Who does communism benefit?

[John Galt]

Take two people- all other things being equal, here are their life stories

A. He was born into a very low income family. He grew up in housing projects. He worked 3 jobs to get enough money to go to college. In college he worked just as hard, and graduated at the top of his class. He is now a world famous doctor who makes millions from saving people's lives.

B. This man was also born into a low income family. He dropped out at 16 and became a bum on the streets.



Under capitalism, Person A gets rich as he should be, for his success, and person B becomes a worthless bum because he did nothing for himself.

Under communism, A works his ass off, but gets the same reward as person B.


Which is more fair?

[Ymir]

Communism is a worker's movement. That bum is not a worker.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 04:29 PM
B. This man was also born into a low income family. He dropped out at 16 and became a bum on the streets.

Under communism, A works his ass off, but gets the same reward as person B.

Which is more fair?
No in communism person B isnt controbuting to society, therefore society wouldnt help them.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:32 PM
Communism is a worker's movement. That bum is not a worker.
Fine. He works at McDonalds.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:33 PM
No in communism person B isnt controbuting to society, therefore society wouldnt help them.
Aha!

So its to each according to their contribution to society?

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 04:33 PM
He works at McDonalds.
Macdonalds wouldnt exist, believe it or not, its a giant capitalist company :o

[John Galt]

Originally posted by toastedmonkey+Jan 10 2004, 04:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (toastedmonkey @ Jan 10 2004, 04:35 PM)
John [email protected] 10 2004, 04:33 PM
He works at McDonalds.
Macdonalds wouldnt exist, believe it or not, its a giant capitalist company :o [/b]
And so people who are traveling get a quick bite to eat....where?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 04:29 PM
Take two people- all other things being equal, here are their life stories

A. He was born into a very low income family. He grew up in housing projects. He worked 3 jobs to get enough money to go to college. In college he worked just as hard, and graduated at the top of his class. He is now a world famous doctor who makes millions from saving people&#39;s lives.

B. This man was also born into a low income family. He dropped out at 16 and became a bum on the streets.



Under capitalism, Person A gets rich as he should be, for his success, and person B becomes a worthless bum because he did nothing for himself.

Under communism, A works his ass off, but gets the same reward as person B.


Which is more fair?
Wow, that&#39;s a lot of bullshit for one post.


First of all, what you "earn" or your "wage" under capitalism is not determined by its worth to society or how hard someone has worked to get there, it is measured by the market, which is after all only a human creation. Hence, we have a situation where the Stockbroker, who creates NOTHING making many times more money then a factory worker who toils for hours on end CREATING or a Social Worker or Public doctor who spends their life working for their community. How is that "fair"?

If we live in the Meritocracy you think we do, then what we earn should be measured by the difficulty of the job or it&#39;s worth to the world or how hard we have worked to get there. If we did have a situtation like that, then the doctor in your pathetic premise would earn more than his colleagues who were born into priveliged families and haven&#39;t had to work as hard to become doctors. Seen as that is not the case, it is clear, meritocracy is yet another myth created by the elite to preserve the status quo.

[Soviet power supreme]

A. He was born into a very low income family. He grew up in housing projects. He worked 3 jobs to get enough money to go to college. In college he worked just as hard, and graduated at the top of his class. He is now a world famous doctor who makes millions from saving people&#39;s lives.

In communism schools and colleges would be gratuitous.This man would not have to go in those works.He would have only go in schools and gollege.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:44 PM
[QUOTE=John Galt,Jan 10 2004, 04:29 PM]
First of all, what you "earn" or your "wage" under capitalism is not determined by its worth to society or how hard someone has worked to get there, it is measured by the market, which is after all only a human creation. Hence, we have a situation where the Stockbroker, who creates NOTHING making many times more money then a factory worker who toils for hours on end CREATING or a Social Worker or Public doctor who spends their life working for their community. How is that "fair"?

If we live in the Meritocracy you think we do, then what we earn should be measured by the difficulty of the job or it&#39;s worth to the world or how hard we have worked to get there. If we did have a situtation like that, then the doctor in your pathetic premise would earn more than his colleagues who were born into priveliged families and haven&#39;t had to work as hard to become doctors. Seen as that is not the case, it is clear, meritocracy is yet another myth created by the elite to preserve the status quo.
You are paid according to what the public will pay for your services. What the public will pay is dicatated by

1. The exceptionality of your "art".*
2. Your skill at this "art"
3. The use of your "art" to them.

Anyone who isnt crippeled can be a factory worker. If one worker quits, it causes no effect on the people. A stockbroker must be able to figure out the future, and act on that. That is many times more difficult than simply drilling holes in a widget. A doctor requires much more skill than a janitor. The doctor saves people by doing something they cant do, while the janitor keeps things clean by doing a job they Could do. Which is more valuable to you. Something that you couldnt do that saves your life, or something that keeps things clean that you could do yourself?

*: Techne in greek. Its difficult to translate correctly.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 10 2004, 04:45 PM

A. He was born into a very low income family. He grew up in housing projects. He worked 3 jobs to get enough money to go to college. In college he worked just as hard, and graduated at the top of his class. He is now a world famous doctor who makes millions from saving people&#39;s lives.

In communism schools and colleges would be gratuitous.This man would not have to go in those works.He would have only go in schools and gollege.
English please? :huh:

[Soviet power supreme]

What a fuck.
It is not perfect english, but I assumed that everybody could understand that. :( :angry:

The edutation would be free in communism.No need to go in three jobs to pay the college.

[Y2A]

And who&#39;d pay for this education? Would it be a centralized government and thus share out the wealth evenly? Because I know that is not true communism but other then that, how do you expect education to be free?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 10 2004, 05:06 PM
What a fuck.
It is not perfect english, but I assumed that everybody could understand that. :( :angry:

The edutation would be free in communism.No need to go in three jobs to pay the college.
I really didnt understand that.


How do these schools give the teachers the reward for teaching if they dont get anything from the students?

[redfront]

Your title says &#39;&#39;Who does communism benifit?&#39;&#39; and your arguments is all about money, but believe it or not money isn&#39;t the only existing benifit.
for example is communism basicaly a humanistic idea, so the docter&#39;s benifit would be the fact that he safes life (if he was a real communist that would be a reward in it self), and the mcdonald worker&#39;s (lol) benifit would be that he actually can make a living.
Then you probertly ask why the man wants to be a docter if he makes the same as the mc-worker (since you only see money as a benifit).
To that i can answer that it&#39;s more exciting to be a docter than a mc-worker, and in a communistic society you actually have a choise to be what you want.

[redfront]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 05:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 05:11 PM)
Soviet power [email protected] 10 2004, 05:06 PM
What a fuck.
It is not perfect english, but I assumed that everybody could understand that. :( :angry:

The edutation would be free in communism.No need to go in three jobs to pay the college.
I really didnt understand that.


How do these schools give the teachers the reward for teaching if they dont get anything from the students? [/b]
Since the schools in general is owned by the stat, they get payd by the stat.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:12 PM
Your title says &#39;&#39;Who does communism benifit?&#39;&#39; and your arguments is all about money, but believe it or not money isn&#39;t the only existing benifit.
for example is communism basicaly a humanistic idea, so the docter&#39;s benifit would be the fact that he safes life (if he was a real communist that would be a reward in it self), and the mcdonald worker&#39;s (lol) benifit would be that he actually can make a living.
Then you probertly ask why the man wants to be a docter if he makes the same as the mc-worker (since you only see money as a benifit).
To that i can answer that it&#39;s more exciting to be a docter than a mc-worker, and in a communistic society you actually have a choise to be what you want.
And how will this doctor be able to save lives when they can not to research needed to created advanced medicine and equipment needed to perform advanced opperations on a person due to the fact that everyone must get the same treatment?

[YKTMX]

A stockbroker must be able to figure out the future, and act on that. That is many times more difficult than simply drilling holes in a widget. A doctor requires much more skill than a janitor. The doctor saves people by doing something they cant do, while the janitor keeps things clean by doing a job they Could do. Which is more valuable to you. Something that you couldnt do that saves your life, or something that keeps things clean that you could do yourself?

The former obviously?

I don&#39;t quite see the point you&#39;re trying to make though. If you are arguing the old "rich people are rich because they are smarter and more driven" line then I think I understand you. It is ironic because that premise would be less spurious if we lived in a classless and economically and socially equal society, but we don&#39;t. So, if the factory worker is born into a working or lower class family and never has the opportunity to become a doctor then how can we test the theory that some people are simply smarter than others?. Look at your president, do you suggest that he would have been president if he had been a first generation Mexican immigrant or his father was a New Jersey Taxi driver.

[QUOTE]You are paid according to what the public will pay for your services. What the public will pay is dicatated by

1. The exceptionality of your "art".*
2. Your skill at this "art"
3. The use of your "art" to them.QUOTE]

The Public? I think you will find most people wuld rather nurses made more and stockbrokers a little less. This "public" is infact cappie-speak for the hallowed "market". People who deal in money and buisiness must be well rewarded because profits come before everything in this world, not because there work is exceptionally skilled.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:14 PM
Since the schools in general is owned by the stat, they get payd by the stat.
Oh yes, the incorruptable state. Please do not tell me that you are for a completely centralized state.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 04:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 04:37 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:35 PM

John [email protected] 10 2004, 04:33 PM
He works at McDonalds.
Macdonalds wouldnt exist, believe it or not, its a giant capitalist company :o
And so people who are traveling get a quick bite to eat....where? [/b]
McDonalds would still exist only it&#39;s stores and assets would now be under control of the government.

[redfront]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 10 2004, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 10 2004, 05:15 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:12 PM
Your title says &#39;&#39;Who does communism benifit?&#39;&#39; and your arguments is all about money, but believe it or not money isn&#39;t the only existing benifit.
for example is communism basicaly a humanistic idea, so the docter&#39;s benifit would be the fact that he safes life (if he was a real communist that would be a reward in it self), and the mcdonald worker&#39;s (lol) benifit would be that he actually can make a living.
Then you probertly ask why the man wants to be a docter if he makes the same as the mc-worker (since you only see money as a benifit).
To that i can answer that it&#39;s more exciting to be a docter than a mc-worker, and in a communistic society you actually have a choise to be what you want.
And how will this doctor be able to save lives when they can not to research needed to created advanced medicine and equipment needed to perform advanced opperations on a person due to the fact that everyone must get the same treatment? [/b]
He gets money by the stat who owns everything, like the schools i mentioned

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:10 PM
Because I know that is not true communism but other then that, how do you expect education to be free?
Thee would be "market" and no private enterprise under "communism" therefore your question is essentially absurd as there would be no monetary system.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:18 PM
He gets money by the stat who owns everything, like the schools i mentioned
Have you learned nothing from previous failures in this attitude about communism? When the state owns everything and is immutable in the people in power it eventually becomes a totalitarian state and no longer a "true" communist state. Your ideas are all assuming that the state is incorruptable which in history has proven to be false.

[redfront]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 10 2004, 05:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 10 2004, 05:21 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:18 PM
He gets money by the stat who owns everything, like the schools i mentioned
Have you learned nothing from previous failures in this attitude about communism? When the state owns everything and is immutable in the people in power it eventually becomes a totalitarian state and no longer a "true" communist state. Your ideas are all assuming that the state is incorruptable which in history has proven to be false. [/b]
You&#39;re actually right in some points, but remember that thoose people who corrupted the stats generally were fasists and not communists. But no i&#39;m not against a all controlling stat

And then look everybody, free education and health-care is posibble.
we got it in my country (Denmark that is), and we were a socialistic stat untill not so long ago

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Under the socialist system, Person A would not have had to go through the torture of 3 jobs to get into college, (also 3 jobs+school is utterly impossible). Also person A would still live a very confortable, relaxed, perhaps even luxurious to a reasonable extent, type of life, without ever having to worry about going without anything he would ever need. Furthermore that person&#39;s job would have a certain level of protection, and the person would not have to worry about losing his shirt from a lawsuit. Person B would have a very good education even if that person dropped out at 16 due to the suburb nature of the school system. (3 free meals, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, no summer vacation, and uniforms). That person would have a job available him any time he decided to work, and if that person wanted to eat, that person would be wise to accept it. Thanks to the rapid industrialization, and automatization (using robots when possible) of labor, most likely that person would only have to work 4 hours a day anyways, and live a very relaxed lifestyle. Furthermore, if person B wanted to go to college, he could do so at any time for free.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by re[email protected] 10 2004, 05:26 PM
You&#39;re actually right in some points, but remember that thoose people who corrupted the stats generally were fasists and not communists. But no i&#39;m not against a all controlling stat

And then look everybody, free education and health-care is posibble.
we got it in my country we have it (Denmark that is), and we were a socialistic stat untill not so long ago
Stalin was no fascist, he was a communist, and extremist stalinist but a communist none the less.

But the fact is that without democracy how do you expect to rid yourselves of possible "fascists" in sheeps clothing? With an immutable party in power that has complete dominence over the state this task becomes impossible.

If you think that a benevolent communist dictatorship is possible, you are very wrong because it will eventually be corrupted.

[John Galt]

Forget corruption Y2A.

If they have a government that controls everything, then they now have classes. The government controls everything you do, and you accept it in the name of communism.


Communists- I suggest you all read Brave New World. It shows the only way communism can work.

[redfront]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 10 2004, 05:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 10 2004, 05:30 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:26 PM
You&#39;re actually right in some points, but remember that thoose people who corrupted the stats generally were fasists and not communists. But no i&#39;m not against a all controlling stat

And then look everybody, free education and health-care is posibble.
we got it in my country we have it (Denmark that is), and we were a socialistic stat untill not so long ago
Stalin was no fascist, he was a communist, and extremist stalinist but a communist none the less.

But the fact is that without democracy how do you expect to rid yourselves of possible "fascists" in sheeps clothing? With an immutable party in power that has complete dominence over the state this task becomes impossible.

If you think that a benevolent communist dictatorship is possible, you are very wrong because it will eventually be corrupted. [/b]
I highly support democracy, so i don&#39;t see why that should be a problem.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 05:33 PM
Forget corruption Y2A.

If they have a government that controls everything, then they now have classes. The government controls everything you do, and you accept it in the name of communism.


Communists- I suggest you all read Brave New World. It shows the only way communism can work.
Probably good advice here on Brave New World. But these people won&#39;t read anything not written by Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. <_<

[John Galt]

Originally posted by D&#39;Anconia+Jan 10 2004, 05:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (D&#39;Anconia @ Jan 10 2004, 05:37 PM)
John [email protected] 10 2004, 05:33 PM
Forget corruption Y2A.

If they have a government that controls everything, then they now have classes. The government controls everything you do, and you accept it in the name of communism.


Communists- I suggest you all read Brave New World. It shows the only way communism can work.
Probably good advice here on Brave New World. But these people won&#39;t read anything not written by Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. <_< [/b]
They always whine about how we dont read communist literature.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:37 PM
I highly support democracy, so i don&#39;t see why that should be a problem.
The only way to insure that equality is enforced is by a one party system and eliminating those who oppose it (Stalinism), and this as "John" said creates classes and eventually becomes another USSR.

[redfront]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 05:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 05:39 PM)
Originally posted by D&#39;[email protected] 10 2004, 05:37 PM

John [email protected] 10 2004, 05:33 PM
Forget corruption Y2A.

If they have a government that controls everything, then they now have classes. The government controls everything you do, and you accept it in the name of communism.


Communists- I suggest you all read Brave New World. It shows the only way communism can work.
Probably good advice here on Brave New World. But these people won&#39;t read anything not written by Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal. <_<
They always whine about how we dont read communist literature. [/b]
I don&#39;t think i&#39;m the only one that reads articles about communism written by cappies. it sort of gives you another angle, and it prepares you on stupid arguments agains it

[Y2A]

As I said redfront, how do you plan to substain equality through democracy? The only way to do it is by way of a one-party system. Unless you only let far left parties compete against each other, which isn&#39;t really democracy.

[Unrelenting Steve]

You can have organised co operation without having a centralized state, which i think would even be more effeciant, as being formed and operated soley on the grass roots lvl, it would have no trouble apadpting.... and evolving into something workable.

The government can never control everything you do, your capitalist government stops you commiting crimes, well not really, but in the sense that it punishes you after you commit them....

So a government presiding over capitalism is democratic freedom, and under communism is beurocratic imprisonment? lol

[redfront]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:45 PM
As I said redfront, how do you plan to substain equality through democracy? The only way to do it is by way of a one-party system. Unless you only let far left parties compete against each other, which isn&#39;t really democracy.
Well, i think there should be a party for any political front (of cause exept nazism, fasism or anything that hurts people radically), people have the right to believe in what they whant, like you have the right to be a capitalist and i have the right to be a humanistic socialist.
that would of cause say that if the majority of the people in the country likes capitalism, then they should have it, i just don&#39;t agree with thoose people.
I dream of a socialistic or communistic government because it&#39;s more humanistic and i just think that&#39;s the right way to go

[LSD]

As to the initial examples, John Galt is taking exceptional cases and generalizing them, as well as making several assumptions:



What he is trying to do is take a theoretical capitalist experience and project it unaltered into a communist setting. This cannot be done. The life histories he describes can only emerge in a capitalist society. To illustrate this, I offer the two possibilites for the doctor&#39;s success.


1. He is intrinsically more "motivated" than the second, he is naturally driven and works hard out of an internal sense of responsibility.

2. His motivation is a byproduct of his "very low income" upbringing. Under regular circumstances he would work just as hard as anyone else, he was only forced into working harder due to the social inequities of the society in which he grew up.


Regardless of which you choose, he still bennefits more out of communism than capitalism

If you accept the first hypothesis, than you accept that he is natually gifted.
Thereby, in reality he is working just as hard as everyone else in society, this may mean that he produced more, but he is putting in as much labour as the rest.
Since he is naturally motivated, he will not mind working, so long as he recieves something in return. In communism he recieves a great deal in return, namely access to everything society has to offer.

If you accept the second hypothesis, than you accept that his abilities are approximately average.
Thereby, all one can justly ask of him is that he contribute the same as the rest.
Since he recieves much in return (see above) he will work as hard as those around him, but not as hard as he would under capitalism, because society is no longer placing unjust burdens upon him.


The point of all this is that while communism is certainly not meritocratic, neither is capitalism. &#39;Market&#39; decisions in capitalism depend on many arbirtray features, many of which are artificially and intentionally introduced to insure domination by certain interest. Beyon even the &#39;market&#39;, the mere presence of inheritene insures that the system can never even approach the meritrocracy you call it, as many recieve much for absolutely nothing.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Just cause stalin was a bastard doesnt mean the a "Dictatorship of the Politerate" cant work.
Marxism basicly calls for that step to be voted for in a referrendum.

[Y2A]

Well, i think there should be a party for any political front (of cause exept nazism, fasism or anything that hurts people radically),

But if I were to say there should be no communist party you would view this as anti-democratic, typical.


people have the right to believe in what they whant, like you have the right to be a capitalist and i have the right to be a humanistic socialist.
that would of cause say that if the majority of the people in the country likes capitalism, then they should have it, i just don&#39;t agree with thoose people.
I dream of a socialistic or communistic government because it&#39;s more humanistic and i just think that&#39;s the right way to go

That&#39;s good to hear. I despise many communist except the ones that see the only way to atain there dream is by way of democracy. The only way communism and equality will ever be excepted is if the majority of the people want it, you can not force equality and that is what many of the people on these boards fail to understand.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2004, 05:57 PM
Just cause stalin was a bastard doesnt mean the a "Dictatorship of the Politerate" cant work.
Marxism basicly calls for that step to be voted for in a referrendum.
And how do you expect an unchangeable communist dictatorship where everything is centralized to not become a USSR-like state?

[redfront]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:58 PM
But if I were to say there should be no communist party you would view this as anti-democratic, typical.

Yes i would, but i would also view it as anti-democratic if there were no capitalistic party.


The only way communism and equality will ever be excepted is if the majority of the people wants it

Yes, and i can only hope for that people will see that money isn&#39;t anything.
I don&#39;t want to spread communism with violence, if you do that you wouldn&#39;t get the people with you

[Unrelenting Steve]

what do you mean by unchangeable?

[Y2A]

I mean only one party is in power which is the definition of dictatorship.

[SDSJap]

communism is bad because all beurocracies are by their very nature are innefficient, unreliable and corrupt

people have to work harder to get by in capitalism, so what? life isnt fair, so you were born to a poor family? grow up, grow some, and grab a shovel and get to work, work builds character, and work ethic, the problem, with communism is that you
a) let the government decide who is more important, and i know most of you hate bush, so if someone like Bush was elected in your communist country, do you think hed put more worth on doctors or on arms manufacturers?
b) you give no real physical reason to work hard in school other than youll get a warm fuzzy feeling at the end of the day(which to some people would be enough, to most theyd work 4 hours at mcdonnalds instead of going to school 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 8 years to get a warm fuzzy feeling

so youll have a surpluss of mcdonnald workers and a huge shortage of doctors

not to menton, you say you can become anything you want, year one you have 700 kids who want to be doctors, year 2 you have 400, so in year 3 you expect to have between4-700 and build a new school with room for 800 to make sure your good, anmd then 1000 students apply, how do those extra 200 get accomodated when you simply dont hyave room, your ideas are by no means bad in thought, and if they really workable i might even support thyem, but the rpoblem is, a doctor is going to bring more money into your economy than a mc donalds worker, so he deserves more money, in captialism, doctors get more money because they can ask more money and people will pay, mcdonnald workers get less because they could home and make a sandwhich for less than what itd cost to have a mcdonnalds worker paid the same as a doctor

[Unrelenting Steve]

that is not what the term means, the term means the revolutionary force is in control, full control, nad can make the radical changes nessesary to convert a capitalist state into a communist one, so it may then also administrate its distengration....decentralize, and collapse itself

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2004, 06:10 PM
that is not what the term means, the term means the revolutionary force is in control, full control, nad can make the radical changes nessesary to convert a capitalist state into a communist one, so it may then also administrate its distengration....decentralize, and collapse itself
That&#39;s ridiculous and exactly what happened with the Russian Revolution and the party did not eventually decentralize it did everything to stay in power, history proves you wrong.

[Unrelenting Steve]

is communism, there is no economy, there is of course, a good state to be in, like, is need being met. Do not forget the power of sociaty, how many poeple need to be multi billionaires, and how many strive to be, wouldnt it be better for people to stop making money after their first billion? how many keep on going, why make more money than you can spend in one life time?

Poeple like to be looked up to, poeple are narsisistc, poeple do have a drive to become doctors, and other such things, the USSR worked, lets all remember, not for a great time, but it did run. You needed surgery, you got it, you needed to go to the dentist, you went. It

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 10 2004, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 10 2004, 05:13 PM)
Unrelenting [email protected] 10 2004, 06:10 PM
that is not what the term means, the term means the revolutionary force is in control, full control, nad can make the radical changes nessesary to convert a capitalist state into a communist one, so it may then also administrate its distengration....decentralize, and collapse itself
That&#39;s ridiculous and exactly what happened with the Russian Revolution and the party did not eventually decentralize it did everything to stay in power, history proves you wrong. [/b]
STALIN WAS A BASTARD, i cant help it, Lenin couldnt help it&#33; Im sorry, that dont mean the system cant work&#33; just cause one bastard screwed it up, he wasnt even really communist, he wasnt even communist at all, when it happens next time, perhaps it will be conducted by a board, to prevent it being hijacked by a meglamaniac, who got into power much like Saddam Hussein, killing the poeple above and around him&#33; DOnt forget, Stalin was a bastard.

[LSD]

Unrelenting Steve:

While I hate to agree with a capitalist, blamming Stalin for the failures of Soviet vanguardism seems hollow. A good number of Stalin&#39;s policies were just holdovers from Lenin, and Lenin was as much of an authoritarian as anyone.

Y2A/SDSJap:

You&#39;re right that everyone does not have complete freedom in occupation as there is both a physical and social limit. Therefore, the individual worker&#39;s collectives would decide how many more could join their ranks, and would open/close positions.

As to doctors,
I have heard both sides of this argument come from capitalists&#33;&#33;

Some argue that there will be too many doctors, because no one will want to do menial jobs,

Others argue that there will be too few because no one will want to go to school.

The point is that both type of people exist, and both will continue to exist in a communist society, thereby maintaining the balance of occupations.

[JustSoul]

Acid you still miss a point.

You claim that people would work in communism just as hard as in capitalism. For the sake of the argument let&#39;s assume you right. But then noone would want to work as a janitory. Because frankly the job sucks.


But in real world people won&#39;t work as hard . And that means not enough educated specialists because why bother if you hate your any type of work anyways.

[LSD]

But then noone would want to work as a janitory. Because frankly the job sucks.

Perhaps, but that&#39;s a fairly subjective oppinion. After all it is relatively easy, doesn&#39;t require excessive amounts of time spent in school, and in all honesty is no worse than most menial tasks.

Sure it occupies a socially lower position, but that&#39;s a class issue and a social perception issue which will gradually be changed.



But in real world people won&#39;t work as hard.

That&#39;s a fairly strong assumption to make with no evidence behind it. As I have reiterated several times, it would be required of them as members of society that they work their share.


And that means not enough educated specialists because why bother if you hate your any type of work anyways.

Wait, I thought "noone would want to work as a janitory"?? So no one would want to be an "educated specialist" and no one would want to do menial tasks?

In your world no one seems to do anything&#33;

[JustSoul]

Dude can&#39;t you read? I have explained that in any scenario communism won&#39;t work. Even if productivity won&#39;t fall as you claim.

Perhaps, but that&#39;s a fairly subjective oppinion. After all it is relatively easy, doesn&#39;t require excessive amounts of time spent in school, and in all honesty is no worse than most menial tasks.

Sure it occupies a socially lower position, but that&#39;s a class issue and a social perception issue which will gradually be changed.



No it sucks because it sucks. Has nothing to do with social position. Can you imagine a more stupid and boring work? Ask yourself if you would work as a janitor if you had any other real choice.

That&#39;s a fairly strong assumption to make with no evidence behind it. As I have reiterated several times, it would be required of them as members of society that they work their share.

It is not an assumption. That&#39;s what happened in all the countries that have tried to go the communist road. Yes they weren&#39;t really a communist states but their wage system was similar to one under communism. Why bother trying hard? Just work slow and claim you are untalented. Everyone did that in USSR , well at least a great majority.

Wait, I thought "noone would want to work as a janitory"?? So no one would want to be an "educated specialist" and no one would want to do menial tasks?

In your world no one seems to do anything&#33;

Read above . Stop fecking ignoring my posts.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2004, 06:35 PM


Some argue that there will be too many doctors, because no one will want to do menial jobs,

Others argue that there will be too few because no one will want to go to school.
In capitalism, those who want and have the necessary excellences to become doctors will do so, because it is profitable for them.

In communism, nobody would be a doctor. It requires long years of schooling, it is difficult, it is stressful, and it has the same "wages"(forget the bullshit that their is no money. You are paid in food and clothing and shelter, etc) as any other job.

[Misodoctakleidist]

In communism there is no state, so as in the example of a school which was brought up earlier in this thread the teachers would be allowed to share in the benifits of society because they are making a contribution as would be the situation for all workers.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:28 PM
In communism there is no state, so as in the example of a school which was brought up earlier in this thread the teachers would be allowed to share in the benifits of society because they are making a contribution as would be the situation for all workers.
And what is the teacher&#39;s motivation to teach well, if they all share in society anyway?

[Soviet power supreme]

No it sucks because it sucks. Has nothing to do with social position. Can you imagine a more stupid and boring work? Ask yourself if you would work as a janitor if you had any other real choice.

Everyone will get their chance but not everybody can be a doctor.Some people are just stupid or they dont want to go schools anymore and they take job like janitor.Boring job?So what,you would do it like couple hours per day since there would be 100% employment.

From each according their deeds and to each according their needs.
People seems to forget the first part in that sentece.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 09:34 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 09:28 PM
In communism there is no state, so as in the example of a school which was brought up earlier in this thread the teachers would be allowed to share in the benifits of society because they are making a contribution as would be the situation for all workers.
And what is the teacher&#39;s motivation to teach well, if they all share in society anyway? [/b]
i think you misunderstood me, they share in the benifits of society because they teach. If they did nothing they would not be allowed to share in the benifits of society becuase they are not contributing.

[LSD]

Originally posted by John Galt+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt)
In communism, nobody would be a doctor. It requires long years of schooling, it is difficult, it is stressful, and it has the same "wages"(forget the bullshit that their is no money. You are paid in food and clothing and shelter, etc) as any other job.
[/b]


JustSoul
No it sucks because it sucks. Has nothing to do with social position. Can you imagine a more stupid and boring work? Ask yourself if you would work as a janitor if you had any other real choice.

This is the diversity I&#39;m talking about.

justsoul:

If you think no one would work menial positions ask your buddy John Galt about "long years of schooling."

John Galt:

If you think no one would be doctors ask justsoul about "stupid and boring work."







That&#39;s what happened in all the countries that have tried to go the communist road. Yes they weren&#39;t really a communist states but their wage system was similar to one under communism. Why bother trying hard? Just work slow and claim you are untalented. Everyone did that in USSR , well at least a great majority.

There are a couple of things to address here.


One of them is the issue of social conciousness vs. state control.

In the Soviet Union, one worked because the state told you to work. In a true communist society, there is no state and so you are working for society. Before you declare that no one cares about society, realize that it depends on how you define the term.

No one cares abouit society as an abstract because it is meaningless in their daily lives. But even you have to acknowledge that people care about things beyond themselves. Patriotism, sacrifice, loyalty, honour.

When one is working for a state that controls 200 million, than society is a very vague thing, when you are working for a small collective then society becomes concrete. Society becomes your family, your friends. You work because you genuinely care that they are provided for. It is no longer simply a matter of recieving a reward. You know that they are counting on your work. And that counts for a lot.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 10 2004, 09:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 10 2004, 09:39 PM)
Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 09:34 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 09:28 PM
In communism there is no state, so as in the example of a school which was brought up earlier in this thread the teachers would be allowed to share in the benifits of society because they are making a contribution as would be the situation for all workers.
And what is the teacher&#39;s motivation to teach well, if they all share in society anyway?
i think you misunderstood me, they share in the benifits of society because they teach. If they did nothing they would not be allowed to share in the benifits of society becuase they are not contributing. [/b]
They are still teaching, but why should they put effort in it.

They show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook.

[Misodoctakleidist]

They are still teaching, but why should they put effort in it.

They show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook.

Let me ask you this, in capitalism teahers get paid a set amount of money so why don&#39;t they just "show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook?"

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 10 2004, 01:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 10 2004, 01:15 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:12 PM
Your title says &#39;&#39;Who does communism benifit?&#39;&#39; and your arguments is all about money, but believe it or not money isn&#39;t the only existing benifit.
for example is communism basicaly a humanistic idea, so the docter&#39;s benifit would be the fact that he safes life (if he was a real communist that would be a reward in it self), and the mcdonald worker&#39;s (lol) benifit would be that he actually can make a living.
Then you probertly ask why the man wants to be a docter if he makes the same as the mc-worker (since you only see money as a benifit).
To that i can answer that it&#39;s more exciting to be a docter than a mc-worker, and in a communistic society you actually have a choise to be what you want.
And how will this doctor be able to save lives when they can not to research needed to created advanced medicine and equipment needed to perform advanced opperations on a person due to the fact that everyone must get the same treatment? [/b]
The doctor doesnt research, the doctor doesnt buy the equiptment. The research is done in govt labs, and the equiptment belongs to the state.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:48 PM

They are still teaching, but why should they put effort in it.

They show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook.

Let me ask you this, in capitalism teahers get paid a set amount of money so why don&#39;t they just "show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook?"
The can be fired.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:48 PM

They are still teaching, but why should they put effort in it.

They show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook.

Let me ask you this, in capitalism teahers get paid a set amount of money so why don&#39;t they just "show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook?"
I have teachers do less then this.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Jan 10 2004, 09:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Jan 10 2004, 09:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:15 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 05:12 PM
Your title says &#39;&#39;Who does communism benifit?&#39;&#39; and your arguments is all about money, but believe it or not money isn&#39;t the only existing benifit.
for example is communism basicaly a humanistic idea, so the docter&#39;s benifit would be the fact that he safes life (if he was a real communist that would be a reward in it self), and the mcdonald worker&#39;s (lol) benifit would be that he actually can make a living.
Then you probertly ask why the man wants to be a docter if he makes the same as the mc-worker (since you only see money as a benifit).
To that i can answer that it&#39;s more exciting to be a docter than a mc-worker, and in a communistic society you actually have a choise to be what you want.
And how will this doctor be able to save lives when they can not to research needed to created advanced medicine and equipment needed to perform advanced opperations on a person due to the fact that everyone must get the same treatment?
The doctor doesnt research, the doctor doesnt buy the equiptment. The research is done in govt labs, and the equiptment belongs to the state. [/b]
Money is not the only benefit, but it is the only one that the government can provide. In communism you simply lack a common unit of value. You get "paid" in actual items, instead of money with which you choose what items to get.


And doctors do research. You need the backround to do research

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 05:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 05:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:15 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 05:12 PM
Your title says &#39;&#39;Who does communism benifit?&#39;&#39; and your arguments is all about money, but believe it or not money isn&#39;t the only existing benifit.
for example is communism basicaly a humanistic idea, so the docter&#39;s benifit would be the fact that he safes life (if he was a real communist that would be a reward in it self), and the mcdonald worker&#39;s (lol) benifit would be that he actually can make a living.
Then you probertly ask why the man wants to be a docter if he makes the same as the mc-worker (since you only see money as a benifit).
To that i can answer that it&#39;s more exciting to be a docter than a mc-worker, and in a communistic society you actually have a choise to be what you want.
And how will this doctor be able to save lives when they can not to research needed to created advanced medicine and equipment needed to perform advanced opperations on a person due to the fact that everyone must get the same treatment?
The doctor doesnt research, the doctor doesnt buy the equiptment. The research is done in govt labs, and the equiptment belongs to the state.
Money is not the only benefit, but it is the only one that the government can provide. In communism you simply lack a common unit of value. You get "paid" in actual items, instead of money with which you choose what items to get. [/b]
Its a cross between the two. Certain nessessaties are afforded to everyone equally, and there ought to be a cash pay on top based on the value and quality of your work.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 09:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 09:51 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 09:48 PM

They are still teaching, but why should they put effort in it.

They show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook.

Let me ask you this, in capitalism teahers get paid a set amount of money so why don&#39;t they just "show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook?"
The can be fired. [/b]
similarly in communism, if the teacher was doing a bad enough job to warrent being fired (in capitalism) they would not be allowed to share in the benifits of society.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 10 2004, 09:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 10 2004, 09:55 PM)
Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 09:51 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 09:48 PM

They are still teaching, but why should they put effort in it.

They show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook.

Let me ask you this, in capitalism teahers get paid a set amount of money so why don&#39;t they just "show up to class each day, and read out of the classes textbook?"
The can be fired.
similarly in communism, if the teacher was doing a bad enough job to warrent being fired (in capitalism) they would not be allowed to share in the benifits of society. [/b]
And who decides if they are doing the job well?

[Misodoctakleidist]

And who decides if they are doing the job well?

There are any number of possiblities, firstly it tends to be quite obvious whether a teacher is doing a good job or not. Perhaps there could be inspectors who observe classes occasionaly and write reports.

The main argument is that teachers generaly want to do a good job.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:04 PM

And who decides if they are doing the job well?

1. There are any number of possiblities, firstly it tends to be quite obvious whether a teacher is doing a good job or not. Perhaps there could be inspectors who observe classes occasionaly and write reports.

2. The main argument is that teachers generaly want to do a good job.
I numbered your 2 arguments

2. Teachers today want to do a good job because it benefits them. There is no such motive for that under communism.

1. Who would decide what is obvious and what is not? Its not like the excellence of the teachers is constrained to integer values. And with your inspectors, you now have an government that is overseeing everything. You now have a group ruling the people

[Misodoctakleidist]

2. Teachers today want to do a good job because it benefits them. There is no such motive for that under communism.

How does it benifit them? How would this benifit be removed in communism?


1. Who would decide what is obvious and what is not? Its not like the excellence of the teachers is constrained to integer values. And with your inspectors, you now have an government that is overseeing everything. You now have a group ruling the people

Why do inspectors need to be employed by a government?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:23 PM

1. How does it benifit them? How would this benifit be removed in communism?


2. Why do inspectors need to be employed by a government?
1. It keeps them from being fired, and opens up oppertunity for promotion, or a better paying job at another school. In communism if you do a job. Good, ok, or mediocre, you gain the same benefits.

2. Whoever employs these inspectors are the government as they have control over everything.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 10:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 10:27 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 10:23 PM

1. How does it benifit them? How would this benifit be removed in communism?


2. Why do inspectors need to be employed by a government?
1. It keeps them from being fired, and opens up oppertunity for promotion, or a better paying job at another school. In communism if you do a job. Good, ok, or mediocre, you gain the same benefits.

2. Whoever employs these inspectors are the government as they have control over everything. [/b]
1. tell me how doing a good jobs "opens up oppertunity for promotion, or a better paying job at another school."

I think we&#39;ve already discussed the issue of being fired.

2. could you rephrase this please, i quite understand what you&#39;re saying.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:39 PM
1. tell me how doing a good jobs "opens up oppertunity for promotion, or a better paying job at another school."

I think we&#39;ve already discussed the issue of being fired.

2. could you rephrase this please, i quite understand what you&#39;re saying.
1. In 5th grade I had an amazing teacher. She had multiple awards from colleges like Harvard, and Yale for her teaching. After seeing these proofs of her ability, she would be able to get a job at another, higher paying school. (She didnt, because my school pays VERY well, and its a nice neightborhood). Principals and Deans are almost always teachers first and are promoted because they are good.


2. If you have the ability to exile people from society, and ostracize them, you have all the power in this society. Never forget that power corrupts.