A question to Communists:

[Traitorfish]

Actually, some of them did.

Something I need to clarify here: hard work is not a guarantee of success--or entry into the ruling class, which seems to be how you want it to work.

However, without hard work, failure is assured. Which is definitely how it should work.


So why doesn't it work the way you want it to? Here are a couple of reasons:

Medieval "thugs wielding battleaxes", as you put it, lived in danger for their lives--because they were soldiers. Medieval kings had to worry about suddenly getting a dagger in the back. The common blacksmith did not.

True, power brought risks. But, as historical records show, the nobility had a higher quality of life, longer life expectancy and were less likely to succumb to disease, famine, etc. than commoners. Equally, skilled professionals had the same benefits relative to serfs, who had the same relative to slaves, etc.
The point is that, with a handful of exceptions, position within these classes was hereditary, it was not the result of hard work. A serf could, and would, labour hard all his days and still die a penniless serf, while a monarch could spend sixty years as a lazy slob and still rule a kingdom. This particularly applies to the post-medieval period, where kings ceased to require the skills of a warlord and became nothing but pampered aristocrats.
The upper class inherited property, primarily in the form of land ownership. Skilled craftsman and professionals inherited some property, usually in the form of a place of business, but their primary inheritance was a skill, a means to utilise this property effectively. The peasantry inherited a scrap of land and a few animals if they were lucky enough to come from a free-holding family, while serfs- the majority of the population- got nothing but a few personal possessions, if a serf was lucky enough to have anything worth passing on to their descendants.
None of this had anything to do with hard work. None of it had anything to do with the free market. It was feudalism, and our society is still defined by it. Maybe Yanks forget that, but back over here, it's painfully clear.

Third: why are you not a CEO of your own company?

Because I'm an architect. Commerce is simply beneath me.

And Mr Fusty dealt with the rest of your points quite effectively.

 

[BasketCase]

(BTW, would you mind pointing out any flaws in the logic behing the society I described, I would appreciate it).

I don't need to. Nephrite already did:

<Nephrite paraphrasing somebody else:> "Under Communism everyone will work hard, because when the country does well, everyone gets a pay rise!"

When we talk about systems that "have never been tried" its probably a good idea to avoid making stuff up. I say this because in the long post above mine, there are a lot of assumptions about how people will live. When I see things like that its off-putting.

You make the (false) assumption that everybody will work hard and try to contribute to society. A pack of wolves is no different; a wolf can't take down a deer or moose alone. They need teamwork to survive. Well, guess what, Sherlock: it's far from a socialist paradise. The problem is that a lot of the people will work hard and contribute--but the honest citizens will get utterly destroyed by the selfish, the criminals, and the violent.

I will now crush your misguided faith in humanity:

Those people you say you trust to work together and help each other, are the people who put George Bush in office.

I now retire for a bit, to do some real-world stuff. I gotta re-order Guitar Hero 3 because NewEgg screwed up, then I gotta head to work. I'll get to the rest of this later.

 

[Ondskan]

You're a nitwit if you think personal experience > facts.

Hello. Well I've waited for 2 weeks and not yet one of your blatant rants contains any facts. I am still curious to where you go the number of 500 000 civilians dead by Tito's "brutal" regime.

Also to why you ironicly say "Lucky that those sort of camps didn't exist in Yugoslavia" in my "oh my god" thread. Suggesting that we tortured children in Yugoslavia.

You also completely disregard my oppinion of Yugoslavia, my parents oppinion and all hundreds of people from all religions that I've spoken to. Each year I travel to Croatia, Bosnia and/or Serbia. My family has a lot of friends there and we discuss politics and economics frequently. Two of our friends have been ministers in the current administration of Bosnia.



So please. What right do you have to piss on my nation, heritage and ideology without having anyone from Yugoslavia to back you up nor any/few facts?


At the same time the few people you consider as sources to your "facts" are anti-communist researchers payed by conservative think tanks.

And then you have the bloody nerve to add to someone ellse in the "Dirty Liberals Convert RedState to WelfareState" thread the following statement: "Unless you have a wealthy Hungarian billionaire to prop you up. ".


A wealthy Hungarian billionaire that spent an equal amount of time and effort fighting totalitarian communism in Hungary and fighting for equal rights of each man and woman.


I challenge you now to prove that you are more than a clown and liar. Show objective, internationaly supported "*facts*" to me.


Yay...You people love facts and hate conspiracies. Bring me facts from international objective research.

 

[BasketCase]

I already brought some research to this. Stanley Milgram, for example. He crushed 90% of the socialist ideal in a single, devastating, and thoroughly-documented blow.

Okay, I seriously gotta tear myself away from Off Topic and get real-world stuff done. Maybe I should have a mod ban me for fifteen minutes.

 

[BasketCase]

It depends on what type of company you are talking about, BasketCase.

It most certainly does not. Any type of company can over-invest and then leave the owners in debt when the flop occurs.

Management have their 'golden parachutes' (loads of cash if they are forced out or leave early), their tasty pensions (seperate from the drones' pension plan) and as they are one of the first to hear of the **** hitting the fan, they have time to bail. Even if they navigate a 300 year-old company into the tar pits, the management will be nice and safe.

If the golden parachute opens. If thy hear about the **** hitting the fan in time. If, if, if. Doesn't always work that way.

Not for the drone workers.

I'd better just chop you off at the knees early here. I am one one of those drone workers, I've been there three times, and I can say that what you wrote after this point was all complete garbage.

Whenever I got laid off (and this pattern held true with companies ranging from TRW to a 7-person startup tech company), here's what happened: I never lost my pension because pensions don't exist any more; all the 401k and IRA money I'd saved up went 100% untouched; I did not lose the last two months' wages (in fact I never had a paycheck mysteriously go missing--ever); my health insurance was indeed cancelled, but I got new insurance when I got a new job; and, this part:

there is a 75% chance they will never find such a good gob again.Ever.

Nope. Didn't happen. Hell, I did get a better job. Every time. And I'm not special. This is what happens to my co-workers and friends.

So I say you're full of malarkey, and I say so from experience.

On other news, I apologise that I haven't got the statistics yet. I got One More Turn disease and forgot to get it last night

Trust me, stick to Civ 4. Less depressing and you won't be around me.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

No, it does BasketCase.

Let us say I invest $100,000 by buying 100,000 shares in ABC Corp. A year later, ABC, due to bad desicions or a economic downturn declares bankrupcy. I, as a shareholder are only liable to lose the maximum of the value of the shares that I possess (100,000 shares). The court can't come after me as an individual as the company is a seperate legal enity from myself, the other shareholders and management unless there is massive evedence of illigal actions. Nice and simple - Mr_Fusty is not ABC Corp. even if Mr_Fusty does own a share in ABC Corp.

This is called the joint-stock company or limited liabilty or is the advance 'The Corperation' of Civ III. This is an advance in the early industrial revolution to allow more people in the advanced capitalist world to invest with impunity, knowing their homes and other savings were safe.

Every nation has a list of precidence for creditors in banckrupt companies. Each list is a little different, but I can tell you this - in the Anglo-Saxon tradition (the most common) the normal workers and the companies own pension fund are quite low down on the list.(Sometimes the very bottom) On the top of the list are allways the goverment, big capitalist concerns (such as banks) and the administrators themselves.

Oh, believe me their parashutes will open. They are privy to loads of high-grade information, get exellent advice from accountants (on how to look better than they really are, to give them time to jump) and lawyers (to make it all nice and legal) Some study serious newspapers and magazines which sometimes will give infomation on economic trends months before everybody else (The Economist was strongly warning about the sub-prime market and associated debt packaging some 6 months before it happened) And lastly, they are businessmen! They can see perfectly well as long as it's in front of their nose, and believe me this kind of stuff will be. Of course it's not foolproof, nothing is. It just a damm site more foolproof than the drone's protection, that's all.

I have done quite a few jobs in my time, thank you very much. I have worked a McJob, I have stacked shelves at Asda (UK arm of Walmart) I have worn the 'I'm x and I'm happy to assist you!' in an electronics retail store, I have worked as a PA to the owner/manager of a small firm and I have even worked as a night-time security guard when times were tight. I term all these all as 'drone' jobs, as I was the one following the orders, never giving them. The only order I have done so far was for some stationary once. So please don't think I'm sitting in some ivory tower.

The electrical store which I worked at went under - and my pension value was down 65%. I was also owed 3 weeks pay. Our shop manager actully gave us a couple of items from the store each because he knew that most of us were near-minimum wage. He never got in trouble for that - I think he cooked the inventories afterwords.

Thank god I had only been there two years, but I dread to think of some of the other workers who were in the 40's or 50's. - they would be up **** creek.

The town I was born in (and still visit from time to time) was dominated by two massive companies - a defence contractor and a linked suppiler. By '92 the whole defence company had shutdown (blame the fall of the wall), and the linked supplier limped on until '97, when it went under. The workers there lost some 80% of their pensions, which took until late last year for the goverment to promice they would honour the pension by around 90%-95% (meaning that myself, and every other taxpayer would pay for the mistake of privite enterprise!) This happens alot less with the senior management, I can assure you.

Well, I'm not suprised that you don't have a company pension plan. They are practically all closed now, as we now live too long now to make it affordable. So instead you have your 401k. Did you ever pick the option of buying your own company's stock at a slightly reduced rate? Or did you allow your company to appoint a trustee to look after it for you, which means that often they will buy lots of their own company's stock? It may be a good idea to go and look at the different segments of your 401k and see what has happened over the years.

Lastly, what was the reason for being let go from your last jobs? If you were made redundant due to cut-backs, you will get your lump sum. If you lose your job due to insolvancy it is upto the discression of the company concerned. It is more likley to find out your unemployed by a company email at 3.45 on a Friday (stating that this was their last day) or turning upto work one day and finding the doors locked, shutters down and a big notice stating 'gone into liquidation' over it than a nice lump sum, a little party and tears from the CEO for the fate of their ex-staff.

 

[happy_Alex]

Production is started not by what consumers are prepared to pay for to satisfy their needs but by what the capitalists calculate can be sold at a profit.

Excellent summary and extremely well put, noncon. Didn't get the bit about the Fresh Prince of Bel Air

I fished out this bit though, cause it reminded me of something about why people starve. It's a common mistake that people consider starvation and malnurtrition to be caused by a scarcity of food, whereas in reality there is more than enough food in the world to ensure every one is adequately fed. The problem is people are not entitled to obtain food, as you say because proces are determined by profit not need.

 

[Traitorfish]

I already brought some research to this. Stanley Milgram, for example. He crushed 90% of the socialist ideal in a single, devastating, and thoroughly-documented blow.

I don't think you actually understand what that experiment was about.

 

[BasketCase]

No, it does BasketCase.

Let us say I invest $100,000 by buying 100,000 shares in ABC Corp. A year later, ABC, due to bad desicions or a economic downturn declares bankrupcy. I, as a shareholder are only liable to lose the maximum of the value of the shares that I possess (100,000 shares).

Suppose instead that you take out a loan to start company ABC. The company fails. Now you've not only lost all the money you put into the company, but you still have to pay back the loan. Result: bankruptcy and financial ruin.

Happens all the time.

Oh, believe me their parashutes will open.

What if somebody makes a mistake??? What if an evil capitalist's accountant screws up and gives the wrong advice, or all that secret information capitalists are privy to, turns out to be false? (if the President can fall for that one, anybody else can)

What if somebody is bribed to deliberately feed an investor false data....?


By taking human error out of the equation and picturing capitalists as monolithic godlike entities incapable of error, you've come up with a completely bogus picture of the way things work. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, because you're clearly a wingnut with a really distorted picture of the world. In fact, I also got the impression you have an axe to grind.

I'll leave you with a quick tip: don't depend on employers to provide everything for you. Yes, I did use company-provided 401k's for a while, but my current employer's 401k sucks ass, so now I do my own investing. I pick my own mutual funds. Don't pigeonhole yourself. Look around. Explore your options.

Edit: Ticker symbol deleted. Fidelity Contrafund is closed. Sorry about that.​

I don't think you actually understand what that experiment was about.

Stanley Milgram's experiments proved that human beings are willing to inflict extraordinary cruelty on other people when ordered to do so by an authority figure. His experiments are proof that authority is inevitable in human life--and in fact desired. We humans WANT an authority figure to follow.

 

[BasketCase]

So instead you have your 401k. Did you ever pick the option of buying your own company's stock at a slightly reduced rate? Or did you allow your company to appoint a trustee to look after it for you, which means that often they will buy lots of their own company's stock?

Changed my mind. I should answer this bit because I've got some good financial advice for everybody.

To answer your questions, Fusty: no and no, respectively. Each 401k I joined had a selection of stocks/funds to invest in. Naturally, the company itself was always in the list, but I never made that choice. In fact, avoid that one. Your job itself is your investment in the company. You need to widen your financial base so that you lose less if any one pillar tumbles on you. As to a trustee?? Please. Learn how to manage your own money, don't trust some complete stranger to do it for you.

I'm not using my current employer's 401k because all the funds available are mediocre or really, really bad.

 

[dutchking]

Capitalism actually gives chances at oppurtunities, while communism puts chains on your possible future. The problem with capitalism, however, is exploiting it for one's own greed as others starve on the streets. It's a titter-totter: one money class has more leverage on the other and they are not budging.

That's the truth. I'm not (or don't think I am) a communist, but there are times when I look on it as a more fair society. Put everything bad a side, you can say good bye to division of the classes. This isn't true when communism doesn't work, but when it works the way its supposed to rich people don't control everything. The ideas of communism are appealing to me, but the confusing part is how are you going to make everyone equal without taking the basic rights of citizens to support themselves in whatever way they please.

 

[Traitorfish]

Stanley Milgram's experiments proved that human beings are willing to inflict extraordinary cruelty on other people when ordered to do so by an authority figure. His experiments are proof that authority is inevitable in human life--and in fact desired. We humans WANT an authority figure to follow.

Firstly, you're assuming that the results of the Milgram experiment represent an inherent and irreversible aspect of human nature and not simply the effects of living in an ultimately authoritarian society where conformity and obedience are seen as virtues, and moral responsibility is systematically removed from the individual and entrusted with the system. In short, the experiment proves nothing other than "people who desire authority figures desire authority figures".
Secondly, that doesn't say anything more about socialism than it does about capitalism. If you are indeed correct, then humans desire authoritarian leadership whatever the economic system, making true free market capitalism as unworkable as social democracy. You'll either end up with a world dominated by corporate entities or one dominated by governments, both with a rigidly structured class- if not caste- system and little to no individual rights or freedoms, as much a failure for capitalism as for socialism.

 

[Ondskan]

Guys you've just been born differently.

Some genes say: I can become anything if I am given the chance.
Some genes say: I can become anything if the other guy isn't given the chance.

Deal with it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Guys you've just been born differently.

Some genes say: I can become anything if I am given the chance.
Some genes say: I can become anything if the other guy isn't given the chance.

Deal with it.

That isn't really what the disagreement is about.

 

[BasketCase]

Without even bothering to reply to any of the posts since my previous one (of which I am sure some have my name on them): some of the things people have said in here have only now coalesced in my brain and given me a clear picture of what's really going on.

Do you people really want a system that's fair to all? Or.....are you merely advocating any system which results in a bigger share for you?

People in this thread, working at minimum-wage jobs, wanted to be the ones who gave the orders instead of receiving them. They wanted guaranteed health care regardless of employment status. They wanted rich-people status without the risks that come with it.

Is that what you people really want??? Is it all just about taking the power for yourselves? Is it all just about having everything handed to you? Is it all just about getting the reward without having to do the work???


RING-RING!!

It's for you. It's reality calling. And here's what reality has to say: if you want the freedom that comes with a Communist system, that means you're not entitled to handservants. If you don't want to be at the beck and call of a CEO, you have no right to place anyone else at your beck and call. That means no free health care. No guaranteed goodies. No reward without risk.

Whenever I got fired off a job, I didn't wait for the new job I was "entitled" to. I went and got one myself. When an employer's 401k plan or health care plan sucked ass, I went and got my own. I don't make much money, but because I spend it responsibly and don't waste it on beer and hookers, I save up a lot more per year than most of you do. Quit being a bunch of sissies. If you want something, don't wait for some stupid fool to hand it to you (when anybody with half a brain would keep it for themselves). Go get it yourself.

I'll tend to various replies later on. Right now I'm full of myself and in a serious holier-than-thou mood, and I need a few hours to let that burn off.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you people really want a system that's fair to all? Or.....are you merely advocating any system which results in a bigger share for you?

Depends what you mean...
A: In the short term? Yeah, I'd like a break. College is hard going, even when you're lucky enough to live in a country which (mostly) pays your tuition fees. Wouldn't hurt to to make it all free, maybe bring back grants. And that's not looking for a hand out, it's looking for a little support for my education. An education which will lead me to one day becoming a skilled professional and doing the economy some good, because...

B: In the long run? Nope, I'm planning to be an architect. That means I'll be pretty well off- I can almost walk into a 20-25 grand (40-50 by US standards) a year job straight out of college, going up to 25-30 (50-60) once I work for a year and get my final professional qualification- so the redistribution of wealth is going to take a fair bit more off me than I'm going to benefit from it. Y'see, someone disagreeing with you is not necessarily a loser working dead-end jobs and looking for hand-outs. Some of us have potential to do pretty well for ourselves. It just so happens that we'd like to do so with a bit of morality.

I'm not lazy. I worked hard at school, I work hard at college, I have a job. I'm not just looking to live an easy life. But when my turn comes around, I won't have any problems paying taxes to support education, even if those older than me are too selfish. It's called "reciprocal ethics", the idea that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated, whether or not you have or will receive such treatment. It's at least 2,000 years old, it's not a new concept. Look it up.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

I know I am going to start a ten page debate, a flurry of angry members, a few moderaters constantly watching me, when i don't really feel up to any of it, but I really need to ask:

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done, how can't they support it? Yes, there is poverty, but that is an unfortunate part of life. With all of the great things we have here and all of the people in America making more money than anyone else in the world and having enough to buy food and luxuries, how can they still not support it.

Thank you for letting me know.

Because we are not jaded enough to believe that poverty is an intrinsic part of human existence. Because, at least for me, capitalism is an excuse to have everything, to share none of it, all the while claiming that they simply don't want jobs. I ask you, how is it that the homeless and jobless are supposed to just 'get jobs', when there are twice as many jobless compared to jobs? Look into Keynesian economics... Basically, capitalism produce the most profit for those in the economic ruling class were there is a deficit of jobs and goods. Competition drives prices up for goods and labor, so a deficit in employment drives wages down. ...Before I get into some huge debate, let me put it this way, capitalism has a tendency to decline (GDP growth rate in the US is a third of the '30s, and has been dropping before that). The poor always take the brunt of the depression, which is inevitable under capitalism.

On a semi-related note, capitalists only look a negatives in 'communist' countries. Cuba's GDP growth rate is higher than ours, so was the Soviet Union's. China's quadrupled the standard of living for the lowest quarter of society in the first few decades of their conversion... But, after the coup against the Soviet Union and subsequent 10 year drop in the average Russian's life expectancy, the number of McDonalds in Russia is our economic scale of comparison.

The whole point is that capitalism, whether on the international or national scales, relies inherently on one portion of the system losing market value for one side to acquire it. Capitalism is inherently dystopian, and relies on the exploitation of those without wealth to create wealth. You speak of 'the great things capitalism has done'. Like what? Children in coal mines and sweat shops? 16 hour work days for a pittance of a wage? Face it, health care, workers' rights, labor laws, minimum wage, et al, are a product of socialist theory and the dissension of working-class citizens. You should be thanking us, not criticizing. Capitalism has given you slavery, child labor, sweatshops, poverty, starvation, homelessness, pollution, recession & depression, and more. Socialism has given us workers' rights, universal sufferage (yeah, many of its proponents were socialist; equality anyone?), labor laws, health codes, health care, minimum wage, abolition of child labor, et al.

TO BasketCase: Speak for yourself. I work hard for what little I get, and every manage I've worked under hasn't done half what their crew does on a daily basis. You think you'd have a health care plan if it weren't for people, decades ago, whining about not having one? Yeah, maybe I do think that humanity should be sane enough not to let curable disease spread and wipe out portions of the population. Do you know how much a ride to the ambulance costs? My girlfriend's 1,000+ US dollars; maybe not everyone can afford that... Maybe no citizen of a civilized society should be allowed to die of curable disease; maybe, just maybe, the average American can't afford 100k for chemotherapy. Maybe not everyone can just get a job in a country where there are HALF AS MANY JOBS AS JOBLESS! Maybe you should quit using trite stereotypical representations of the working-class in order to justify your own greed and heartlessness... ...Maybe you should take a look at India, world's 2nd fastest growing economy (free market), with one of the highest poverty and starvation rates in the world; then, take a look at China with one of highest populations and lowest poverty and starvation rates...

Maybe you should stop and think for a second before implying that my mother, having been kicked out at 11 and homeless, getting her GED, and then busting her arse every day for my entire lifetime to feed and house me would've been DEAD without welfare, health care, minimum wage, labor laws, and all the other 'inhibitive restrictions' on free markets that capitalist see as so dangerous that we feel it's necessary to murder individual's who like 'em.

Look... I'll post more, and more, and more, if you guys really want to address some actual points here, but I'm tired of this. I'm tired of having people accuse me of being lazy when I worked 60+ hour weeks so I could get a car and move out of Kansas. Tired of people skirting issues so they don't have to actually support their points because it's so much easier to flame and be a complete idiot than to actually try and make some sense. If you don't like labor laws and equality, if you like child labor and poverty, move to effin' Malaysia and raise your family there. See how much you like watching your 9 year old child get fired from the 'Nike industrial fabrics complex' because she or he lost a finger. Go live in an ACTUAL laissez-faire economy and see how much you like it, 'cause if you like horrible wages in even worse conditions, then capitalism is right up your alley. If, however, you'd rather work in a job that you can survive on with some health code regulations, then you might as well thank the socialist, 'cause it certainly wasn't the industrialist social darwinist out there picketing... 'When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.'

 

[Traitorfish]

@A Viking Yeti:

 

[dutchking]

@A Viking Yeti:

@ Traitorfish:
(long time no see btw )

 

[A Viking Yeti]

@A Viking Yeti:

Hehe... Rock&Roll Red...

I also see human nature cropping up in here (attempts not to vomit), and, as I'm assuming those purporting a static human nature assume themselves to be apart of the now defunct sect of behavioral psychology or, even worse, evolutionary psychology, I feel the need to chime in here. Ok...

As counter to the argument at hand, if you assume that human nature is set and static (which makes no sense in the evolutionary sense, but I'll get back to that in a moment), you cannot extrapolate from that the feasibility of a system based on it, nor any benefit. Case in point, from observations on other, 'lesser' primates, one would conclude that rape is an inherent part of our nature. Does this mean you legalize rape? Further, does that mean you legalize it because, being a part of human nature, it is impossible to remove it from society? Somehow I highly doubt any of you feel this way... Why, I shall explain in a moment.

Now, why would humans undertake many activities that are not necessarily fitting into any evolutionary behaviorists' paradigm? Let us look at human nature from the evolutionary perspective; the nature of a species is a certain set of actions that, in the species' natural environment, facilitate its survival. Obviously there are some universals: reproduction, avoiding pain, eating, et al. However, what, within the human species, allowed our survival? Obviously not our physical form; we're not nearly as physically fit as many other organisms. So whence cometh or proliferation? The social unit (obviously). The nature of the human is species is that of social unit. Expressed nature of organism develops to spread its genes. To do this in social unit is dependent upon your social hierarchy, the leader of the tribe mates the most. In an effort to spread your genes, the individual adopts the trends within the social unit. Sociality functionality depends on those trends present within the local society; the adoption of those mannerisms expressed by those you are exposed to in your earliest stages of development is your nature, human nature.

In short, a member of the human species', in its nature environment, is dependent upon its ability to act in cohesion with the social unit. Thusly, during feudal times, knights and squires willingly gave their lives without any necessary evolutionary benefit to themselves. Self-sacrifice, under the current assumptions on human nature, is completely detrimental and illogical. They do it because society purports a successful image for those that undertake such actions, translating into a higher social status and therefore more successful genes. Now days, humans act for their own good because society has developed that as successful image. Obviously, digits in your bank account mean nothing in the way of survival. Acquiring more money than you could possibly spend is not a biologically driven desire, it's a social one. There's no reason to suggest that the deprivation of many members of your species, even to the point of death, is evolutionarily advantageous.

I contest that were human nature what so many think it is, no primitive social unit would've have survived in its natural state, much less been so progressive.