Questions about your socialist or communist system

[t_wolves_fan]

1>If I disagreed with any policies, would I be allowed to protest publicly?

2>How would you distribute goods and services? Based on need? What about wants? For instance if I want a V-8 engine and leather interior and a sunroof, could I get a car with those features? Or would there be fewer choices?

What would you charge for products? How would you decide?

3>How would resources be managed? Theoretically if everyone had the same income, prices would be artificially low and demand would go through the roof. Would resources therefore be rationed?

4>What if I refused to work? What would happen to me?


These are serious questions. I thank you for your serious responses in the "defining moment" thread.

Thanks.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

I can only speak for anarchist type of communism, but here it goes:



1>If I disagreed with any policies, would I be allowed to protest publicly?


Of course.



2>How would you distribute goods and services? Based on need? What about wants? For instance if I want a V-8 engine and leather interior and a sunroof, could I get a car with those features? Or would there be fewer choices?


Needs would obviously have to be satisfied first. After that, by some process a balance would have to be reached between free time and the production of luxuries. The distribution of those luxuries might also be in some way communally decided. Some communities might decide not to have private cars, while others might think that everyone should be given a car. If they can't produce those themselves, they would obviously have to persuade other communities to produce them.

ParEcon (participatory economics) is one theoretically worked out suggestion on how things might work. See e.g.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings/hahnelURPE.htm

(Personally, I could do with a bit less local community approval. Perhaps some kind of electronic kudos that isn't really money but only serves to indicate that there are people somewhere in the world that appreciate your work...)



What would you charge for products? How would you decide?


Nothing, at least not in the sense of capitalist money.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"



3>How would resources be managed? Theoretically if everyone had the same income, prices would be artificially low and demand would go through the roof. Would resources therefore be rationed?


Scarce resources would have to be rationed. Some demand would be suppressed by communities disapproving of people always having the latest gizmos, causing lots of pollution and so on. But I also believe such a society would design more reusable gizmos for various reasons.



4>What if I refused to work? What would happen to me?


Your basic needs would probably be satisfied (food, housing, healthcare, etc.), but you would be denied luxuries and frowned upon.

Note that in such a anarchist/communist society the amount of work needed to be done by everyone would be much less than what is required of those who are "lucky" enough to have a job these days. Perhaps in the order of 4 hours a day. (The direction of modern capitalism is "more work for less people", while in a more ideal society it would be "less work for more people".)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
]Questions about your socialist or communist system

You understand that those are two different systems, right?


If I disagreed with any policies, would I be allowed to protest publicly?

Socialism: it would depend on the nature of your disagreement and how you intended to protest.

Communism: if you had serious disagreements with the policies of your collective, it would probably be just easier to leave it and find another. There's very little in the way of "general policies" that "apply everywhere".


How would you distribute goods and services? Based on need?

Socialism: some basic necessities would probably be distributed according to need, but most things would have to be purchased.

Communism: everything distributed according to need/want.


For instance if I want a V-8 engine and leather interior and a sunroof, could I get a car with those features?

That's not a very realistic question; the internal combustion engine will probably only be found in museums by the time either socialism or communism is established.

In the general sense of your question, though, choices will certainly be more limited...at least in cosmetic terms.


What would you charge for products? How would you decide?

Socialism: prices would be set by a central planning agency.

Communism: there's no money...everything is free.


Would resources therefore be rationed?

Socialism: always...either by pricing or by coupon.

Communism: only when necessary to make sure that basic needs are being met for everyone; otherwise, it's the early bird that gets the worm. You may have to convince the manufacturing collective that you will make the best use of their product.


What if I refused to work? What would happen to me?

Socialism: you would probably be threatened with imprisonment. Even if that didn't happen, you'd still have to find someone to support you. If you don't have money, you don't eat.

Communism: people would feel sorry for you or would publicly ridicule you as a fuck-off.

------------------------------

Think of socialism as an enormous corporation that guarantees everyone a job.

Think of communism as a society in which all labor is voluntary.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Sorry Rev, Red's answers were, as always, more interesting...


You understand that those are two different systems, right?

Yep.

On freedom of speech:


Socialism: it would depend on the nature of your disagreement and how you intended to protest.

Basically say I wanted to take advantage of freedom of speech as it exists in the United States. Papers, websites, speeches in the town square, bumperstickers, signs in my...uhhh, I mean the collective's lawn which has been allocated to me.

Would I be allowed to purchase time on the TV or radio networks?


Communism: if you had serious disagreements with the policies of your collective, it would probably be just easier to leave it and find another. There's very little in the way of "general policies" that "apply everywhere".

That doesn't sound much like the world's last experience with Communism.

On distribution of goods and services...


Socialism: some basic necessities would probably be distributed according to need, but most things would have to be purchased.

How would need be determined? Would the state/community decide how much flour or milk I "need"? Would I be able to buy extra?


Communism: everything distributed according to need/want.

Same question.

On personal preferences...



In the general sense of your question, though, choices will certainly be more limited...at least in cosmetic terms.

So freedom is by definition diminished. What if I disagree that my needs are not cosmetic? Say I need a bigger car than the collective allots to everyone because the fertility drugs worked a little too well and I ended up with 7 kids? Or say I liked to vacation in the mountains and so needed a large 4X4 with lots of power? Are you going to tell me I can't because those needs have been deemed cosmetic?

On charging for products...


Socialism: prices would be set by a central planning agency.

How many people do you plan to hire to keep track of the price of everything from thumbtacks to whiskey to tires to flour to sheet metal? How would you adjust the price? What if you set it too low and demand explodes? If it's too high and nobody can afford it?


Communism: there's no money...everything is free.

What about the tragedy of the commons? If cars are free what if I want 27 of them? Am I going to be forbidden from purchasing so many?

On rationing resources...


Socialism: always...either by pricing or by coupon.

All resources will be rationed?


Communism: only when necessary to make sure that basic needs are being met for everyone; otherwise, it's the early bird that gets the worm. You may have to convince the manufacturing collective that you will make the best use of their product.

So you again have the tragedy of the commons. And what if the manufacturing collective can't be convinced? What benefit would be in it for them?

On refusing to work...


Socialism: you would probably be threatened with imprisonment. Even if that didn't happen, you'd still have to find someone to support you. If you don't have money, you don't eat.

That's what we already have.


Communism: people would feel sorry for you or would publicly ridicule you as a fuck-off.

What if I'm a nonconformist who doesn't care what the public thinks? I'm getting mine either way, aren't I?


Think of socialism as an enormous corporation that guarantees everyone a job.

How would it be paid for?


Think of communism as a society in which all labor is voluntary.

What if too few people volunteered? What if my chosen career field were full?

[Sirion]

"How would need be determined? Would the state/community decide how much flour or milk I "need"? Would I be able to buy extra?"

Glad you asked about those specific resources. Just think of it. One day, fluor is made free. In the beginning, people may hoard. However, as flour continues to be free, you will only use as much as you need yourself, since there is no reason to hoard when you can get it for free

[crazyman]

A qustion I have
What motivates me to work hard.

[crazyman]

All I want to know is what is stopping me from going to work and doing lazy job.
In capitalism I when I work hard and get results my boss will give me a pay raise and mabe a promotion.
With communism I see no reason to put all my effort into my job?

[October Revolution]

You will wish to work harder to help your common man and the rest of soceity. If you work hard then everyones life will be improved even yours. If soceity is imporved by your working then the standards of living, education and such like will rise creating a better existence for all. Instead of going to work for purely selfish reasons you will be helping the collective.

[crazyman]

Why would I want to work harder when it dose not relly affect me. Most people wont all of the sudden be motivated to work harder when they do not get anything more back.
I know I would be a lazy bum :D

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I don't know about you. But it's not most people's dreamlife to hang around the tv and spent their life lazy. People actually enjoy work, especially when it beneftis a society which they like. And yes your own labor does affect you, your commune and even the whole world in it's whole.

[crazyman]

I enjoy work when it benefits me directly and society. Like working in a capitalist I get paid and I am providing a service to other people. It seems to me that in communism I might benefit the society as a whole but if I am lazy their dose not seem to be an as big of a down side for me. Hence why their is not much to motivate me.

[panther]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:50 PM
Why would I want to work harder when it dose not relly affect me. Most people wont all of the sudden be motivated to work harder when they do not get anything more back.
I know I would be a lazy bum :D
I'm with you bro. That's why I'm looking for reparations. :D

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:41 AM
I enjoy work when it benefits me directly and society. Like working in a capitalist I get paid and I am providing a service to other people. It seems to me that in communism I might benefit the society as a whole but if I am lazy their dose not seem to be an as big of a down side for me. Hence why their is not much to motivate me.
no need to hide your pure selfishness behind "doing a job for the community". It's not your job or intention to benefit society by working in capitalism. Your job is to benefit yourself, but unfortunatly your boss takes most of your earnings. Society is benefitted too, but only at the highest possible price to get maximum profits. Actualy you're just ripping off society. You shouldn't confuse ripping off society and helping society, they are quite different.

On the other hand, in communism it is the goal of jobs to benefit society.

[Liberalista Classico]

I too would find it hard to work hard in a communal society. Not everyone has the same intellect, skill, or drive. Would the above average person be required to put in more time for the community than the less gifted?

Second, if I were not required to take the harder job, why would I work harder for the same "pay" (housing, food, leisure, etc rations)? What if I just wanted to do the minimum to recieve my share of the community's produce even if I could do so much more?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Deleted your Double-Post.

What's an above average person? And no you wouldn't be required to work, nor would you be required to work more.

Here comes the "magic" part. It's kinda hard to imagine for you. But people have a social side. They can actually work without wanting personal favors back. People can work, because they enjoy it, because they want to sustain their beloved community.

Maybe you should look to Spain in the years of 1936-39.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 3 2005, 12:28 AM
Deleted your Double-Post.

What's an above average person? And no you wouldn't be required to work, nor would you be required to work more.

Here comes the "magic" part. It's kinda hard to imagine for you. But people have a social side. They can actually work without wanting personal favors back. People can work, because they enjoy it, because they want to sustain their beloved community.

Maybe you should look to Spain in the years of 1936-39.
Thanks.

The above average person is some one who can produce more value in a givin unit of time or possesses extraordinary skills. EX1: person A can produce 6 baskets and hour while person B can only produce 2 an hour. (both have had the same training) EX2: person A has the ability to think in complex terms and multi-task while person B cannot grasp such concepts (I have seen this over and over thru life).

I see that you know where I am going with this. Thus, I challenge your assumption that people would work for society rather than for themselves. For your view of human nature to be true, means eveyone trusts each other. That will never happen. Now look at small communal systems. They do work simply because eveyone trusts and respects each other... and yes socialize together. This is fine but impossible in a city of 5 million. In such large societies, you need impersonal and objective ways to exchange value (goods & services).

BTW, I know little about your Spanish example but seeing that we are not in 1939, it is irrelevant.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:16 PM
All I want to know is what is stopping me from going to work and doing lazy job.
In capitalism I when I work hard and get results my boss will give me a pay raise and mabe a promotion.
With communism I see no reason to put all my effort into my job?
so your only reson to do a better job is to get paid more. so you take no pride in your work by just making a better product or duing a bette service.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

BTW, I know little about your Spanish example but seeing that we are not in 1939, it is irrelevant.

That's where you are wrong. It's relevant. Because A) it shows that the human nature argument is bullshit. Since large parts of Spain, involving millions of people succesfully participated. And in those years there was never discontent about the wages (you guess why). B) It shows that it's possible. That the so-called "utopian" society is possible. And since it's possible, I would rather live in such a society, then the current one. And why wouldn't anyone want to live in such a society. It sounds better, it worked better, so what's your problem?

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 3 2005, 12:50 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 3 2005, 12:50 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 05:16 PM
All I want to know is what is stopping me from going to work and doing lazy job.
In capitalism I when I work hard and get results my boss will give me a pay raise and mabe a promotion.
With communism I see no reason to put all my effort into my job?
so your only reson to do a better job is to get paid more. so you take no pride in your work by just making a better product or duing a bette service. [/b]
For me, proof of the pride and skill I put into my work is what I am paid. I then can reward others for their proud work by purchasing it with my rewards.

Whats wrong with that?

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 3 2005, 12:54 AM

BTW, I know little about your Spanish example but seeing that we are not in 1939, it is irrelevant.

That's where you are wrong. It's relevant. Because A) it shows that the human nature argument is bullshit. Since large parts of Spain, involving millions of people succesfully participated. And in those years there was never discontent about the wages (you guess why). B) It shows that it's possible. That the so-called "utopian" society is possible. And since it's possible, I would rather live in such a society, then the current one. And why wouldn't anyone want to live in such a society. It sounds better, it worked better, so what's your problem?
Simple. I would rather make my own choices. If I were told to that I get paid as a doctor the same as a coffee shop worker, I would go make coffee.

Don't you think society would lose out since I am not producing all that I can (assuming I would be an apt student of medicine)?

You see, the human nature argument is very personal. We all have a unique identity. Some are more community orientated, some are individualists, and some don't care either way. I am an individualist. I am sure I would have no place in a communial nation. What would happen to the 1/3 like me who disagree with the "public good?"

What happened to the Spanish experiment? Why was it not resumed after the war? If it was so popular, why did the people not demand it? I dont recall Spain being a economic power since empire. What did it produce?

[crazyman]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 3 2005, 12:50 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 3 2005, 12:50 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 05:16 PM
All I want to know is what is stopping me from going to work and doing lazy job.
In capitalism I when I work hard and get results my boss will give me a pay raise and mabe a promotion.
With communism I see no reason to put all my effort into my job?
so your only reson to do a better job is to get paid more. so you take no pride in your work by just making a better product or duing a bette service.[/b]
Ohh I see it now I will work for pride. What if I get stuck in a job I don't like. How can I take pride in something I would rather not do?
Another thing everything you do with money weather its making it or spending it will benifit someone in a capitalist society.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by crazyman+Feb 2 2005, 08:07 PM--> (crazyman @ Feb 2 2005, 08:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:50 AM

[email protected] 2 2005, 05:16 PM
All I want to know is what is stopping me from going to work and doing lazy job.
In capitalism I when I work hard and get results my boss will give me a pay raise and mabe a promotion.
With communism I see no reason to put all my effort into my job?
so your only reson to do a better job is to get paid more. so you take no pride in your work by just making a better product or duing a bette service.
Ohh I see it now I will work for pride. What if I get stuck in a job I don't like. How can I take pride in something I would rather not do?
Another thing everything you do with money weather its making it or spending it will benifit someone in a capitalist society. [/b]
Are you talking about under capitalism or communism? under capitalism there isnt much you can do. under communism if you dont like your job then you would just go find another. Every dollar spent only helps the ruling class.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Liberalista Classico+Feb 3 2005, 02:07 AM--> (Liberalista Classico @ Feb 3 2005, 02:07 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 3 2005, 12:54 AM

BTW, I know little about your Spanish example but seeing that we are not in 1939, it is irrelevant.

That's where you are wrong. It's relevant. Because A) it shows that the human nature argument is bullshit. Since large parts of Spain, involving millions of people succesfully participated. And in those years there was never discontent about the wages (you guess why). B) It shows that it's possible. That the so-called "utopian" society is possible. And since it's possible, I would rather live in such a society, then the current one. And why wouldn't anyone want to live in such a society. It sounds better, it worked better, so what's your problem?
Simple. I would rather make my own choices. If I were told to that I get paid as a doctor the same as a coffee shop worker, I would go make coffee.

Don't you think society would lose out since I am not producing all that I can (assuming I would be an apt student of medicine)?

You see, the human nature argument is very personal. We all have a unique identity. Some are more community orientated, some are individualists, and some don't care either way. I am an individualist. I am sure I would have no place in a communial nation. What would happen to the 1/3 like me who disagree with the "public good?"

What happened to the Spanish experiment? Why was it not resumed after the war? If it was so popular, why did the people not demand it? I dont recall Spain being a economic power since empire. What did it produce? [/b]
You can still live in communist society. You might argue that your individualistic personality doesn't allow you to be social, thus that you can not perform anywork without receiving something extra. But even this is false. Your individualistic character will find a different outlet. If receiving more money then another isn't a possibility anymore, then surpassing yourself is.

I assume that you have certain interests. Maybe you are interested in biology and fixing humans, but maybe not. Then I assume that you would do the work that you like. If you really like working in a coffeeshop above being a doctor. Then suit yourself. Nobody has problems with it.

And I highly doubt whetever something as an individualistic character exists. I am individualistic, just as well that you are a social person. Every person has both sides. We are perfectly able to use both in a communist society.

Yes, I almost forgot. The Spanish experiment. It was military crushed by different groups. Among them Stalinists, Fascists, the Spanish Government. A large number of anarchists fled into the mountaneous area between France and Spain. From there they fought on against fascist Spain and France.

The Spanish government of Franco was rather effective in quelling (future) resistance. Nonetheless directly after Franco's death the CNT was pretty much alive. And today the CNT and CGT are one of the strongest Spanish unions.

In the 3 short years of Anarchism in Spain it had it's hands busy fighting off different groups and practicing a totally new form of organisation. Nonetheless they managed to hold off industrial great powers off with some old rifles and armored cars. And showed that Anarchism can work.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)Basically say I wanted to take advantage of freedom of speech as it exists in the United States.[/b]

Well, you still didn't specify "what you want to say". There are some things that one is allowed to say in the U.S. presently; there are others that are partially or totally censored.

Let's say you want to advocate an entirely different socio-political system. At this time, if you advocate the replacement of capitalism by communism, socialism, feudalism, slavery, etc., then you can't get a "fair hearing" for your views in the mass media...it's not permitted.

You might be permitted to purchase a single full-page ad in a major newspaper or a half-hour of late-night television time...but those would be sporadic events at best. Your views would be "outside the realm" of acceptable public discourse in the U.S. of today.

Socialism: You'd have the same problems; in fact, you'd be like an employee criticizing the boss. They can't fire you but you might end up with a really crappy work-assignment.

Communism: People would think you were joking.


That doesn't sound much like the world's last experience with Communism.

I thought you said that you "understood" that we were talking about two different kinds of post-capitalist societies.

That "last experience" was with socialism...not communism.


How would need be determined?

socialism: Rationally. The central planning board would attempt to estimate a reasonable need and then adjust it according to experience.

communism: You figure out what you need yourself and go pick it up. If it's available, of course.


So freedom is by definition diminished.

Only if you define "freedom" as the freedom to accumulate stuff.

I can understand your leap to that conclusion; all the media these days tell us "we are what we buy".

But much of the time when we imagine that we are buying something "different"...we aren't.

Neither socialism nor communism will focus on imaginary "differences" for what is essentially the same product or service.

We don't actually need 25 brands of soap powder that all contain...soap powder.


Say I need a bigger car than the collective allots to everyone because the fertility drugs worked a little too well and I ended up with 7 kids?

Socialism: You need to get a good job that will allow you to purchase a van (yes, there are wage differentials in socialism...though far less dramatic than the ones under capitalism).

Communism: You get a van for the asking.

In neither case will they be likely to be powered by internal combustion engines.


Or say I liked to vacation in the mountains and so needed a large 4X4 with lots of power?

Socialism: You might be able to rent a 4x4 at the national park lodge.

Communism: You walk or climb.


How many people do you plan to hire to keep track of the price of everything from thumbtacks to whiskey to tires to flour to sheet metal? How would you adjust the price? What if you set it too low and demand explodes? If it's too high and nobody can afford it?

Socialism: Just as in a modern corporation, computers keep track of prices, inventories, sales, etc. Prices are periodically adjusted to increase or decrease demand as seems necessary.

Communism: You still keep track of what's going on...but now it's up to the producers whether or not they want to make more stuff or less stuff. If people don't like what they make...then the work is pointless and they'll probably quit and do something else. If people really like what they make and want more, then the producers will probably look for others to help them make more.

This may strike some as a bit "sluggish"...but there will still be a flow of labor towards producing more desirable products and away from less desirable products.


What about the tragedy of the commons? If cars are free what if I want 27 of them?

You won't get them...under either system. (In capitalism, of course, you may own 100 cars or 1,000 cars if you are rich enough...but you can still only drive one at a time.)

The "tragedy of the commons" occurs because there is a collision between a communal arrangement and a market economy.

From the communal standpoint, the rational owner of cattle or sheep would graze only enough animals to sustain his needs...and there would be grass enough for all. But since the animal owner would personally benefit by grazing as many animals as he could get away with...and selling the surplus in the marketplace -- the commons is quickly over-grazed and all the grass dies.

If there is no marketplace, then there is no individual advantage or incentive to overgrazing the commons.


All resources will be rationed?

All resources are rationed now...by pricing. Why aren't you living in a luxury penthouse apartment? There are plenty of vacant ones available on the market.

You can't afford it!

You don't have enough "green ration coupons".


And what if the manufacturing collective can't be convinced? What benefit would be in it for them?

(This is a question limited to communism.)

What I was referring to there was the case in which the manufacturing collective was making specialty items...not the ordinary things we use in daily life.

Let's suppose you are a concert violinist and want a new violin. It takes skilled craftsmen up to a year or more to make one. They're unlikely to do that for you unless you're a damn good musician.


What if I'm a nonconformist who doesn't care what the public thinks? I'm getting mine either way, aren't I?

(This question also refers to communism.)

Yes, you'd still live pretty much like everyone else...except no one would be hounding you or threatening you to "get a job".

Would you like that? To spend year after year and decade after decade doing nothing serious at all?

In a communist society, you can do that.


How would it [socialism] be paid for?

The same way capitalism is paid for. People would be paid to make stuff and would then use their wages to buy stuff. There would be no profits, but there would be a surplus for maintenance, new factories, etc.


What if [under communism] too few people volunteered? What if my chosen career field were full?

I don't think your first question will involve any problems. It's only in capitalist mythology that people need "a whip" to "make them work".

As to your second question, there'd be no such thing as a "full career field". That's something that really only happens under capitalism. The addition of your labor to a particular field of work would simply mean that one or more others would work slightly less.

Two guys are each working 4 hours a week in some field and you join them. All three of you will now work 2:40 a week.


crazyman
What motivates me to work hard?

There were several posts along these lines, so I'll just reply once.

Socialism: The harder and more productively you work, the more money you make (though you will not ever get "rich" by capitalist standards).

Communism: You work as easy or as hard as you feel like.

---------------------------

By this time, you should have a basic understanding of socialism...much like now except without a class of rich bastards taking the lion's share and lording it over the rest of us.

Communism, on the other hand, probably sounds utterly bizarre to you...a classless society is completely different from anything that has hither-to existed.

We don't even know if it will work at all; much may have to be figured out "on the fly".

But if we can make communism work...then we'll have the first setup that can be called a truly human civilization ever.

It's a big challenge and a big risk.

But worth it!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Liberalista Classico]

You can still live in communist society. You might argue that your individualistic personality doesn't allow you to be social, thus that you can not perform anywork without receiving something extra. But even this is false. Your individualistic character will find a different outlet. If receiving more money then another isn't a possibility anymore, then surpassing yourself is.

Who in hell has the right to tell me how my individualism "will find a differnet outlet?" Sounds like a reduction in freedom to me.


I assume that you have certain interests. Maybe you are interested in biology and fixing humans, but maybe not. Then I assume that you would do the work that you like. If you really like working in a coffeeshop above being a doctor. Then suit yourself. Nobody has problems with it.

Actually, I am interested in spending all my time in leisure while I am young. Cant do that under the current system if I am not rich. But I cannot do that under the communal system because I would be working for the "public good." I am interested in traveling and goofing off, not work.


And I highly doubt whetever something as an individualistic character exists. I am individualistic, just as well that you are a social person. Every person has both sides. We are perfectly able to use both in a communist society.

Doubt if you like. I am proof of that character. But of course we have both. And we can use them under capitalism as well.

Thanks for the insight on the Spanish commune. I might of been a limited sucess if you value subsistance rather than material improvement. BTW, does the current incarnations of the commune have anything to do with the Basque separatist movements?

[comrade_mufasa]

All of us communist dont mind people not working it is only you capitaist that keep bring up this "some people will be lazy and not work" stuff. please get a new argument. thank you

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Freedom is a too abstract term. Freedom do what? The Freedom to have the possiblity to gain material wealth or the freedom to get everything you need. I am not telling that you will find a different outlet. I am saying that it's likely.

He, if you are so fond of the capitalist system, then you can subdue yourself to 8 hours of work, with really crappy wages. While everyone else enjoys a 6 hours or even a 4 hours workday. There is no stopping. You do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. How can you say no to such a system?

And yes you could travel and goof off, if that is your interest under communism. What part of do what you want, as long as you don't hurt other, didn't you understand.

And no under capitalism, ones freedom and possiblities are restricted by the ammount of money that one posses. The ammount of time, energy and resources that you can spent on social work is restricted by your bankaccount. You need to feed yourself, pay your bills and that of possible children, before you can even consider doing social work.

And I don't know if there are any connections between the anarchist movement and the Basque seperatist movement.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Who in hell has the right to tell me how my individualism "will find a differnet outlet?" Sounds like a reduction in freedom to me.

If your "individualism" involves the exploitation of others' labor and subjugation of their freedom, then your bourgeois "freedom" will be reduced. No, it will be phased out entirely, in fact.


Actually, I am interested in spending all my time in leisure while I am young. Cant do that under the current system if I am not rich. But I cannot do that under the communal system because I would be working for the "public good." I am interested in traveling and goofing off, not work.

You will acquire this wealth at whose expense?


Doubt if you like. I am proof of that character. But of course we have both. And we can use them under capitalism as well.

Can you truly "use" your communal character in capitalism? According to laizzes-faire economic, you cannot rely on your community for anything at all, can you?

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 3 2005, 03:13 AM
.

Freedom is a too abstract term. Freedom do what? The Freedom to have the possiblity to gain material wealth or the freedom to get everything you need. I am not telling that you will find a different outlet. I am saying that it's likely.
Both, sorta. Freedom of material gain and freedom to get everything I want

He, if you are so fond of the capitalist system, then you can subdue yourself to 8 hours of work, with really crappy wages. While everyone else enjoys a 6 hours or even a 4 hours workday. There is no stopping. You do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. How can you say no to such a system?
But under the communal system, I get the same pay regardless of my efforts. In this event, I will chose zero hours.

And yes you could travel and goof off, if that is your interest under communism. What part of do what you want, as long as you don't hurt other, didn't you understand.
Under communism, it is the peoples' duty to make sure we get all our needs filled. I need to go clubin in Tokyo 5 days a month and need to fly in first class. Will the people always provide these needs?

And no under capitalism, ones freedom and possiblities are restricted by the ammount of money that one posses. The ammount of time, energy and resources that you can spent on social work is restricted by your bankaccount. You need to feed yourself, pay your bills and that of possible children, before you can even consider doing social work.
Under capitalism, at least I have a chance to make enough money to persue what I want. Under communism, I get a chance to work enough for my needs.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Wrong.

There is no pay. Capital will be abolished. Nor are there first class on airplanes. If you feel like clubbin' then go ahead.

And you should stop equating capitalism to freedom. It's false. You have in capitalism certain choices and possibilities, just like you have certain choices and possibilities in communism.

Under capitalism your freedom is restricted by the ammount of money that you have. And the obvious laws. What if you were gay and wanted to marry?

What if I don't feel like participating in the capitalist system. What possiblities do I have?

However I must say that the communist system is less restrictive. You must be feeling real chill with capitalism. Being an American middle-class. But most people are not American middle-class. They have to work real hard to even survive. People who work all their lives on dumpsters and die there.

Well atleast you gain from communism. You will be able to be clubbin' and they will be able to leave the dumpsters. What's wrong with that?

[Liberalista Classico]

Who in hell has the right to tell me how my individualism "will find a differnet outlet?" Sounds like a reduction in freedom to me.
If your "individualism" involves the exploitation of others' labor and subjugation of their freedom, then your bourgeois "freedom" will be reduced. No, it will be phased out entirely, in fact.
Rather totalitarian, dont you think? No wonder you guys will always be cooks on the sidelines. You don't want a perfect society where there is freedom for ALL? Guess not.


Actually, I am interested in spending all my time in leisure while I am young. Cant do that under the current system if I am not rich. But I cannot do that under the communal system because I would be working for the "public good." I am interested in traveling and goofing off, not work.
You will acquire this wealth at whose expense?
Under capitalism, no one's. I will trade value for value.
Under a communal system, the people will supply my wealth. I will live of the sweat of the collective's brow. Its my needs that count afterall, right?


Doubt if you like. I am proof of that character. But of course we have both. And we can use them under capitalism as well.

Can you truly "use" your communal character in capitalism? According to laizzes-faire economic, you cannot rely on your community for anything at all, can you?
No, you must rely on yourself and others to the extent to what you can recieve in trade for your efforts.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 04:09 AM

Rather totalitarian, dont you think? No wonder you guys will always be cooks on the sidelines. You don't want a perfect society where there is freedom for ALL? Guess not.

This is where you right wingers can't understand the point.


The only freedom we will take away is the freedom to exploit an other fellow human being.

[Liberalista Classico]

There is no pay. Capital will be abolished. Nor are there first class on airplanes. If you feel like clubbin' then go ahead.

This abolishment of capital makes no sense. Either you trade in money, rations, or goods; there will always be a means of expressing value. But how do I get to go off on leisure under communism when I am not allowed to keep the results of my own efforts (labor or organizational). Will the community bow to my every wish along with everuone else's? That would be collapse in 2 weeks if people like we were not gassed.

And you should stop equating capitalism to freedom. It's false. You have in capitalism certain choices and possibilities, just like you have certain choices and possibilities in communism.
Under capitalism, I have certain freedoms yes. But also under capitalism, you are free to set up your own commune. It is not the case the other way around. Now which system provides more freedom?

Under capitalism your freedom is restricted by the ammount of money that you have. And the obvious laws. What if you were gay and wanted to marry?
Yeah, I know. Thats why I will work harder and gain more skills. What does changing the definition of marriage have to do with this?

What if I don't feel like participating in the capitalist system. What possiblities do I have?
Thats your problem. No one is gonna put you in a death camp. What are my options if I opt out of Communism? I can either fight it and be killed or give up and live oof what ever the "people" decide are my "needs."

However I must say that the communist system is less restrictive. You must be feeling real chill with capitalism. Being an American middle-class. But most people are not American middle-class. They have to work real hard to even survive. People who work all their lives on dumpsters and die there.
What do mean most Americans aren't middle class, is that not the definition... middle = most. Communism tells me what I need, under capitalism I can persue what I want. if I fail, its my problem, not my neighbor. But the bolded part is confounding. Do mean people who work in the garbage industry at $20/hr? People who make dumpsters? Or are you talking about street bumbs? I think thats what you were getting at. 70% of those put themselves there and the rest were turned out of the nut-houses after it was declared unfair to institionalize these people for life. Street bumbs dont add to your struggle.

Well atleast you gain from communism. You will be able to be clubbin' and they will be able to leave the dumpsters. What's wrong with that?
I gain communial tyranny of the majority under communism that will not let me travel opulantly as I see as my need. I wouldn't be able to get an extra potatoe for dinner unless the street-bum gets his daily bottle of T-bird for sitting on his ass.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by Zingu+Feb 3 2005, 04:15 AM--> (Zingu @ Feb 3 2005, 04:15 AM)
Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 04:09 AM

Rather totalitarian, dont you think? No wonder you guys will always be cooks on the sidelines. You don't want a perfect society where there is freedom for ALL? Guess not.

This is where you right wingers can't understand the point.


The only freedom we will take away is the freedom to exploit an other fellow human being. [/b]
But who defines what exactly constitutes exploitation? Some one on this site said it means paying some unidentified amount above subsistance level to any worker.

[NovelGentry]

This abolishment of capital makes no sense. Either you trade in money, rations, or goods; there will always be a means of expressing value. But how do I get to go off on leisure under communism when I am not allowed to keep the results of my own efforts (labor or organizational). Will the community bow to my every wish along with everuone else's? That would be collapse in 2 weeks if people like we were not gassed.

Capital begets capital, it is not simply wealth, it is the acquired wealth which creates more wealth. It is the money paid to workers, the machines they produce on etc. As far as money/rations/goods go -- under socialism there are what I consider two forms of an equivalent. My ideas may differ from someone like Redstar's a bit. Immediate Pay Credit is the first of these types, it is the replacement for "money." However, unlike money Immediate Pay Credit (like all credit) is centralized and thus is not in private circulation. You can never give credit to someone else for their labor. The other type is Future Pay Credit (something of a loan), again this is not anything in circulation, it comes directly from the "state" more specifically from the administrative's created infrastructure for the Free Association of Workers and Producers.

The results of your efforts are directly given under socialism with immediate pay credit, you can "save this" as you would money and do what you will with it. You could also apply for future pay credit for things you need, this would come at no "interest" and would of course be paid back directly as percent removal of your immediate pay credit.

Under communism these things do not exist. It is assumed that production has at the very least been equalized to consumption, but more than likely would have to be greater than consumption. If it is not materially possible for a society to move to communism, that is, if we cannot allow workers to have the freedom not to work, then it's not going to happen. No worker would wish it to happen, as scarcity problems might already be evident under socialism.

They need not "bow" to wishes. They don't even need to think about wishes. There would be increase labor to suppliment lost labor if you left (vacation or for good). The economic organization of communes and something like the free association of workers and producers would ensure that such issues are managed. Do businesses suddenly die out when workers quit? die? etc. No, and until more employees come usually someone is going to fill their position or the time/effort they used to contribute.


Under capitalism, I have certain freedoms yes. But also under capitalism, you are free to set up your own commune. It is not the case the other way around. Now which system provides more freedom?

No, we are not. There's lots of things to take into account here. The first would be the idea of sovereign lands. We would in no way be allowed to reject federal law within the bounds of a nation, nor would we be able to creat our own law, thus our workers democracy is fairly useless in such a position. Second you have to think of things like taxes. Land is taxed, is it not? How would a free society ever manage to fulfill this tax? Secondly, even if we could fulfill it, we are not free from it's grasp. If we settled it by selling our oversupply in the capitalist market we would probably get screwed by businesses competing, not to mention a single raise in taxes would decide our labor necessity. We are not working for us, we are working for us and working to pay off the "property" rights we have imposed on us by the existing state.


Yeah, I know. Thats why I will work harder and gain more skills. What does changing the definition of marriage have to do with this?

I "worked harder" once to gain more skills. By the time I was done earning the piece of paper, about 32% of the job market shipped to India where labor was cheaper. The remaining amount created intense competition and price drops. People already in the industry were fired because people like me coming into it would work for less, then once they got desperate enough we would be laid off and they would be rehired at even less than what I was making entry level. Maybe if we all just worked a bit harder we would have made it? yeah? Maybe I need to work harder again... oh, I am... I'm going BACK to school, yet again, to education myself in something I'm hoping we will always need, teachers.

Sadly all this "working hard" to get myself in a good position to "work hard" some more has left me with a massive pile of student loans. So I guess I'll be working hard the greater part of my life to pay such things off, and then the rest of my life to pay off my house. I will work hard one day, so that I can live to see tomorrow and work hard again. As capitalism dictates I become little more than an extension of a machine. I am a machine. My sole purpose in life becomes to work to sustain my own life so that I can work more.


Thats your problem. No one is gonna put you in a death camp. What are my options if I opt out of Communism? I can either fight it and be killed or give up and live oof what ever the "people" decide are my "needs."

Why do you want to "opt out." BTW, you're likely not to see communism in your lifetime. But what are you so afraid of not having in communism?


What do mean most Americans aren't middle class, is that not the definition... middle = most. Communism tells me what I need, under capitalism I can persue what I want. if I fail, its my problem, not my neighbor. But the bolded part is confounding. Do mean people who work in the garbage industry at $20/hr? People who make dumpsters? Or are you talking about street bumbs? I think thats what you were getting at. 70% of those put themselves there and the rest were turned out of the nut-houses after it was declared unfair to institionalize these people for life. Street bumbs dont add to your struggle.

Actually middle is something of "neither extreme" it makes no assumption as to how many there are. Technically probably one person makes up the absolute middle. There's also other interesting things like mean and median (check em all out and why middle doesn't equal most at www.dictionary.com).

Communism does not tell you what you need. What you need is what you need, and communism allows you to work according to your ability and take according to your need. As well as your wants. You can very much persue what you want under communism, in fact, you can persue it with a lot more freedom than under capitalism, so long as what you want is not to employ others so that you become "rich."


I gain communial tyranny of the majority under communism that will not let me travel opulantly as I see as my need. I wouldn't be able to get an extra potatoe for dinner unless the street-bum gets his daily bottle of T-bird for sitting on his ass.

Communal tyranny of the majority? Democracy never sounded so bad! You can travel so much as you want and you can get as many potatoes as you want. So long as there were potatoes to be had.

[NovelGentry]

But who defines what exactly constitutes exploitation? Some one on this site said it means paying some unidentified amount above subsistance level to any worker.

Well right now the dictionary has a pretty good definiton of what constitutes exploitation: The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage. Isn't this what profit is all about? Are companies not always looking to increase profit? As they increase profit the labor of those who make the products of these companies is bringing the company more and more, but they are getting the same amount or maybe a minimal amount more with a raise.

[Taiga]

To Liberalista Classico

Simple. I would rather make my own choices. If I were told to that I get paid as a doctor the same as a coffee shop worker, I would go make coffee.

Don't you think society would lose out since I am not producing all that I can (assuming I would be an apt student of medicine)?
If you chose medicine only for it's gonna bring you a lot of bucks...... But what about people that do love medicine, that want to cure people? Don't you think they will never change their loved job for something else, even if it's easier? Under a "restored" capitalism in my post-Soviet country I see something quite opposite: people have to quit their loved jobs of ingineers, scientists, doctors etc. only because they aren't that profitable as the job of the seller in the market.


Actually, I am interested in spending all my time in leisure while I am young. Cant do that under the current system if I am not rich. But I cannot do that under the communal system because I would be working for the "public good." I am interested in traveling and goofing off, not work.
You will be allowed to that in a communist society. People will not understand you and will consider you a freak but nobody will prohibit you to do that.
In a cappie society the lack of money prohibits you to do everything that you want.
And, sorry, I don't believe that there is nothing you like to do except doing nothing. Maybe you like to make cookies or design new outfit, etc. There should be something. Otherwise, you're a plant.


But under the communal system, I get the same pay regardless of my efforts. In this event, I will chose zero hours.
I just said about it before.
And something else........ can't you remember that people aren't paid in a communist society?


Under communism, I get a chance to work enough for my needs
And wants.......and wants.........


Communism tells me what I need, under capitalism I can persue what I want.
What a bullshit........ Nobody will tell you what you need. Where did you get that from?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 2 2005, 11:11 PM
I don't know about you. But it's not most people's dreamlife to hang around the tv and spent their life lazy. People actually enjoy work, especially when it beneftis a society which they like. And yes your own labor does affect you, your commune and even the whole world in it's whole.
Yes but are you not free to work hard to benefit society as a whole without much concern for material right now, under capitalism? There are plenty of jobs or volunteer opportunities in the non-profit sector.

Why the need to cap people's wealth or ownership when such opportunities already exist?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by Zingu+Feb 3 2005, 07:15 AM--> (Zingu @ Feb 3 2005, 07:15 AM)
Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 04:09 AM

Rather totalitarian, dont you think? No wonder you guys will always be cooks on the sidelines. You don't want a perfect society where there is freedom for ALL? Guess not.

This is where you right wingers can't understand the point.

The only freedom we will take away is the freedom to exploit an other fellow human being. [/b]
Under socialism the "freedom" of capitalist style exploitation is taken away by the state. But once the society reaches communism, the people simply won't subject themselves to exploitation by wannabe cappies. If communism is reached the anarchist way, without a "transitory" workers' state, nothing is ever "taken away" by anyone; people simply decide to be free and not exploited by a minority.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

I think you are forgetting the millions of unemployed people who are doing nothing for this society and are leeching off of everyone by being on welfare.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)Basically say I wanted to take advantage of freedom of speech as it exists in the United States.[/b]


Well, you still didn't specify "what you want to say". There are some things that one is allowed to say in the U.S. presently; there are others that are partially or totally censored.

True, but the list of things you cannot say is extremely small.


Let's say you want to advocate an entirely different socio-political system. At this time, if you advocate the replacement of capitalism by communism, socialism, feudalism, slavery, etc., then you can't get a "fair hearing" for your views in the mass media...it's not permitted.

How is it "not permitted"? Is it against the law?


You might be permitted to purchase a single full-page ad in a major newspaper or a half-hour of late-night television time...but those would be sporadic events at best. Your views would be "outside the realm" of acceptable public discourse in the U.S. of today.

Socialism: You'd have the same problems; in fact, you'd be like an employee criticizing the boss. They can't fire you but you might end up with a really crappy work-assignment.

Communism: People would think you were joking.



How are either of those any different than what we have today? It is not illegal to express your beliefs in this system, so is it the fault of the system that so few members of society take your beliefs seriously?

It sounds to me like if you had your way, our situations would simply be reversed; your way would win, my way would sound crazy. Either way someone loses, right?




Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)How would need be determined?[/b]


socialism: Rationally. The central planning board would attempt to estimate a reasonable need and then adjust it according to experience.

communism: You figure out what you need yourself and go pick it up. If it's available, of course.

How could a central planning board possibly be able to accurately determine the demand for every single product that people want and need?

If it's not available what is my recourse?


Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
So freedom is by definition diminished.


Only if you define "freedom" as the freedom to accumulate stuff.

What's your point? You've already gone on about satisfying our wants and needs, doesn't that include the accumulation of "stuff"?


I can understand your leap to that conclusion; all the media these days tell us "we are what we buy".

But much of the time when we imagine that we are buying something "different"...we aren't.

Neither socialism nor communism will focus on imaginary "differences" for what is essentially the same product or service.

We don't actually need 25 brands of soap powder that all contain...soap powder.

Is this your opinion or is it fact? If my wife likes smelling like strawberries after the shower, are you saying she has no right to that want? Would mechanics be forced to scrub for endless hours with regular Zest because heavy-duty soaps like Lever are considered a luxury and therefore banned?


Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Say I need a bigger car than the collective allots to everyone because the fertility drugs worked a little too well and I ended up with 7 kids?


Socialism: You need to get a good job that will allow you to purchase a van (yes, there are wage differentials in socialism...though far less dramatic than the ones under capitalism).

Communism: You get a van for the asking.

How is socialism much different than what we have now?

If I can have all the vans I want, why would I no longer be greedy? Will there be enough resources to build everyone as many vans as they want at no cost?




Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Or say I liked to vacation in the mountains and so needed a large 4X4 with lots of power?


Socialism: You might be able to rent a 4x4 at the national park lodge.

Communism: You walk or climb.

So if there are no 4X4's at the park HQ I'm screwed. At one point I had the resources to purchase my own so that I could enjoy the outdoors at my leisure, now I'm fucked.

This sounds like a system I'm going to adapt to really quickly.

And walking or climbing. That is nice. The problem is I am 64 years old and don't walk well. Or I had wanted to go climbing or camping or repelling or whitewater rafting and had a ton of equipment I needed to carry. But now I can't. Thank you for taking the mountains and wilderness away from me. This is definitely a system I would support.


Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
How many people do you plan to hire to keep track of the price of everything from thumbtacks to whiskey to tires to flour to sheet metal? How would you adjust the price? What if you set it too low and demand explodes? If it's too high and nobody can afford it?


Socialism: Just as in a modern corporation, computers keep track of prices, inventories, sales, etc. Prices are periodically adjusted to increase or decrease demand as seems necessary.

Communism: You still keep track of what's going on...but now it's up to the producers whether or not they want to make more stuff or less stuff. If people don't like what they make...then the work is pointless and they'll probably quit and do something else. If people really like what they make and want more, then the producers will probably look for others to help them make more.

So under socialism, the central planning board will simply raise prices if demand gets too high so that fewer people have the goods or services they want. Under capitalism the company had the choice to produce more, but now that choice is gone. Freedom by definition has diminished.

And communism is completely off the wall. What if no producers want to produce clean toilets? What if no producers want to work in dangerous fields such as mining or boring fields such as trans-global shipping?

What if the producers who quit can't find another job? What happens to the stuff they produced that nobody wanted?

This may strike some as a bit "sluggish"...but there will still be a flow of labor towards producing more desirable products and away from less desirable products.


[email protected]
What about the tragedy of the commons? If cars are free what if I want 27 of them?


You won't get them...under either system. (In capitalism, of course, you may own 100 cars or 1,000 cars if you are rich enough...but you can still only drive one at a time.)

The "tragedy of the commons" occurs because there is a collision between a communal arrangement and a market economy.

From the communal standpoint, the rational owner of cattle or sheep would graze only enough animals to sustain his needs...and there would be grass enough for all. But since the animal owner would personally benefit by grazing as many animals as he could get away with...and selling the surplus in the marketplace -- the commons is quickly over-grazed and all the grass dies.

If there is no marketplace, then there is no individual advantage or incentive to overgrazing the commons.

No, you are not entirely correct. The tragedy of the commons can also exist when there is no price for the goods that depend on the resources. When everything is free, demand will skyrocket. Assuming you can find anyone to do the work, since everything is now free, production will skyrocket as well.


t_wolves_fan
All resources will be rationed?


All resources are rationed now...by pricing. Why aren't you living in a luxury penthouse apartment? There are plenty of vacant ones available on the market.

You can't afford it!

You don't have enough "green ration coupons".

True enough, but I do have the opportunity to earn enough ration coupons to purchase the penthouse I want, if I so choose.

On the other hand, from what I gather about your system, it doesn't much matter how many ration coupons I earn because I can't choose to get anything any different from anyone else.


Let's suppose you are a concert violinist and want a new violin. It takes skilled craftsmen up to a year or more to make one. They're unlikely to do that for you unless you're a damn good musician.

But under capitalism I could have bought one, had I wanted it. So in your system freedom is by definition diminished.

Can't get to the rest because my slavedriving boss is calling a meeting.

Ta!

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:59 PM
How could a central planning board possibly be able to accurately determine the demand for every single product that people want and need?


Ever heard of statistics?




I can understand your leap to that conclusion; all the media these days tell us "we are what we buy".

But much of the time when we imagine that we are buying something "different"...we aren't.

Neither socialism nor communism will focus on imaginary "differences" for what is essentially the same product or service.

We don't actually need 25 brands of soap powder that all contain...soap powder.

Is this your opinion or is it fact? If my wife likes smelling like strawberries after the shower, are you saying she has no right to that want? Would mechanics be forced to scrub for endless hours with regular Zest because heavy-duty soaps like Lever are considered a luxury and therefore banned?

There will not be several kinds of identical product. For example, why produce 10 identical strawberry-flavoured kinds of soap? It's widely spread in the capitalist society, however. Different labels, that's it.


And communism is completely off the wall. What if no producers want to produce clean toilets?
It has nothing to do with "wants". People will produce it because otherwise they will sink in shit.
Do you clean your toilet because you are keen about it?


Can't get to the rest because my slavedriving boss is calling a meeting.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Long live freedom!!!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
How could a central planning board possibly be able to accurately determine the demand for every single product that people want and need?




Ever heard of statistics?

Yep, in fact I use them every day. Because I do I know I would not want a "central planning agency" bureaucrat deciding how many thumbtacks to produce and at what price. Because that bureaucrat probably doesn't know much about the market for thumbtacks or the industry, they just put in an order for a certain number.



There will not be several kinds of identical product. For example, why produce 10 identical strawberry-flavoured kinds of soap? It's widely spread in the capitalist society, however. Different labels, that's it.

So you're saying you'll still produce all the same stuff, the only difference is that they'll all have the same label.

Your dislike of having so many labels is worth taking away personal property and planning the economy centrally?

Is that worth an armed revolution?

:o


People will produce it because otherwise they will sink in shit.
Do you clean your toilet because you are keen about it?

But now they won't have to - someone else will do it, won't they? After all, if Janitor Ed finds out he's getting paid either way, you think he's going to continue to clean up shit all day long?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
True, but the list of things you cannot say is extremely small...How is it "not permitted"? Is it against the law?

Sometimes...but a law is not required if you are denied the right to purchase access to the media.

Since the media is privately owned, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their right to refuse to sell space/time to anyone they wish.

And of course they do refuse to sell space/time.

As was pointed out by a famous bourgeois journalist himself: Freedom of the press applies only to those who can afford to own one.


It is not illegal to express your beliefs in this system, so is it the fault of the system that so few members of society take your beliefs seriously?

As I noted, sometimes it is illegal to express your "beliefs".

There is no way of knowing to what extent socialist ideas or even communist ideas are "taken seriously" by people in general...because the media would not permit any reflection of that to appear.


It sounds to me like if you had your way, our situations would simply be reversed; your way would win, my way would sound crazy. Either way someone loses, right?

Yes.


How could a central planning board possibly be able to accurately determine the demand for every single product that people want and need?

Accurately? That can't be done, by anybody, ever! "Meeting a demand" is always a matter of approximation.


If it's not available, what is my recourse?

Just like now...look for the best substitute that is available.


If my wife likes smelling like strawberries after the shower, are you saying she has no right to that want? Would mechanics be forced to scrub for endless hours with regular Zest because heavy-duty soaps like Lever are considered a luxury and therefore banned?

You know, you're starting to sound silly.


How is socialism much different than what we have now?

I answered that one already; pay attention. It is "just like now" except that there is no class of rich bastards taking the lion's share and lording it over the rest of us.


If I can have all the vans I want, why would I no longer be greedy? Will there be enough resources to build everyone as many vans as they want at no cost?

Again, I already told you that you get one van because that's all that one person (even with seven kids) can use.

Please be serious.


So if there are no 4X4's at the park HQ I'm screwed.

Use the internet to reserve one ahead of time.

You're starting to sound like someone who needs a nanny.


And walking or climbing. That is nice. The problem is I am 64 years old and don't walk well.

I'm a year younger than you and I know exactly what you're talking about.

Don't blame socialism or communism; blame fucking old age. It sucks!


So under socialism, the central planning board will simply raise prices if demand gets too high so that fewer people have the goods or services they want.

Or, it could also decide to produce more.


And communism is completely off the wall. What if no producers want to produce clean toilets? What if no producers want to work in dangerous fields such as mining or boring fields such as trans-global shipping?

I warned you that communism would strike you as "utterly bizarre".

Would no one volunteer for dangerous and dirty work? Would no one want the prestige and status and pride that would come from that? You don't know any guys who really get off on doing "the tough jobs"?

Ever met any firemen?

Hint: they don't do it for the money.


When everything is free, demand will skyrocket.

Why? I can't wear more than one pair of pants at a time (at least comfortably). I can't drive more than one car at a time. Or read more than one book at a time. Why would I need rooms full of clothing or books or garages full of cars?

What would be the fucking point?


True enough, but I do have the opportunity to earn enough ration coupons to purchase the penthouse I want, if I so choose.

Possibly you do -- though, to be honest, most of the defenders of capitalism who come to this board do not impress me as "top management" material.

Most people in capitalism do not have that opportunity or anything even close to it, of course. It takes a good deal of luck to end up with a penthouse...start by having rich parents.


On the other hand, from what I gather about your system, it doesn't much matter how many ration coupons I earn because I can't choose to get anything any different from anyone else.

Under socialism, that would largely be the case, true. But the "sub-text" of your remark is not without interest. You define your individuality not by how well you think or how much you know or what you can skillfully do -- real human qualities -- but by what color ribbon you can tie around your dick...to "show people" that "you're different".

And if socialism means all the guys wear the same color ribbons, that seems to you to be a terrible "infringement" of your "freedom".

Sad.


But under capitalism I could have bought one, had I wanted it.

You sure could...or even 100 if you had the green ration coupons. And all that, even if you were a tone-deaf klutz and even if someone who could have really used that violin had to do without it because they didn't have enough green ration coupons.

That things are made to be used and not simply displayed as dick-ribbons is an idea that's as strange to you as communism itself.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

So, again Red, you advocate a system where product is rationed out to us, with little or no opportunity to get more, for the sole reason that it is your opinion that a high level of consumption is frivilous.

Is that basically it?

Because from where I sit, that's idiotic. Right now, if you think SUVs or nice homes or multiple cars are "dick ribbons', you don't have to purchase them and you can be perfectly happy.

On the other hand, in your system I could not have what I want because you've decided your opinion trumps my desires.

See what I'm getting at?

[Right_is_right]

What if i get bored? What am i allowed to do in communism for fun? What if i feel like being unique? Are competitive sports allowed? Is anything competitive allowed?

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:51 PM
What if i get bored? What am i allowed to do in communism for fun? What if i feel like being unique? Are competitive sports allowed? Is anything competitive allowed?
What is allowed/condoned is mostly up to your immediate peers and community. Some communities like some things that others don't. There's no central authority. What luxury goods you can get depends on if there's anyone willing to produce such things at the scale of demand, considering also environmental effects.

Also there's competition and there's competition. One is harmful win-or-vanish all-means-allowed type of competition (capitalist markets, professional sports), and the other is friendly cooperative competition (rivalry between similar free software projects, sports just for fun).

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:06 AM





This abolishment of capital makes no sense. Either you trade in money, rations, or goods; there will always be a means of expressing value. But how do I get to go off on leisure under communism when I am not allowed to keep the results of my own efforts (labor or organizational). Will the community bow to my every wish along with everuone else's? That would be collapse in 2 weeks if people like we were not gassed.

Capital begets capital, it is not simply wealth, it is the acquired wealth which creates more wealth. It is the money paid to workers, the machines they produce on etc. As far as money/rations/goods go -- under socialism there are what I consider two forms of an equivalent. My ideas may differ from someone like Redstar's a bit. Immediate Pay Credit is the first of these types, it is the replacement for "money." However, unlike money Immediate Pay Credit (like all credit) is centralized and thus is not in private circulation. You can never give credit to someone else for their labor. The other type is Future Pay Credit (something of a loan), again this is not anything in circulation, it comes directly from the "state" more specifically from the administrative's created infrastructure for the Free Association of Workers and Producers.

The results of your efforts are directly given under socialism with immediate pay credit, you can "save this" as you would money and do what you will with it. You could also apply for future pay credit for things you need, this would come at no "interest" and would of course be paid back directly as percent removal of your immediate pay credit.

What if I want more untradable credits than the commune is willing to give? I want to eat steak and lobster every night. But I only have been given enough for potatoes and gruel at the community store. Under your system, I get what the group gives me, not what I want.


Under communism these things do not exist. It is assumed that production has at the very least been equalized to consumption, but more than likely would have to be greater than consumption. If it is not materially possible for a society to move to communism, that is, if we cannot allow workers to have the freedom not to work, then it's not going to happen. No worker would wish it to happen, as scarcity problems might already be evident under socialism.

BOLD 1: You cannot just assume a complex system involving millions of people wanting millions of products (either end products or components therein) involving shipping, manufacture, inovation & improvement, distribution, and many other factors. You cannot just guess what everyone wants centrally. This system would require God to make all these chioices if it were not left to free inviduals making countless choices.
BOLD 2: Thats another asumption. People will always want more for less. If it becomes obvious that serious effort is not required to fill all their wants, they will produce lesss to nothing opting for endless days at the bar. The truly committed cmmunist worker will bear the burden of those who dont give a fuck.

They need not "bow" to wishes. They don't even need to think about wishes. There would be increase labor to suppliment lost labor if you left (vacation or for good). The economic organization of communes and something like the free association of workers and producers would ensure that such issues are managed. Do businesses suddenly die out when workers quit? die? etc. No, and until more employees come usually someone is going to fill their position or the time/effort they used to contribute.
That works if you are free to leave the commune. What if the commune is universal with no where to escape to? Communism requires captive participants. If not, the best individualists will leave resulting in a commune of useless beggars.



Under capitalism, I have certain freedoms yes. But also under capitalism, you are free to set up your own commune. It is not the case the other way around. Now which system provides more freedom?

No, we are not. There's lots of things to take into account here. The first would be the idea of sovereign lands. We would in no way be allowed to reject federal law within the bounds of a nation, nor would we be able to creat our own law, thus our workers democracy is fairly useless in such a position. Second you have to think of things like taxes. Land is taxed, is it not? How would a free society ever manage to fulfill this tax? Secondly, even if we could fulfill it, we are not free from it's grasp. If we settled it by selling our oversupply in the capitalist market we would probably get screwed by businesses competing, not to mention a single raise in taxes would decide our labor necessity. We are not working for us, we are working for us and working to pay off the "property" rights we have imposed on us by the existing state.
Property taxes suck especially when you consider what the foolish democrats do with the money thru their institutionalized programs. But that is beside the point, ignoring that issue (we will agree on it anyway), I ask it because I know you dont want a commune, you want a global commune where no one has a choice but to remain in it.



Yeah, I know. Thats why I will work harder and gain more skills. What does changing the definition of marriage have to do with this?

I "worked harder" once to gain more skills. By the time I was done earning the piece of paper, about 32% of the job market shipped to India where labor was cheaper. The remaining amount created intense competition and price drops. People already in the industry were fired because people like me coming into it would work for less, then once they got desperate enough we would be laid off and they would be rehired at even less than what I was making entry level. Maybe if we all just worked a bit harder we would have made it? yeah? Maybe I need to work harder again... oh, I am... I'm going BACK to school, yet again, to education myself in something I'm hoping we will always need, teachers.
Freedom sucks sometimes. I do have some support for quotas for nations that have signifigantly cheaper wages. But under global communism, all would be equal. That would mean averaging mud huts with our wood homes. I have no disire to return to the days when Americans lived in homes made of sod. WE have built up this nation from nothing, we deserve our wealth.


Sadly all this "working hard" to get myself in a good position to "work hard" some more has left me with a massive pile of student loans. So I guess I'll be working hard the greater part of my life to pay such things off, and then the rest of my life to pay off my house. I will work hard one day, so that I can live to see tomorrow and work hard again. As capitalism dictates I become little more than an extension of a machine. I am a machine. My sole purpose in life becomes to work to sustain my own life so that I can work more.
Nothing gets you nothing. Under communism, there would be no need to go to school.. for people like me hobbled by the masses' whims. If I were not able to personally benifit from my own investments, I would not bother. (See ya back to the bar guys...say about noon?)



Thats your problem. No one is gonna put you in a death camp. What are my options if I opt out of Communism? I can either fight it and be killed or give up and live oof what ever the "people" decide are my "needs."

Why do you want to "opt out." BTW, you're likely not to see communism in your lifetime. But what are you so afraid of not having in communism?
Id opt out since I am not free to strive to earn what I want. On your second point, thank god!


What do mean most Americans aren't middle class, is that not the definition... middle = most. Communism tells me what I need, under capitalism I can persue what I want. if I fail, its my problem, not my neighbor. But the bolded part is confounding. Do mean people who work in the garbage industry at $20/hr? People who make dumpsters? Or are you talking about street bumbs? I think thats what you were getting at. 70% of those put themselves there and the rest were turned out of the nut-houses after it was declared unfair to institionalize these people for life. Street bumbs dont add to your struggle.

Actually middle is something of "neither extreme" it makes no assumption as to how many there are. Technically probably one person makes up the absolute middle. There's also other interesting things like mean and median (check em all out and why middle doesn't equal most at www.dictionary.com).
Prove to me that most people in America are poor? Ive been to China, their middle are much poorer than our poor. Please, America has a majority middle class (defined as between $30K and 100K per year.)


Communism does not tell you what you need. What you need is what you need, and communism allows you to work according to your ability and take according to your need. As well as your wants. You can very much persue what you want under communism, in fact, you can persue it with a lot more freedom than under capitalism, so long as what you want is not to employ others so that you become "rich."
I dont care anything about need, I am discusing wants. I want a big house and I want to be rich. Not everyone has the same ability, I want to have more because I have the ability to produce more. I have no way to get what I want (communism cannot identify exactly what all want and thus it won't be on the "store" shelves. All you will find is bulgar wheat and mung beans... the easy stuff to produce). That being the case, I will do the minimum to get what I want out of whatever the commune could possibly produce.



I gain communial tyranny of the majority under communism that will not let me travel opulantly as I see as my need. I wouldn't be able to get an extra potatoe for dinner unless the street-bum gets his daily bottle of T-bird for sitting on his ass.

Communal tyranny of the majority? Democracy never sounded so bad! You can travel so much as you want and you can get as many potatoes as you want. So long as there were potatoes to be had.

There it is, I can have as much as I want to the extent of what the commune has produced. Your system would produce less and less each year as people no longer sought hard work and investment in favor of idle days at the bar. This is true... unless there was some way to force people into working. Force sux! And, democracy is nothing more than then 50% +1 voting to do what ever they want to the minority. Thats why we have a representitive republic with protections of minority right. Pure democracy is tyranny for the minority.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:09 AM

But who defines what exactly constitutes exploitation? Some one on this site said it means paying some unidentified amount above subsistance level to any worker.

Well right now the dictionary has a pretty good definiton of what constitutes exploitation: The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage. Isn't this what profit is all about? Are companies not always looking to increase profit? As they increase profit the labor of those who make the products of these companies is bringing the company more and more, but they are getting the same amount or maybe a minimal amount more with a raise.
The profit motive is based on human nature. People will always want more for less. If not for profit, more than half of the people would just assume they can do nothing in "exchange" for all the produce of the community.

I do not agree that capitalism is perfect... nothing ever is. But your system, if applied universally, would cause decay and lazyness. You would be leading the world to their graves ove the generations. Each generation would have less that the previous. You cannot just assume people will volenteerily work for the common good. That is the fatal flaw in your ideas.

[Liberalista Classico]

To Liberalista Classico

Simple. I would rather make my own choices. If I were told to that I get paid as a doctor the same as a coffee shop worker, I would go make coffee.

Don't you think society would lose out since I am not producing all that I can (assuming I would be an apt student of medicine)?
If you chose medicine only for it's gonna bring you a lot of bucks...... But what about people that do love medicine, that want to cure people? Don't you think they will never change their loved job for something else, even if it's easier? Under a "restored" capitalism in my post-Soviet country I see something quite opposite: people have to quit their loved jobs of ingineers, scientists, doctors etc. only because they aren't that profitable as the job of the seller in the market.
Well under a system that moved to communism, people that loved their jobs before and still wanted to do it with out gain, fine. Thats their choice. I would not. Thats my choice. Let the next sucker do all the hard work. The old USSR has more problems than I can list. The main one is the same corruption that existed in the old days. Those professions you listed are high pay under honest capitalism, something that is unknown in most of the old USSR nations.



Actually, I am interested in spending all my time in leisure while I am young. Cant do that under the current system if I am not rich. But I cannot do that under the communal system because I would be working for the "public good." I am interested in traveling and goofing off, not work.
You will be allowed to that in a communist society. People will not understand you and will consider you a freak but nobody will prohibit you to do that.
In a cappie society the lack of money prohibits you to do everything that you want.
And, sorry, I don't believe that there is nothing you like to do except doing nothing. Maybe you like to make cookies or design new outfit, etc. There should be something. Otherwise, you're a plant.
No, for this discussion, assume I would rather just lounge arround. These people do exist. I have met many. I have not always been in conservative circles. I know people with no skills and no desire to gain them. Some people call them grifters. And they don't care if the majority thinks they are "freaks." They have no shame. And I reject your claim that I would be free to travel all over the planet. Even if your system could continue to produce a plane, I would not feel safe getting into it. Their is the likely chance that at a goof off was working on it only because he did not want to be seen a "freak" by the masses.


But under the communal system, I get the same pay regardless of my efforts. In this event, I will chose zero hours.
I just said about it before.
And something else........ can't you remember that people aren't paid in a communist society?
Well I define pay as anything of value... cash, housing, gold, wheat, widgets.. whatever.



Communism tells me what I need, under capitalism I can persue what I want.
What a bullshit........ Nobody will tell you what you need. Where did you get that from?
Well not specifically, so I guess you are right. But your system will not produce everything I what so in a way I am told want I want by having limited choices.

Communism will produce less and less each generation. Most people do not work for the good of all. If YOU do, go do it. Leave me out of it. Call it selfish if you want. It is what it is.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the mind+Feb 3 2005, 12:38 PM--> ((R)evolution of the mind @ Feb 3 2005, 12:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:15 AM

Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 04:09 AM

Rather totalitarian, dont you think? No wonder you guys will always be cooks on the sidelines. You don't want a perfect society where there is freedom for ALL? Guess not.

This is where you right wingers can't understand the point.

The only freedom we will take away is the freedom to exploit an other fellow human being.
Under socialism the "freedom" of capitalist style exploitation is taken away by the state. But once the society reaches communism, the people simply won't subject themselves to exploitation by wannabe cappies. If communism is reached the anarchist way, without a "transitory" workers' state, nothing is ever "taken away" by anyone; people simply decide to be free and not exploited by a minority. [/b]
I don't trust the "state" officers to give up their "power" when the appointed time comes generations later. Leadership systems become living things unto themselves over time.

The anarchy route would be even more immediatly disasterous. It would be a complete collapse of all production. The streets of the cities would be foul with the smell of dead starved corpses.

If the looters came for my factory, I would destroy it first.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:39 PM
I think you are forgetting the millions of unemployed people who are doing nothing for this society and are leeching off of everyone by being on welfare.
Kick out the illegals and put these lazy people to work picking fruit and cleaning toilets.

There are many reasons why they are worthless... 90% are their own doing.

[Liberalista Classico]

Can any of you reds please tell me why I would produce anything if I did not want to? The community would not let me starve would it?

And if I were forced to work, I will work just as hard as it takes not to be punished (lack of food/housing or being sent to death camps etc).

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the [email protected] 2 2005, 03:06 PM
I can only speak for anarchist type of communism, but here it goes:



1>If I disagreed with any policies, would I be allowed to protest publicly?


Of course.



2>How would you distribute goods and services? Based on need? What about wants? For instance if I want a V-8 engine and leather interior and a sunroof, could I get a car with those features? Or would there be fewer choices?


Needs would obviously have to be satisfied first. After that, by some process a balance would have to be reached between free time and the production of luxuries. The distribution of those luxuries might also be in some way communally decided. Some communities might decide not to have private cars, while others might think that everyone should be given a car. If they can't produce those themselves, they would obviously have to persuade other communities to produce them.

ParEcon (participatory economics) is one theoretically worked out suggestion on how things might work. See e.g.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings/hahnelURPE.htm

(Personally, I could do with a bit less local community approval. Perhaps some kind of electronic kudos that isn't really money but only serves to indicate that there are people somewhere in the world that appreciate your work...)



What would you charge for products? How would you decide?


Nothing, at least not in the sense of capitalist money.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"



3>How would resources be managed? Theoretically if everyone had the same income, prices would be artificially low and demand would go through the roof. Would resources therefore be rationed?


Scarce resources would have to be rationed. Some demand would be suppressed by communities disapproving of people always having the latest gizmos, causing lots of pollution and so on. But I also believe such a society would design more reusable gizmos for various reasons.



4>What if I refused to work? What would happen to me?


Your basic needs would probably be satisfied (food, housing, healthcare, etc.), but you would be denied luxuries and frowned upon.

Note that in such a anarchist/communist society the amount of work needed to be done by everyone would be much less than what is required of those who are "lucky" enough to have a job these days. Perhaps in the order of 4 hours a day. (The direction of modern capitalism is "more work for less people", while in a more ideal society it would be "less work for more people".)
Yes you would be allowed to protest just like Tiananmen square, just make sure you have a tank of your own.

Needs distributed based upon luxury. Meaning once your leaders get the pick of the crops, you get the leftovers. And since there is no basis for exchange, there is no such understanding of just how short-changed you become. Nothing says equality like being just as misraeble as your neighbor is. And whats all this talk of cars anyway? Thats a capitalistic invention that ruins the environment. Away with cars. That way when there is no way to get food to your town we can just blame it on the horse and wagon breaking down.

Resources would be managed in the form a la 1984. Meaning there would be a shortage of bread one week, shortage of cheese another, and finally a shortage of common sense.

If you refused to work you would be volunteered for duty in salt mines or a reeducation camp. The idea that government manages things inefficiently is hogwarsh. When there is nothing to base government performance against (such as the private market), the government will seem like it is doing a swell job.

[Liberalista Classico]

Progressive thinker wrote:

If you refused to work you would be volunteered for duty in salt mines or a reeducation camp. The idea that government manages things inefficiently is hogwarsh. When there is nothing to base government performance against (such as the private market), the government will seem like it is doing a swell job.

That what I want these reds to address. They all claim that I would be free to live off the backs of the communist suckers that wanted to work. As crops fail and factories sieze up, the masses would have to establish a committee to decide what to do with the loafers.

I want to know what they would do to me..... I will not get a straight answer.

[NovelGentry]

The crops will not fail, nor will the factories seize up. Afterall the "communist suckers" do all that work. It'll be up to you to decide to work or not when you can no longer get the things you need because no one is working. It will be up to everyone to work at that point. You seemingly forget that if the "communist suckers" needs are not met before yours there will be no one to work so that you may live off their back.

What you envision as the collapse of a communist society is a problem long before dealt with under socialism.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:59 AM
The crops will not fail, nor will the factories seize up. Afterall the "communist suckers" do all that work. It'll be up to you to decide to work or not when you can no longer get the things you need because no one is working. It will be up to everyone to work at that point. You seemingly forget that if the "communist suckers" needs are not met before yours there will be no one to work so that you may live off their back.

What you envision as the collapse of a communist society is a problem long before dealt with under socialism.
Ok. It fail under socialism first.

[NovelGentry]

Ok. It fail under socialism first.

No, socialism ensures 1 to 1 production to consumption. Unlike in communism you would have to work to survive. More specifically you would have to produce as much from society as you take from it.

There's a really great paper on this that I enjoy pointing people to, I don't suspect you'll bother reading it though:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 07:53 PM
Progressive thinker wrote:

If you refused to work you would be volunteered for duty in salt mines or a reeducation camp. The idea that government manages things inefficiently is hogwarsh. When there is nothing to base government performance against (such as the private market), the government will seem like it is doing a swell job.

That what I want these reds to address. They all claim that I would be free to live off the backs of the communist suckers that wanted to work. As crops fail and factories sieze up, the masses would have to establish a committee to decide what to do with the loafers.

I want to know what they would do to me..... I will not get a straight answer.
If this happened the masses would vote on what to do with all of you. If they said that all of you would be put in a cage that would then be put in the middle of the saharra dessert then that is what would happen. They could also vote on note doing anything and let you keep doing nothing.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 4 2005, 02:30 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 4 2005, 02:30 AM)
Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 07:53 PM
Progressive thinker wrote:

If you refused to work you would be volunteered for duty in salt mines or a reeducation camp. The idea that government manages things inefficiently is hogwarsh. When there is nothing to base government performance against (such as the private market), the government will seem like it is doing a swell job.

That what I want these reds to address. They all claim that I would be free to live off the backs of the communist suckers that wanted to work. As crops fail and factories sieze up, the masses would have to establish a committee to decide what to do with the loafers.

I want to know what they would do to me..... I will not get a straight answer.
If this happened the masses would vote on what to do with all of you. If they said that all of you would be put in a cage that would then be put in the middle of the saharra dessert then that is what would happen. They could also vote on note doing anything and let you keep doing nothing. [/b]
See how quick it fails!

[progressive thinker]

That is a problem with communism and socialism in general. Without competition (a basic tenant of capitalism) they are doomed to failure. Even Stalinist communism was not able to compete with a capitalist system, and Stalinist communism certainly had a lot more controls than plain old Marxist communism. Capitalism operates from the belief that the individual wants what is best for himself or herself, whereas communism operates on the belief that whats best for society is what is best for the individual. So its in simplest form an individualist vs. greater good.

Thats why the US is the world's only superpower. A sort of John Locke philosophy was the basis for our government, that is the rights of the individual are more important than the greater good. Other governments which have adapted more of Rosseau's philosophy and dabbled in socialism do not have the same level of competition within their economic systems, and as such do not offer innovation because there is no need for it.

Any kind of business in the US has to practice this and there is no doubt that it is a cutthroat type of economic system, but it does offer the best potential for the consumers. As such terrific innovations happen. The lack of competition in a communistic society means that no one would perform anywhere close to their potential because there is no need for it.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by progressive [email protected] 3 2005, 09:49 PM
The lack of competition in a communistic society means that no one would perform anywhere close to their potential because there is no need for it.
One communist says to another, "I was doing a tune up on the garbage trucks and the mechinism for the lift never seems to work right."

The other communist says, "I will make some phone calls to the truck plant and see if we cant come up with a better mechinism."

You see, you dont need compition to have innovation. All you need is insperation and the meens to complete your project.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:00 AM

Ok. It fail under socialism first.

No, socialism ensures 1 to 1 production to consumption. Unlike in communism you would have to work to survive. More specifically you would have to produce as much from society as you take from it.

There's a really great paper on this that I enjoy pointing people to, I don't suspect you'll bother reading it though:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/
How do you get 1 for consp-prod under socialism? If its by force, I will tell you right now I would do the very minimum to get by. After all, there is no way to determine what my abilities are.

What about stupid people who can't produce enough to live. Would they not be wards of the people? I could just "lose it" one day and thus have to depend on the compasion of the people. That is if it is allowed. If I see someone who is really not able to produce, I will copy them.

You see, there are many many peole who are not collectivist and will not co-operate. Under this socialism, our dissent would be very subtle. After becomes clear that not every one is producing at 100%... enter the beginings of a totalitarian state. There is no way around this. The sheep wil produce for the masses and those who could do better under capitalism would strike..silently and without organization. They would just give up. I am one of those that would. Butt the people would not know it. I would just disappear into the corners and be a raving lunitic. This becasue my potential is limited by what the people want it to be.

You system will never work. It is plan for mass starvation and collapse.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Feb 4 2005, 02:30 AM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Feb 4 2005, 02:30 AM)
Liberalista [email protected] 3 2005, 07:53 PM
Progressive thinker wrote:

If you refused to work you would be volunteered for duty in salt mines or a reeducation camp. The idea that government manages things inefficiently is hogwarsh. When there is nothing to base government performance against (such as the private market), the government will seem like it is doing a swell job.

That what I want these reds to address. They all claim that I would be free to live off the backs of the communist suckers that wanted to work. As crops fail and factories sieze up, the masses would have to establish a committee to decide what to do with the loafers.

I want to know what they would do to me..... I will not get a straight answer.
If this happened the masses would vote on what to do with all of you. If they said that all of you would be put in a cage that would then be put in the middle of the saharra dessert then that is what would happen. They could also vote on note doing anything and let you keep doing nothing. [/b]
But I am a free individual, why do the people have a say on what choice I make for myself. But I am glad someone actually said it. If you disagree with the community, they may kill you. Disagreement is verbotten! Of course this does not apply to all communities, right? Some would be very permissive. I would just go there. And as they fail, I will move on.. like a locust. This untill I am free to make my own way without a bunch of beggars ordering me to work for their bread.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Of course, meanwhile, in capitalist society, when you disagree, a small minority who weilds political power decides what to do with you.

. . . and, while we're on capitalist society, just like socialism, if you don't produce, then you don't eat - but YOU don't get to decide whether or not you produce. Speaking as somebody who is between jobs, and finding the labour market less than obliging. It's not that I can't or don't want to work - it's that the capitalist class doesn't have to give me a job unless they feel like it, and in the mean time my labour power is sitting here unused. What the fuck good is that?

Of course, naturally, you can say "You're free to start yr own business!" but I ask you - WITH WHAT? I've got enough left to pay my bills, and buy food. I could squat and dumpster dive, but yr system doesn't offer me the freedom to do that - I'd be arrested!

Yah. Thanks. I feel so free.
Given this, bring on the socialism, thanks.

[Liberalista Classico]

Virgin Molotov Cocktail wrote:

Of course, meanwhile, in capitalist society, when you disagree, a small minority who weilds political power decides what to do with you.
Bullshit. I disagree with Bush's liberal policy on illegals. And the state has nothing to say to me.


. . . and, while we're on capitalist society, just like socialism, if you don't produce, then you don't eat - but YOU don't get to decide whether or not you produce. Speaking as somebody who is between jobs, and finding the labour market less than obliging. It's not that I can't or don't want to work - it's that the capitalist class doesn't have to give me a job unless they feel like it, and in the mean time my labour power is sitting here unused. What the fuck good is that?
Then I would just do the minimum to get by. Enough not to earn the retribution from the commissar but no more than I get in return. You pay me in potatoes, I will sweep streets, pay me with a big house, fine food, and a fast car... then I might consider it. I will not settle for promises of it either, I actually want it now!

Sounds like you are somewhere in the UK. There is far too much socialism there for my taste. If unemployment is 8 or 10%, perhaps you need to free up the economy. Here in America it is 5-6%


Of course, naturally, you can say "You're free to start yr own business!" but I ask you - WITH WHAT? I've got enough left to pay my bills, and buy food. I could squat and dumpster dive, but yr system doesn't offer me the freedom to do that - I'd be arrested!

I like this one the best. If every small business owner thought like you, there would of never been any businesses. We would still be living in villages somewhere between misery and death.


Yah. Thanks. I feel so free.
Given this, bring on the socialism, thanks.
Dont sell yourself short. Only those who could not cut it support living off of others rather than off their own merits. Which are you?

[encephalon]

Dont sell yourself short. Only those who could not cut it support living off of others rather than off their own merits. Which are you?

You are obviously not part of the working class poor.

[Liberalista Classico]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:14 AM

Dont sell yourself short. Only those who could not cut it support living off of others rather than off their own merits. Which are you?

You are obviously not part of the working class poor.
I have been at times, at others I have not been.... right now I part of the working class capitalists. Meaning I do blue cllar work for myself...labor and management.

In any case, when I was "poor", I sought to better my self and get out of that position. I do not wish to burden other people with my needs.

I also know that when I was earning $18K a year, I had a car, food, and my own place. Nothing was the best but it was mine and I earned it. If anyone finds them self in the "poor" position and does nothing to better themselves, they have noting to bitvh about.

[voice of the voiceless]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:39 PM
I think you are forgetting the millions of unemployed people who are doing nothing for this society and are leeching off of everyone by being on welfare.

I think you are forgetting the millions of unemployed people who are doing nothing for this society and are leeching off of everyone by being on welfare.

i think thats a very good point. The sort of the people that are on the dole because they dont want to work are the sort that would steal in a communist society if they weren't given what they wanted for free, without contributing themselves at all. If, in a communist society someone physically couldnt work, im sure most people would be more than happy to help them but when it comes down to pure laziness, i really dont know what would be done.

Lets not forget however that these people are a definate product of the capitalist system, and this could be looked into with psychology and some very deep studies could be made into what makes a person selfish in that way, but who has any ideas on the subject?