've done this many times, and had lots of practice in refining the trap that awaits you.

 

[Princeps]

No it is, simply, not. The bureaucracy which is run by the people during communism is not the problem. The problem is the numerous people in each part of the bureaucracy are normally pretty corrupt. That is the selfishness, not the bureaucracy that is a problem here.

Also, the actual production of the communist nation decreases terribly because people are too selfish to make an effort in it.

And don't say it was a dumb argument. That is the same as stating I am dumb, which is trolling.

Nonsense. According to this, none of our bureocracies would function: but they do. Corporate or public bureaucracies, when properly organized, do function suprisingly well as proven by an overwhelming amount of confirmed observations.

Now, induviduals maybe dishonest and greedy, however, in bureocratic roles they should be held accountable and their actions should be regulated.

 

[BasketCase]

I'm not talking about working class western kids, I'm talking about those from countries were it is simply impossible for a disadvantaged person to achieve any significant level of education.

DUDE. I have already covered this. I specifically said, that while I was in college, lots of other students put themselves through college WITH NO HELP FROM THE PARENTS. My first year, one of the guys two rooms down was a refugee from Afghanistan. No wealthy parents. No upper-class pedigree. He paid for college with work. His work. Nobody else's.

It's never impossible for a disadvantaged person to put himself or herself through college. I SAW IT DONE MANY, MANY TIMES.

That example only really works in a self-contained, pure free market universe

The human race started out with precisely this. The system was called The Wilderness. The ultimate free market.

one where the capitalist class did not emerge over the course of centuries as an off-shoot of already wealthy merchant and land-owning classes, two classes with intertwined economic interests.

And those wealthy classes came from........where???

In the beginning, before recorded history, they did not exist. Somebody had to work themselves out of poverty the hard way.

So why don't you do that? Get yourself a tradeschool education and find something that pays decently. Save up enough to give your kids an education better than you had. The only thing stopping you is your own laziness.

 

[Bill3000]

Nonsense. According to this, none of our bureocracies would function: but they do. Corporate or public bureaucracies, when properly organized, do function suprisingly well as proven by an overwhelming amount of confirmed observations.

Now, induviduals maybe dishonest and greedy, however, in bureocratic roles they should be held accountable and their actions should be regulated.

Iron triangle.