Communism

[amadeus]

How can members of the Communist Party (or Socialist Party) justify the economic concepts that they present?

My questions:

Question One:

What is the incentive for someone to work harder than someone else, when they are just going to remain equal to the person that works the least?

Question Two:

How would a "Communist Democracy" work? Wouldn't in a Democracy, the people decide whether they wanted to be part of the Commune or not?

Question Three:

Seeing as how the government would control most major production, how exactly, under a communist government, that you'd be given accurate economic and political information.

Question Four:

How can a Commune state actually exist, as the head of that state would have a greater opportunity than the working people, and doesn't that, therefore, just create an aristocracy?

Question Five:

What would be done to combat corruption? It's human nature to want to achieve certain goals, and in the cases of the Soviet Union, though not a democratic state, still faced serious corruption problems from individuals.

For example, in the Soviet Union, a light-bulb factory worker would typically take defective or burned out light-bulbs home, then resell them to people on the street.

Well, now seeing as how you know how I feel, and what my questions are, lets here the solutions.

 

[SunTzu]

Question 1: This is a huge problem i have with communism. Why should i get paid the same amount of money as other people when i work harder and a more productive job....fast food server and a teacher. should both of them get paid the same?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

One will attempt to address these points, as a ranking member of the secret sub council of the Underground Young Stalinist League:

1.) The firing squad, mainly, but also the state of mind that they love what they are doing, and find fulfillment in life from working for the State, the Party, and the Beloved Leader. But mainly the firing squad, and the knock on the door at 3am from five burly plainclothes "psychiatrists".

2.) It would work by a free, open, democratic vote on one candidate, or alternatively, several who are all from the Party, with the voting of people being assisted by the armed guards in the polling booth, who help you mark your paper correctly.

3.) After a period of re education, say 30 to 40 years weaving baskets out of your nose hair inside the Arctic Circle, you would understand that the Party is always accurate and correct!!! You will be happy !!! And there is always the firing squad

4.) See answer to question 3.

5.) "The Soviet Union wasn't true communism... it was er...something different. Fascist!"
Try saying that to Russian communists, and you'd get clobbered. We at the UYSL prefer not to call it corruption, rather, we call it "socialist efficiency" If someone becomes too "efficient", then, you guessed it, there is always THE FIRING SQUAD

The firing squad. A failproof method of assuring class equality and bringing about utopia since 1848. We aim to please
(As recommended by Karl "They sacked me as Santa, so I got even" Marx, Frederick "I'm a good communist because I live off Dads factory" Engels, Vladimir Ilyich "what Mensheviks?" Lenin and of course, beloved Comrade Stalin .
'Firing squad' is a trademark of Evil Enterprises, Barbados. Firing squad is not to be taken orally, and should be kept away from unconceived children. All other ages suitable. If swallowed, please call 1800- 666 and ask for Adolf Hitler. He will give instructions on what to do next.)

 

[CornMaster]

How about the Anti-Communist's be quite to allow the Communists answer first. Considering that's the opinion rmsharpe asked for.

Now Question 1:
The incentive of the worker is to look into the long run. The harder they work, the better the country does, the better the country does the better everyone does. If someone slacks on the job, they get moved to a job that more suits them. After a few weeks on **** shoveling, they will want to work a little harder.

Question 2:
A communist democracy would work like this. Leaders would be elected by the people, and would make decisions that the people vote on. (It's impossible to have a true democracy (in this day and age), thus it would be a Republic much like the US government.) The government would be working for the people....just like in the US, the same way it's run now. Except the people would vote on more economic decisions.

Question 3:
Why would the government lie to the people? The people must would have to trust the government they elected. If the people choose to create a civilian investigation agency to check up on the government (it's a democracy so the people can propose these things), and it passes a vote, then the people have extra piece of mind.

Question 4:
The government officals are normal people elected by the people, although they have a more important job, every job it's a crutial part of the countries welfare. A person in high position would have to be kept in check by the people. It's the person that becomes corrupted by power. In a democracy the people ARE the power, therefore by definition it should be nearly impossible to corrupt a major government offical.

Question 5:
Unfortunatally corruption is a part of life. The only way to combat corruption is with better survilance and personal tracking. This is something I know a lot of people are against. They argue that they lose their freedom, and that a police state will ensue. I'm not against heavy tracking and survilance. It is necessary in order for people to feel safe and follow the rules. However, excessive force is not necessary, as are "purges", these Soviet style control techniques are unnecessary.

Hopefully that will help you better understand where I am coming from.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by SunTzu
Question 1: This is a huge problem i have with communism. Why should i get paid the same amount of money as other people when i work harder and a more productive job....fast food server and a teacher. should both of them get paid the same?

One of my favourite quotes is:

"The people that do the world's REAL work don't wear a suit and tie"

(no idea who said this or when)

I work in the high tech industry. I have a job that lots of people couldn't do even if they wanted to (I'm not bragging - I'm far from brilliant - but a lot of the skills that I use were gained from a 3 year college course)

HOWEVER.. I sit at a damn desk all day in an air conditioned office. I saunter over to the cafeteria and buy a muffin whenever I want one... or a coffee or whatever. If I get tired of working then I stroll to the water cooler... talk to my co-workers for 10 minutes or so... I don't smoke but if I DID i could pretty much go outside for a cigarette break whenever I wanted - some people go out once every few hours or so...

NOW... I made enough money to get through school by working in an Aluminum Extrusion factory... Think those "play doh" factory toys where you pushed the handle down and out comes the "play doh" in a long strip exactly the same shape as the hole... square, star, round whatever.

Aluminum Extrusion works just like that only the hydraulic extrusion press is HUGE and it spits out extruded aluminum. It was our job to stretch these pieces onto shape (using big hydraulic jaws)... then cut the orders to size and then to pack them to be shipped to customers.

We worked 12 hour shifts.. all summer long... in heat that was so bad you were drenched within 15 minutes and you stayed that way for 12 hours. (remember this machine turned solid aluminum soft). Your entire body was wet - your pants, shirt, underwear.. even your hair... you had to wipe the sweat off of your safety glasses very 10 minutes or so.

For 12 hours you worked in these conditions - lifting heavy pieces of aluminum... and you couldn't stop or slow down for long - you had to keep up with the press - which never stopped - it was like this evil blue monster that stood there - laughing at you.. spitting out metal minute after agonizing minute.

And when you went home some nights you ached everywhere - Triceps, shoulders, lower back. Most guys that worked there had to eventually transfer to the other more automated side of the factory as they got older - that kind of work exerts a high degree of wear and tear on your body.

And it's dangerous... factory work is inherently dangerous regardless of the safety measure taken - a guy lost is thumb in a machine a month before i started.

The guys that worked there full time could make with overtime around $65,000 CAN a year - they had a strong union but they earned EVERY penny of it. Anybody that doesn't think so should get their ass out their and do it for 4 or 5 months.

As for productivity... They built everything from Bus parts, car bumbers, snow mobile parts, various rods and stuff, engine mounts for ski-doos, and much much more. different types of orders EVERY day)

So who works harder in a day? Me at a desk? Or them in a factory? They definitely WORK harder... but my job requires more of a trained skill (you could train someone to do that factory job in a month or so). So it's a toss up. It's different work..and it's difficult for different reasons... But it really bothers me when i hear people complain about how much unionized worker make, or when they say that unskilled and semi-skilled labour is less WORK then a trained profession.

It's just not true.

I salute all the blue collar workers out there. Without them our country would be NOWHERE.

 

[allan]

"How about the Anti-Communist's be quite to allow the Communists answer first. Considering that's the opinion rmsharpe asked for."

Gee, no sense of humor--typical lefty.... Anyway....

"Now Question 1:
The incentive of the worker is to look into the long run. The harder they work, the better the country does, the better the country does the better everyone does."

However we know that things don't work that way. You may have the rare "long-term" looker who busts his ass, but you have many more people who just do the minimum required of their job. Since they are doing the minimum required, they can't get "fired" (or moved), because they did nothing wrong. And yet they benefit along with the people that made things happen....

Have you ever worked at a government job, Corn? There is always internal pressure by your co-workers not to work TOO hard, so that your example doesn't become the new norm (it rarely ever would, though)--thus everyone is purposely slow. This even happens in the military (where I served).

Face it, personal gain IS more of an incentive. The only way it won't be is if you send people to "re-education" camps, I guess.... Human nature is what it is--deal with it.

"If someone slacks on the job, they get moved to a job that more suits them. After a few weeks on **** shoveling, they will want to work a little harder."

First, you can't move everyone to sh*t shoveling--so if just about everyone slacks, what will you do? Answer: you will accept that everyone slacks, and your economy will not progress.

Second, I would have a severe problem (like, a take-up-arms-and-revolt kind of problem) with a government telling me in what capacity I may work. What if I want to be a journalist, and am damned good at gathering facts and writing, and yet I have a tendency to investigate things that run contrary to the government-run (or, in the words of communists, "peoples'-run") newspaper. The government, which conveniently has the power to choose my job, will do guess what?

Besides, people should have the freedom to pursue their personal dreams and goals, wouldn't you agree? What are we, if we can't dream, and pursue those dreams?

"Question 2:
A communist democracy would work like this. Leaders would be elected by the people, and would make decisions that the people vote on. (It's impossible to have a true democracy (in this day and age), thus it would be a Republic much like the US government.) The government would be working for the people....just like in the US, the same way it's run now. Except the people would vote on more economic decisions."

And what happens if they vote to scrap the established communistic system? Will it then go away? Will the people that hold the extraordinary concentrations of power this affords, give up their power so easily? Don't count on it.

Also, in democracy, one needs to be careful that it does not turn into a "tyranny of the majority", where people can vote to take things from others, or take rights from others, or kill others. Remember Nazi Germany.

Democracy is best when government power is limited. There are certain things that people should decide for themselves. How is it better for a dissenter to be tyranized by one person, or by the majority of people? Is he supposed to feel better or more "free" in the latter case? Isn't he still being tyranized?

"Question 3:
"Why would the government lie to the people?"

ROTFLMAO!!!

Where have YOU been throughout history? Yeah, why DOES government often lie to people? That's what I want to know....

You think we're THAT naive? Well, I've got some Agent Orange to sell you, too. Also some Zyklon B (remember, breathe DEEPLY....)

"The people must would have to trust the government they elected."

Just because I vote for someone doesn't mean I trust them completely (perhaps just a little more than I trust the other candidate). I must still be vigilant, and not take everything he says as gospel truth. The price of freedom IS eternal vigilance....

"If the people choose to create a civilian investigation agency to check up on the government (it's a democracy so the people can propose these things), and it passes a vote, then the people have extra piece of mind."

If 49% want to, but 51% don't want to, then I suppose independently investigating the government would be illegal then?

Besides, that civilian investigation agency would, in a communist system, still be owned by the state, since private ownership is forbidden. And even if it weren't, its freedom to investigate would still be limited.

I'd prefer keeping government limited and on a short leash to begin with--less to investigate.

"Question 4:
The government officals are normal people elected by the people, although they have a more important job, every job it's a crutial part of the countries welfare. A person in high position would have to be kept in check by the people. It's the person that becomes corrupted by power. In a democracy the people ARE the power, therefore by definition it should be nearly impossible to corrupt a major government offical."

All fine and good in theory, but it still happens in democracies, doesn't it? And the more power you add to the equation, the more likely it is to happen.

"Question 5:
Unfortunatally corruption is a part of life. The only way to combat corruption is with better survilance and personal tracking. This is something I know a lot of people are against. They argue that they lose their freedom, and that a police state will ensue. I'm not against heavy tracking and survilance. It is necessary in order for people to feel safe and follow the rules."

Big Brother. Just TRY and put a computer chip in me, and I will take down as many people as I can who attempt to violate my person like that, before I am killed. And don't even think I'm alone....

Sorry, you've f*cked up your sale right there....

Do you really not care about your personal privacy?

"However, excessive force is not necessary, as are "purges", these Soviet style control techniques are unnecessary."

I would consider implanting tracking devices in me to be "excessive force"--particularly if I didn't want one in me. Keep your laws off my body....

"Hopefully that will help you better understand where I am coming from."

I do. VERY clearly....

Thanks for making it so clear to all of us.

 

[The Balrog]

Originally posted by SunTzu
Question 1: This is a huge problem i have with communism. Why should i get paid the same amount of money as other people when i work harder and a more productive job....fast food server and a teacher. should both of them get paid the same?

No teachers should get paid less THEY SUCK!!!!

 

[amadeus]

Question 1:

The incentive of the worker is to look into the long run. The harder they work, the better the country does, the better the country does the better everyone does.

But what about those that do not have the incentive to work hard? Wouldn't they benefit from someone else's hard work, and eventually, after the realization that hard work is not needed to become more successful, would there really be anyone with the incentive to work?

Question 2:
A communist democracy would work like this. Leaders would be elected by the people, and would make decisions that the people vote on. (It's impossible to have a true democracy (in this day and age), thus it would be a Republic much like the US government.) The government would be working for the people....just like in the US, the same way it's run now. Except the people would vote on more economic decisions.

So if people voted for economic decisions, wouldn't they be able to vote on a less-regulated, less-communal system?

Question 3:
Why would the government lie to the people?

Whoa! Let me stop you right there. Are you *sure* you've been listening to the news for the last eight years?

But more seriously: the incentive of lying is to become more wealthy, as well as the fact that if the government distributes all wealth, that civilian investigation groups could be bribed into creating a propaganda campaign.

Question 4:
The government officals are normal people elected by the people, although they have a more important job, every job it's a crutial part of the countries welfare. A person in high position would have to be kept in check by the people. It's the person that becomes corrupted by power. In a democracy the people ARE the power, therefore by definition it should be nearly impossible to corrupt a major government offical.

That would require time, and honestly, many people simply don't care about the way the government works. The concept of government itself is that the few controls the many.

Question 5:
Unfortunatally corruption is a part of life. The only way to combat corruption is with better survilance and personal tracking. This is something I know a lot of people are against. They argue that they lose their freedom, and that a police state will ensue. I'm not against heavy tracking and survilance. It is necessary in order for people to feel safe and follow the rules. However, excessive force is not necessary, as are "purges", these Soviet style control techniques are unnecessary.

More in a technical sense, but how do you keep track of those kinds of things?

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by allan
First, you can't move everyone to sh*t shoveling--so if just about everyone slacks, what will you do? Answer: you will accept that everyone slacks, and your economy will not progress.

But you forgot what happens after the economy slacks....It picks back up again because when people realize they have a lot less, they know they should be working harder. This is just simple logic. Although I realize people aren't always logical, this is the conclusion they should naturally come to.

Besides, people should have the freedom to pursue their personal dreams and goals, wouldn't you agree? What are we, if we can't dream, and pursue those dreams?

The government would (should) assign your job based on two things, your skills, and your wants. If you best skill is journalist then you would be assigned a journalist, however if your an awesome electronics manufacturer, then you should do that instead. Most of this would become appearant through schooling, but since us old guys (well....19 is old right. ) won't have the benefit of choising our skills in schools and are more likely to be put in a job were not suited for, but reform and special things will be set up to aleivate this problem in the short run.

And what happens if they vote to scrap the established communistic system? Will it then go away? Will the people that hold the extraordinary concentrations of power this affords, give up their power so easily? Don't count on it.

No....don't count on it. But that's one of the things that would have to have a huge majority to pass, like 80%, because that is a HUGE change to the country and people and could take years to go back to a capitalist system (Which wouldn't be possible in my Communist country....I'll get to that in a sec.)

Also, in democracy, one needs to be careful that it does not turn into a "tyranny of the majority", where people can vote to take things from others, or take rights from others, or kill others. Remember Nazi Germany.

You have a good point there....but that's a fault of democracy, not communism. So I'll leave it be.

"Question 3:
"Why would the government lie to the people?"

ROTFLMAO!!!

Where have YOU been throughout history? Yeah, why DOES government often lie to people? That's what I want to know....

You think we're THAT naive? Well, I've got some Agent Orange to sell you, too. Also some Zyklon B (remember, breathe DEEPLY....)

I know the government lies. I don't trust the government at all, but why would they have to lie?? Just give it to the people straight doc...they can take it.

Just because I vote for someone doesn't mean I trust them completely (perhaps just a little more than I trust the other candidate). I must still be vigilant, and not take everything he says as gospel truth. The price of freedom IS eternal vigilance....

You give him more trust, and trust is VERY important, when you elect someone to control your life.

If 49% want to, but 51% don't want to, then I suppose independently investigating the government would be illegal then?

Yes then it would be illegal. But I feel that it would be more 75% to 25%. Hey....I'm all for that!! We should have one now. I mean CIA, FBI, are all government run.....where is the people's intelligents agency?

Besides, that civilian investigation agency would, in a communist system, still be owned by the state, since private ownership is forbidden. And even if it weren't, its freedom to investigate would still be limited.

Nothing is "owned" by anyone...it's run by civilians, but the equitment belongs to the people.

I'd prefer keeping government limited and on a short leash to begin with--less to investigate.

Of course.....that's the power of democracy!!

All fine and good in theory, but it still happens in democracies, doesn't it? And the more power you add to the equation, the more likely it is to happen.

Your right......the only way to balance that is to increase the gov't size. Now lets face it. A properly run communist gov't would have to have about 10000 elected officals or more that would be on each board that makes the decisions, and of course the more people you have, the more power that is shared. You would have a head of each group. They would all meet with a few neutral elected officals and make the larger decisions, but no head of state. Just one big board of people.

Big Brother. Just TRY and put a computer chip in me, and I will take down as many people as I can who attempt to violate my person like that, before I am killed. And don't even think I'm alone....

Now I said NOTHING about a chip implanted in your body!! What I mean was better surviellance (camera's, satalitte, etc....) and the new ID cards that are coming. 70% voted for a better tracking system in the US (like a drivers licence but for everyone, and with information on the card like criminal record, bank info, address, etc....all electronically stored. Only three countries use a system like this now.....Malisaya, Brunli (I think), and Italy. Greece, Saudia Aribia, and now the US have such cards in the works. This is all I meant...not barcodes or computer chips. :crazyeyes Trust me....I'm against that too!!

Do you really not care about your personal privacy?

Not that much when it means safety and security for all the people!! Stopping crimes before it happens, etc....I'm all for it!

I do. VERY clearly....

Thanks for making it so clear to all of us.

Are you being scarcastic?? Or do you REALLY see where I am coming from.

Edit: I'd respone to your post rmsharpe but I feel that I explained those points in this post..... (your popped up after I started writing.)

But I did forget to explain why we wouldn't switch back to a capitalist system. Money. Money = evil. Money = greed. And most importantly Money does not = happiness. In my communist system there would be no money. Goods would be alloted by the government, everyone would have what they need, all the people have to do is work hard, and enjoy their time off. No more worries about where the next meal is coming from, or how to pay that credit card bill. If people have less worries they will work harder.

And if people start slacking, they will notice that there is less to go around....and if they want their comfortable lifestyle back, they will have to pick up the pace. It's not a threat, but the new way of life. And that's why we couldn't go back to capitalism....easily anyway. We would have to develop a currency, distrubute it, re-evaluate jobs and what they should get paid. Reedistrubute the workers to what THEY wanted to do, STOP the flow of goods to the people.

Now I know that system sounds a little too good to be true....and I admit, it's going to be sometime in the future before it could become a reality (we are just not to that point mentally or technologically yet) but it's important for us to set a goal. And to attempt to acheive it!

 

[allan]

"The government would (should) assign your job based on two things, your skills, and your wants. If you best skill is journalist then you would be assigned a journalist, however if your an awesome electronics manufacturer, then you should do that instead."

But who decides what you're "best" at, and how do they know for sure? It is conventional wisdom that standardized tests and such only reveal part of the story. A person's drives and motives to improve himself in ways HE chooses is usually what makes all the difference.

Besides, what intrinsically is wrong with a person deciding for himself what he would like to be? If he is put on a job that isn't his first choice, will he want to do that job as well as if he did what he dreamed to do?

Let people decide for themselves--there IS no "elite" that know better....

"Most of this would become appearant through schooling, but since us old guys (well....19 is old right. ) won't have the benefit of choising our skills in schools and are more likely to be put in a job were not suited for, but reform and special things will be set up to aleivate this problem in the short run."

If I were 19 (14 years ago), and some faceless bureaucrat told me what I would do for a career, and I wanted to pursue something different, I would have told him to his "faceless" face to go f*ck himself. What would he do about it? Have me shot? Then he still wouldn't get what he wanted out of me. Or have me "re-educated"? Notice that the term "re-education" didn't surface until the communist era. It seems to me that communism (yes, even your version) is dependent on engineering how ordinary folk think, hence the term--and practice....

And if an end requires a faulty means, then screw the desired end--it ain't good enough. Period, end of discussion....

"No....don't count on it. But that's one of the things that would have to have a huge majority to pass, like 80%, because that is a HUGE change to the country and people and could take years to go back to a capitalist system (Which wouldn't be possible in my Communist country....I'll get to that in a sec.)"

Thought so. How convenient, to have no accountability for failing the people. Just who are you trying to sell this arrangement to? STUPID people?

"You have a good point there....but that's a fault of democracy, not communism. So I'll leave it be."

No, actually it is a fault of both of them, together as you've described. I.e. to "vote in" communism requires people voting to, essentially, take things from some people. Right? And to take existing rights (right to property, right to pursue one's desired line of work, etc.) from people as well. Killing people could easily follow down that slippery slope, too.

"I know the government lies. I don't trust the government at all, but why would they have to lie?? Just give it to the people straight doc...they can take it. "

They lie, but why do they have to? Obvious motives (to retain power, to make people more cooperative, etc.) aside, there seems to be a fundamental difference in how you and I think: *I* look at reality, and understand it (well, the best I can), and try to find ideas and solutions that fit in with this reality. You on the other hand think wishing things can make them so--like "government doesn't HAVE to lie, therefore they shouldn't, so they won't." But they do, and they will. Trust me, you're not going to get around that, so don't try.

The best way to induce the government to lie LESS is to reduce their power (less to lie about), their size (less of a mess to hide things in); and increase their accountability (through a well-informed, vigilant populace that doesn't blindly trust in what they are told). That won't stop them from lying completely (nothing really can do that), just give their lies less chance to be effective.

And remember this: he who DEMANDS trust (we all know people like that) usually doesn't deserve it--whereas truly honest people feel they never have to demand trust from anyone.

"You give him more trust, and trust is VERY important, when you elect someone to control your life."

I elect ME to control my life--for I am the only one qualified to do so. You can elect YOU to control your life, too. Why do you feel you need someone else to do it for you? Why should I feel the same? And what if I don't?

I know--"re-education"....

"Yes then it would be illegal."

And you see no problem with this. Remember, dissenters are often (and almost by definition) the minority. In this country, it is often a very small number of people (sometimes just one) that take the initiative to investigate and expose serious government or corporate scandals--the Tuskegee experiments, The School of the Americas (training Salvadoran death squads), Agent Orange side effects, Gulf War Syndrome, Thalidomide, etc. Most people don't WANT to think their government is doing wrong, but the few people often prove otherwise. And this is very important to democracy.

Under your rules, it would be very difficult to establish accountability for the government.

Remember too, the truth IS the truth--even if 99% of the people don't believe it.

"But I feel that it would be more 75% to 25%. Hey....I'm all for that!! We should have one now. I mean CIA, FBI, are all government run.....where is the people's intelligents agency?"

I agree--the CIA and FBI presently are quite unaccountable for many of their actions--hence they tend to abuse their power. But if I tried to dig up a lot of dirt on them and expose it to the public, I would in some way or other be silenced in the name of "national security".

However, under communism, where there would be a vested interest in engineering people's thoughts away from that troubleome "human nature" that always seems to get in the way, do you actually think there would be more of a tendency to allow independent scrutiny by people who refuse to change (dissenters and skeptics, who would ask the most challenging questions)?

"Nothing is "owned" by anyone...it's run by civilians, but the equitment belongs to the people."

And under what entity would "the people" vest collective control of their assets? What entity is not only always the default in communistic societies, but HAS TO be, logically? The state. So it is as I said--the state would essentially control this "civilian investigation agency", since no individual could control it independently.

Me: "I'd prefer keeping government limited and on a short leash to begin with--less to investigate."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corn:"Of course.....that's the power of democracy!!"

Did you understand the "limited" part?

"Your right......the only way to balance that is to increase the gov't size. Now lets face it. A properly run communist gov't would have to have about 10000 elected officals or more that would be on each board that makes the decisions, and of course the more people you have, the more power that is shared. You would have a head of each group. They would all meet with a few neutral elected officals and make the larger decisions, but no head of state. Just one big board of people."

How about when power is exercised independently by 280 million people (the population of the US), with the government only there to make sure no one commits violence or fraud against another? That would be the ULTIMATE dilution of power, wouldn't it? That's what I'M talking about....

"Now I said NOTHING about a chip implanted in your body!!"

Trust me--it could go that way. And without a guaranteed right to privacy, nothing could stop it from going that way, either....

"What I mean was better surviellance (camera's, satalitte, etc....)"

Ever see the movie "Enemy of the State"? Yes, it's a movie, but it illustrates nicely what certain highly-placed, corruptible, and unaccountable officials can do with the technology--in the case of that movie, get away with murder....

"and the new ID cards that are coming. 70% voted for a better tracking system in the US (like a drivers licence but for everyone, and with information on the card like criminal record, bank info, address, etc....all electronically stored."

Yep, during war it is easy for the power-hungry to take advantage of hysteria. We are also suspending habeas corpus and due process of law for non-citizens living here. Just because a majority might support these things doesn't make them right--don't forget that.

"Only three countries use a system like this now.....Malisaya, Brunli (I think), and Italy. Greece, Saudia Aribia, and now the US have such cards in the works. This is all I meant...not barcodes or computer chips. Trust me....I'm against that too!!"

The whole premise of the government keeping track of the locations and private activities of civilians is that the people, for some reason, can't be trusted (by those in power). And yet you ask that we "trust" government officials, who are basically of the same species. Do you not see the flaw behind your logic there?

"Or do you REALLY see where I am coming from."

I do. You are against optimal individual freedom. You do not believe that individuals can be trusted, yet government can be trusted to control individuals.

And my credo is "live free or die." I value liberty above all else, even my perception of "safety". ("He who would sacrifice liberty for temporary safety, deserves neither"--Benjamin Franklin--"nor will he necessarily get the safety he seeks"--me.)

We are irreconcileable....

 

[allan]

"Money = evil."

Gee are we simplistic. No, money is not evil, it is just a THING. What people do with different THINGS (be it money, weapons, political power, or in some cases hatpins) can be either good or evil, depending on what those actions are.

"Money = greed."

Most of the things that have been built or invented came from "greed"--i.e. the desire of someone to build or invent something to generate prosperity for himself. And yet we all benefit from these things as well.

If it weren't for greed, we'd all still be scratching at the soil with sharp sticks....

"And most importantly Money does not = happiness."

People have different ideas in how to pursue happiness. As long as they do not commit violence or fraud against others, it is really not for me (or others) to decide which way is legitimate and which isn't. If money does not lead to happiness, let people find that out for themselves.

Are you afraid they may prove you wrong? If not, then why are YOU worried about it?

 

[Whiskey Priest]

Three fundamental assumptions about our current system of distribution of resources.

1) If your skills are in high demand you will be well compensated:

TRUE

Certain "blue collar" trades are becoming scarce here in Canada. Wanna here something scary. Someone finishing a 2-year apprenctichip program will make more money then someone who has a four year University level degree.

2) Your income is based on how hard you work:

FALSE

It sometimes happens, but its the exception. Not the rule.

3)Your income is based on the value society places on your work, The Teacher vs. The Garbageman.

FALSE

People always say that teachers should be payed millions because they do important work, then why do soldiers get paid jack shi*t, why does the president make something like $200,000 a year or why does a bloody actor or baseball player make milions

 

[allan]

"3)Your income is based on the value society places on your work, The Teacher vs. The Garbageman."

Actually, theoretically it is not the value "society" places on your work, but the value that people, freely spending their money, place on your work.

This is not always the case either though--teachers are generally employed by the state (with the exception of private school teachers), and so no one pays them for their services DIRECTLY (they are tax-funded).

However, consider that baseball player. He gets paid what he does precisely because so many people are willing to pay 30 bucks or more for tickets to see baseball games--therefore these people indirectly decide how much baseball players (or more precisely, the services of their "entertainment") are worth to them. If fewer people were willing to pay so much to see games, then baseball players would be paid less.

It may not always seem "fair", but the definition of labor is essentially doing things for others (making things for them, marketing to them, or providing services for them)--so how much that labor is worth is dependant, directly or indirectly, on how much people are willing to pay for the products of this labor, and how many.

It is not a function of "working hard", but a function of to what degree you help satisfy the desires of others. I look at it a little like the physics definition of "work": if you exert all the force you can on an object, and it doesn't move, you have done no work on the object (no matter how much you sweat). The evaluation of labor, likewise, has at least partially to do with how much you "move" people (i.e. satisfy their needs or desires)....

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by allan
"3)Your income is based on the value society places on your work, The Teacher vs. The Garbageman."

Actually, theoretically it is not the value "society" places on your work, but the value that people, freely spending their money, place on your work.

This is not always the case either though--teachers are generally employed by the state (with the exception of private school teachers), and so no one pays them for their services DIRECTLY (they are tax-funded).

However, consider that baseball player. He gets paid what he does precisely because so many people are willing to pay 30 bucks or more for tickets to see baseball games--therefore these people indirectly decide how much baseball players (or more precisely, the services of their "entertainment") are worth to them. If fewer people were willing to pay so much to see games, then baseball players would be paid less.

It may not always seem "fair", but the definition of labor is essentially doing things for others (making things for them, marketing to them, or providing services for them)--so how much that labor is worth is dependant, directly or indirectly, on how much people are willing to pay for the products of this labor.

It is not a function of "working hard", but a function of to what degree you help satisfy the desires of others. I look at it a little like the physics definition of "work": if you exert all the force you can on an object, and it doesn't move, you have done no work on the object (no matter how much you sweat). The evaluation of labor, likewise, has at least partially to do with how much you "move" people (i.e. satisfy their needs or desires)....

Yup. Agreed. This is why education is important. If people are willing to pay 1000x more to a
steroid-eating mister whose primarly job is to play unimportant and non-creative game,
then there's something HEAVILY wrong with people.

 

[allan]

"Yup. Agreed. This is why education is important. If people are willing to pay 1000x more to a
steroid-eating mister whose primarly job is to play unimportant and non-creative game,"

Well, the game is obviously not unimportant to the millions of people who pay good money to see it. It is worth 30 bucks or so to each of them. It may be unimportant to YOU, in which case you have a choice NOT to buy a ticket. Right?

 

[sonorakitch]

"The incentive of the worker is to look into the long run. The harder they work, the better the country does, the better the country does the better everyone does. . "

You honestly expect the workers to put in effort for the benefit of the country only??? What kind of insane statement is this? You obviously have no bearing on human nature; if people in the U.S. perform lazily with both nation-improving opportunities and the fiscal reward possible, do you really think taking away the latter will improve their efforts? I think it is obvious you don't quite understand human nature and competition.

"If someone slacks on the job, they get moved to a job that more suits them. After a few weeks on **** shoveling, they will want to work a little harder"

Sure, this sounds like a genuine democratic system to me.

I have one phrase for you: pipe dream.

~Chris

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
How can members of the Communist Party (or Socialist Party) justify the economic concepts that they present?

My questions:

Question One:

What is the incentive for someone to work harder than someone else, when they are just going to remain equal to the person that works the least?

God knows. Nobody can combat human nature.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Question Two:

How would a "Communist Democracy" work? Wouldn't in a Democracy, the people decide whether they wanted to be part of the Commune or not?

Simple. Workers elect representatives to their Soviets. Some members of Soviet's elected to represent their region in central government. it would be like democracy, only representatives would be elected directly though places of work, rather than by electing "bourgeoise" representatives who may have no "working" background. basically, eevrybody who works is given a representative for their particular office/factory directly relating to their service/industry.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't have to actually mean a dictatorship as such, just a government that excludes bourgeoisie elements.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Question Three:

Seeing as how the government would control most major production, how exactly, under a communist government, that you'd be given accurate economic and political information.

Errrrrrrrmmmmmm, as far as i'm aware, the governmnent provides a hell of a lot of statistics already. Also, independant bodies would act as they do now, theoretically.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Question Four:

How can a Commune state actually exist, as the head of that state would have a greater opportunity than the working people, and doesn't that, therefore, just create an aristocracy?

Communism is all about working towards an eventuality where there is no state. Ruling aristocracies shouldn't, as occured in The USSR, theoretically happen if everything is done well. However, the Soviet model became less and less about the people it was set up in order to champion as time progressed.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Question Five:

What would be done to combat corruption? It's human nature to want to achieve certain goals, and in the cases of the Soviet Union, though not a democratic state, still faced serious corruption problems from individuals.

I assume there would be some way to stop corruption. If people are supplied with what they need, then they don't have to resort to criminal activities.


P.S, I am not a communist.

 

[sonorakitch]

Hamlet,

"Simple. Workers elect representatives to their Soviets. "

Doesn't this go against the communist doctrine of 'everybody in the same boat'? So there will be people in power...

"Errrrrrrrmmmmmm, as far as i'm aware, the governmnent provides a hell of a lot of statistics already. Also, independant bodies would act as they do now, theoretically."

So if the government distributes workers on a need basis, there would also be independent statisticians refuting government claims? Does that make much sense to you?

"Communism is all about working towards an eventuality where there is no state. "

Again. Pipe Dream .

"I assume there would be some way to stop corruption. If people are supplied with what they need, then they don't have to resort to criminal activities. "

This is just not true. You are forgetting peoples wants. Study some human psychology. People don't settle for what they need...they go for what they want. Corruption has been enormous under every single communist nation that has ever existed. Albania, Angola, Mongolia, China, Cuba, USSR, etc.

The problem with communism is it just doesn't work in the real world. And it robs freedom of choice in all matters of life.

~Chris

 

[CornMaster]

You know what I think???

Any of you are welcome to disagree, but I feel a lot of the anti-communists are indoctrinated, propaganda spewing, "keep the status quo", stuck up old farts that have been either screwed by the system they wish to protect, or lifted on a pedestal because of the "luck" they have under the system. People fear change and it's this change that is necessary!! People would rather live a marginal existence then to take a risk!!! Capitalism and democracy were once a glimmer in the eye of a philosophy, people told him he was crazy, but this is the system we live in today. So why do people denounce communism so readily. Is it the change you fear?? And I think that is it......you fear the unknown and would rather be miserable then to take a risk. And what is mankind without risks??? Lobotomized Primates. That's what we are. Primate animals, afraid to venture out of our caves and discover fire.

Well I'm sick and tired of the backward looking thinking of people of this forum! Capitalism and Democracy WILLNOT last forever. I don't care what mental world you choose to live in...it won't! What's the problem with people looking toward the future?? Instead of denouncing it at every turn, why not start a discussion on a BETTER form!! Huh?? Or how about how to improve existing forms. Like for example when allan proposes that we would all have tracking chips installed at one point....why don't we discuss how to avoid this instead of just saying that's they way it will turn out and the only way to avoid it is to keep the status quo. Well....I've had enough of this crap.

And no point in responding to the post....I'm taking a vacation from the OT for A LONG TIME!!! Except to BAN people or CLOSE topics....I will be invisible because I can't take all the negativism anymore!!! You people make me sick. And it's not all of you, it's not even the ones I disagree with, it's people like Juize, SunTzu, sonorakitch, people that critize without coming up with solutions!!! Communist are always on the defensive.....and frankly I want to get a nuke and nuke Capitalism!!! (And no...I'm not going to kill anybody. ) Anyway.....I will talk to you guys in a few weeks (Unless it in another forum or when I'm banning you/closing your topics.)

Tata.....

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Juize

If people are willing to pay 1000x more to a
steroid-eating mister whose primarly job is to play unimportant and non-creative game, then there's something HEAVILY wrong with people.

Well you and I are going the same direction on the subject of professional spectator sports, but for very different reasons. I think there is something self defeating about watching (and more so, paying to watch) someone else play a game, when you could be playing a game yourself.