"Sharing" in a Communist Nation [Archive]

OleMarxco

8th July 2005, 19:59

No, there is only the people to decide to do so. It weren't meant to be a rule or law, just a principle, so no punishment right away, but the communes have the deciding power to do somethin' 'bout it 'tho,
and the distrubition center ship tihngs around fer free. But the workers
might decide to QUIT MAKIN' THAT FUCKIN' MARTHA STEWART STUFF
cranky whores! :P

Plus, COMMUNIST-NATION!? ;) Boy, you -SERIOUSLY-
need some education on the society-model in-which you EXCEL to hate! HAH!
There's not even some "totalarian force" to force people to share,
get the fuckin' Soviet autta yer head! It's just no enforcement to stop
'em from takin' it, so everyone's "on their own", unless for violent
'quarrels', of-course. I read;

A society withouth -STATE- or -BORDERS- or -CLASSES-!
Much chanche of plannin' a big Commie ("pseudo-fascist")
NATION in that there, huh? But as fo'rat, I think you only
'prolly meant SOCIALISTIC "nation" (which doesn't think
of it as itself, only has a 'government' with profession
electives!) which has "borders", ipso-factos - laid down by
the CAPPIE-Nations, which has set the "rules", but as soon
as THEY're gone, (world domination, anyone?) it will
all be removed. Of-course, there's stoppin's to this...
Oh well..that's so, eh? Then are there is are Communes.
And of course, some would try to make "countries" of course...
Muahehehehh, "informal consequences", indeed! Liko anarchismo.

Q'ed, I don't know if "socialist countres-nations", are/will be
sharin', but ask RedStar more 'bout 'rat. Not the dragon, the 'skies.
The 2000. But it will hell'a sure atleast be encouraged! :D

Publius

9th July 2005, 16:45

Won't the majority just vote themselves what they want at the exclusion of everyone else?

The Sloth

9th July 2005, 16:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:45 PM
Won't the majority just vote themselves what they want at the exclusion of everyone else?
what does the majority want?

Publius

9th July 2005, 21:50

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 9 2005, 03:57 PM

what does the majority want?

Say, to enslave a portion of the minority.

Or vote to make everyone wear blue shirts.

It doesn't matter what they're voting for, as long as they are voting for what they want; and they will, and this could very likely be ruinous for everyone.

Majority rule is not good rule.

For example, I can tell you how the workers in a light bulb factory would vote, on the question of how many lightbulbs to produce: Zero, or possibly, "Enough for us to use", or the possibility remains, that out of the hundred workers there, 50 or more band together, purely out of self-interest, and make the remaining members make lights for them.

Protection of individuals from exploitation does not mesh with absolute, direct democracy ('The dictatorship of the proletariat').

'Sharing' only exists until a group learns that it can vote to steal from another, smaller group.

You can replace 'sharing' with 'capitalism' and 'steal' with 'murder and steal' nd the sentance still works. It seems to be a recurring theme in communism...

I myself would vote for absolutely no work and for the riches of what a minority produces.

As long as over 50% of people agree to doing absolutely no work, and getting more than enough to survive and live a happy life off of the slave labor of a minority, this plan is bulletproof.

10th July 2005, 06:30

Say, to enslave a portion of the minority.

Or vote to make everyone wear blue shirts.

It doesn't matter what they're voting for, as long as they are voting for what they want; and they will, and this could very likely be ruinous for everyone.

Majority rule is not good rule.

I highly doubt that the majority of people would vote to make everyone wear blue shirts. That's incredibly stupid, and most people have common sense (contrary to what you believe).

For example, I can tell you how the workers in a light bulb factory would vote, on the question of how many lightbulbs to produce: Zero, or possibly, "Enough for us to use", or the possibility remains, that out of the hundred workers there, 50 or more band together, purely out of self-interest, and make the remaining members make lights for them.

Study dialectical materialism, then come back and talk about this issue. If people are raised to cooperate instead of walk on other people, that is what they will do. Self-interest isn't human nature. Self-preservation is, but it would work as to support communism. As long as the communist society exists, people won't risk poverty.

'Sharing' only exists until a group learns that it can vote to steal from another, smaller group.

Again, dialectical materialism. You're assuming that communism will happen overnight. This is flat out wrong.

I myself would vote for absolutely no work and for the riches of what a minority produces.

So you would rather work a job that you don't like, for 40 years, 40 hours a week to retire on 40% of what you were earning while other people starve and are worked to death instead of working whatever job that you want and getting whatever you want for free?

As long as over 50% of people agree to doing absolutely no work, and getting more than enough to survive and live a happy life off of the slave labor of a minority, this plan is bulletproof.

As long as over 50% of the people agree to doing absolutely no work, and getting more than enough to survive and live a happy life off of the slave labor of a minority, capitalism will remain.

STUDY DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM. People grow up learning to be selfish.

LSD

10th July 2005, 07:08

Say, to enslave a portion of the minority.

If a majority of the population wanted to "enslave a portion of the minority" today, they could do it.

In the US, for example, they could pass a "constitutional ammendment" to allow slavery.

Sorry, but you can't have democracy without democracy.

Maybe if you so don't trust the majority, you'd prefer if there was someone to look out for the interest of "everyone". After all, the majority is just going to steal what they can from the minority. What we really need is someone who can take a "broad" view of society...someone like a king!

For example, I can tell you how the workers in a light bulb factory would vote, on the question of how many lightbulbs to produce: Zero, or possibly, "Enough for us to use"

Why?

If they've chosen to make lightbulbs, it's because they find the field interesting. Most of the actual assembly process will probably be automized, so the workers in question will largely be doing supervision, maintanance, and design.

If they aren't interested in lightbulbs, they wouldn't be making lightbulbs!

Besides, any collective that refused to produce would find themselves completely socially ostracized.

The rest of the community would find others willing to make the damn lightbulbs, and the original workers would be "out in the cold", so to speak.

I myself would vote for absolutely no work and for the riches of what a minority produces.

Ah, so you're projecting!

You wouldn't share ...so naturally no one else would either.

But what would you do with your time instead?

Sit at the beach all day, everyday?

I think boredom would set in pretty quickly. Maybe you'd pick up a hobby, finally build that car you've always wanted to. Your neighbour's impressed with your work and helps you out. Now the two of you are making two cars. A bunch of other people are interested, you start hearing a lot of praise and so you make a wole bunch of cars, you need equipment and tools and so you're down at the car plant everyday, socializing with the workers. Finally, you just decide to work there instead

...and look! You're working.

'Sharing' only exists until a group learns that it can vote to steal from another, smaller group.

"steal"?

"steal" what?

The point of communism is that everyone already has everything. There's nothing left to "steal"!

As long as over 50% of people agree to doing absolutely no work, and getting more than enough to survive and live a happy life off of the slave labor of a minority, this plan is bulletproof.

"As long as over 50% of people agree to doing absolutely no work..."

But why would they do this?

Again, you make this bizzarre assumption that people won't work and will care nothing about other people and think only of their own personal material bennefit.

Why? On what do you base this blanket assumption?

Oh wait, don't tell me. It's the "human nature" assertion again... :rolleyes:

Don't you guys have anything new? :lol:

Publius

10th July 2005, 14:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:30 AM

I highly doubt that the majority of people would vote to make everyone wear blue shirts. That's incredibly stupid, and most people have common sense (contrary to what you believe).

Nice job catching the absurdity in that one, swift.

And most people don't have common sense; look at who they elected.

"OH BUT UNDER COMMUNISM PEOPLE WILL CHANGE"

No they won't.

They'll still be stupid.

Communism will not improve their IQ.

Study dialectical materialism, then come back and talk about this issue. If people are raised to cooperate instead of walk on other people, that is what they will do. Self-interest isn't human nature. Self-preservation is, but it would work as to support communism. As long as the communist society exists, people won't risk poverty.

People do exactly what they are 'raised' to do?

What an ignorant, myopic statement.

Again, dialectical materialism. You're assuming that communism will happen overnight. This is flat out wrong.

I'm not assuming anything other than people's intelligence will not severely depreciate under communism, though this is a serious concern after you cull the intellegentsia.

So you would rather work a job that you don't like, for 40 years, 40 hours a week to retire on 40% of what you were earning while other people starve and are worked to death instead of working whatever job that you want and getting whatever you want for free?

Because the 2nd 'option' is a lie.

I think the better question is why do you and your ilk promote governmental policies that perpetuate the first set?

As long as over 50% of the people agree to doing absolutely no work, and getting more than enough to survive and live a happy life off of the slave labor of a minority, capitalism will remain.

STUDY DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM. People grow up learning to be selfish.

People grow up learning to be selfish?

Again, ignorant and myopic.

Publius

10th July 2005, 14:53

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 06:08 AM

If a majority of the population wanted to "enslave a portion of the minority" today, they could do it.

In the US, for example, they could pass a "constitutional ammendment" to allow slavery.

Sorry, but you can't have democracy without democracy.

Maybe if you so don't trust the majority, you'd prefer if there was someone to look out for the interest of "everyone". After all, the majority is just going to steal what they can from the minority. What we really need is someone who can take a "broad" view of society...someone like a king!

No they couldn't.

Read the Constitution.

Where does the Federal GOvernment have that power?

And we're not a 'democracy', thank God, or you would be right.

Why?

If they've chosen to make lightbulbs, it's because they find the field interesting. Most of the actual assembly process will probably be automized, so the workers in question will largely be doing supervision, maintanance, and design.

If they aren't interested in lightbulbs, they wouldn't be making lightbulbs!

Besides, any collective that refused to produce would find themselves completely socially ostracized.

The rest of the community would find others willing to make the damn lightbulbs, and the original workers would be "out in the cold", so to speak.

So when the majority refuses to produce, they will be ostracized? Hahahahahahah

You can only be ostracized if people know you're slacking off.

You can only be ostracized if you are the only one slacking off.

You assume work will be the norm under communims.

Work will be a rarity, lack of work will be an artform.

Ah, so you're projecting!

You wouldn't share ...so naturally no one else would either.

But what would you do with your time, instead?

Sit at the beach all day, everyday?

I think boredom would set in pretty quickly. Maybe you'd pick up a hobby, finally build that car you've always wanted to. Your neighbour's impressed with your work and helps you out. Now the two of you are making two cars. A bunch of other people are interested, you start hearing a lot of praise and so you make a wole bunch of cars, you need equipment and tools and so you're down at the car plant everyday, socializing with the workers. Finally, you just decide to work there instead

...and look! You're working.

Or maybe I'll just read all day, if you guys don't burn all the good books.

I could be a librarian!

"steal"?

"steal" what?

The point of communism is that everyone already has everything. There's nothing left to "steal"!

So under communism, scarcity no longer exists?

That's impresssive. I was under the impression that matter couldn't be created...

"As long as over 50% of people agree to doing absolutely no work..."

But why would they do this?

Again, you make this bizzarre assumption that people won't work and will care nothing about other people and think only of their own personal material bennefit.

Why? On what do you base this blanket assumption?

Oh wait, don't tell me. It's the "human nature" assertion again... :rolleyes:

Don't you guys have anything new? :lol:

We don't need anything new.

It has been the failure of every single socialistic society to date.

Why believe that if you just try it one more time, people won't be lazy?

LSD

10th July 2005, 15:12

No they couldn't.

Read the Constitution.

Where does the Federal GOvernment have that power?

Who said anything about the "Federal GOvernment"?

If a majority wanted slavery back, they'd vote in "pro-slavery" legislators on the state and federal level.

The congress would pass an ammdnement and so would 3/4ths of the states.

Bingo. Slavery.

You can only be ostracized if people know you're slacking off.

So, now it's not that people aren't going to work ...it's that they're going to work, but do a crappy job at it?

I guess that's one way to avoid having no evidence... keep changing the claim and hope that no one notices! :lol:

But, in the spirit of cooperation that this thread embodies, I'll take your new hypothesis and ask the obvious question:

Why would people "slack off"?

If they're working at a job they love, why wouldn't they work at it?

Remember, communism will drastically reduce work hours, so there's no issue of being "overworked". In fact there's no issue of being "worked" at all, since all work is voluntary!

I have chosen the field I'm in and chosen to work at it. I haven't been forced into the "first available" job bcause I ran out of "money".

When I truly care about my occupation and truly care about contributing to my community, why wouldn't I "give it my all" when I'm at work?

So I can go to the beach?
So I can "read"?

I have plenty of time to do that, plenty of time to to a lot of things. But when I'm working (doing whatever it is that I do) with my colleagues are friends on something I enoy, why wouldn't I put the effort in?

What's so damn "appealing" about "slacking off"?

You can only be ostracized if you are the only one slacking off.

Or if you are a part of a relatively small group doing so, yes.

But again, that will be the case!

You assume work will be the norm under communims.

No I don't, I realize that it is the fundamental foundation of the system!

If people are not working than society collapses, ergo no communism.

If there is a communist society, then, by definition, people are working.

And, again, why wouldn't they?

Work will be a rarity, lack of work will be an artform.

Wait, I thought you didn't like baseless assumptions.

I'm so confused. :(

Or maybe I'll just read all day, if you guys don't burn all the good books.

Really?

All day? ...every day?

You don't think you might want to go out and do something?

Again, you're projecting if you imagine that that lifestyle describes the norm.

hmmm... maybe you do need to get out more. :unsure:

I could be a librarian!

Sure could! :)

Most people don't like books as much as you seem to. Might be a good idea!

We don't need anything new.

:lol:

Right...

Does that mean that you've come up with some proof for the "human nature" hypothesis or are you just making stuff up again?

10th July 2005, 17:43

And most people don't have common sense; look at who they elected.

They elected Bush because of how they were educated about him; with lies. Most people don't pay a lot of attention to politics and all of Bush's media friends helped him out by bashing kerry.

Because the 2nd 'option' is a lie.

How is that a lie if that is what is being offered. Do you think I'm lying to you?

People grow up learning to be selfish?

Yes, people grow up learning to be selfish. This has to do with the existance of private property and the competitive world we live in. Let's look at the native americans. There was never a native american that said "I could just take control of all these people and my life would be great." It didn't happen. Native americans weren't selfish people. They weren't raised to be selfish. They were raised to cooperate. And that is exactly what happened! So........ignorant and myopic but true. Or you're just wrong. Why don't you study societies other than your own and you'd understand that this is true. This is one of the biggest misconceptions that capitalism preaches. It has to say that in order to survive!

Capital Punishment

10th July 2005, 19:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:43 PM
and all of Bush's media friends helped him out by bashing kerry.
:huh: kerry would never stoop to that level...michael moore anyone....? I don't see why people have this "anybody but bush" mentality. Do you honestly think Kerry would be better? :sigh: we need an independent president. The civil war between cons and libs is terribly trite. Should've listened to washington....

10th July 2005, 19:51

huh.gif kerry would never stoop to that level...michael moore anyone....? I don't see why people have this "anybody but bush" mentality. Do you honestly think Kerry would be better? :sigh: we need an independent president. The civil war between cons and libs is terribly trite. Should've listened to washington....

Did you read any of this except that sentence? I'm not supporting Kerry. If you read this you'd understand where that was coming from. So maybe you should take some time and go back and read before replying. And an independent president would be no better. The only difference is that he would be unpredictable.

Capital Punishment

10th July 2005, 19:55

I never said anything about you supporting kerry. I was only pointing out the fact that the whole bush using propaganda thing is pretty lame considering that kerry had all of hollywood on his side. You just happened to say it. No need to flip out. Although thats what you communists do. Look for a reason to start a revolution.

oh btw, an independent pres would be better because his/her mind wouldn't be diluted by party bullshite.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

10th July 2005, 21:22

Publius

10th July 2005, 21:56

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 02:12 PM

Who said anything about the "Federal GOvernment"?

If a majority wanted slavery back, they'd vote in "pro-slavery" legislators on the state and federal level.

The congress would pass an ammdnement and so would 3/4ths of the states.

Bingo. Slavery.

The Federal Government does not have the power to pass said ammendment.

Even if they did, it would hold no weight.

Read the founding documents. A government that oppresses its people needs to be abolished.

So, now it's not that people aren't going to work ...it's that they're going to work, but do a crappy job at it?

I guess that's one way to avoid having no evidence... keep changing the claim and hope that no one notices! :lol:

But, in the spirit of cooperation that this thread embodies, I'll take your new hypothesis and ask the obvious question:

Why would people "slack off"?

If they're working at a job they love, why wouldn't they work at it?

Remember, communism will drastically reduce work hours, so there's no issue of being "overworked". In fact there's no issue of being "worked" at all, since all work is voluntary!

I have chosen the field I'm in and chosen to work at it. I haven't been forced into the "first available" job bcause I ran out of "money".

When I truly care about my occupation and truly care about contributing to my community, why wouldn't I "give it my all" when I'm at work?

So I can go to the beach?
So I can "read"?

I have plenty of time to do that, plenty of time to to a lot of things. But when I'm working (doing whatever it is that I do) with my colleagues are friends on something I enoy, why wouldn't I put the effort in?

What's so damn "appealing" about "slacking off"?

I didn't change a thing.

'Not working' is synonomous with 'slacking off'. I can be at my place of employment and so no actual work; I would be 'slacking off'.

First, how could everyone work at a job they love? An economy cannot be solely run on the basis of what people 'like'.

Even if it could, it would be an economy totally different from the marxist one.

People can and do place their own likes above the good of others.

What power does communism have to destroy idleness, laziness and apathy?

A good way to describe economics is 'the study of incentives'. Why incentives do people have to work under communism?

What thought would ring through my head as I lie in bed that tells me I should get up and go to work today? The good of all man?

HA! I'm going back to sleep...

Or if you are a part of a relatively small group doing so, yes.

But again, that will be the case!

If given the oppurtunity, would you and those you know rather do more or less work?

No I don't, I realize that it is the fundamental foundation of the system!

If people are not working than society collapses, ergo no communism.

If there is a communist society, then, by definition, people are working.

And, again, why wouldn't they?

What INCENTIVE do they have to work?

If they can choose not to and still live, why would they?

Just because? Because of some grandiose statement like 'society depends on it'? None is compelled by that bullshit other than ignorant marxists.

People do not care about 'the good of society' they care about what's on TV tonite (Which just happens to be Family Guy!).

Wait, I thought you didn't like baseless assumptions.

I'm so confused. :(

It's not baseless.

I'm assuming some fair and logical things.

Really?

All day? ...every day?

You don't think you might want to go out and do something?

Again, you're projecting if you imagine that that lifestyle describes the norm.

hmmm... maybe you do need to get out more. :unsure:

I do other things, yes, but none of them are work related.

What's going to spark me from my apathy and compell me to get a job?

I think is particularly applicable to me, being a teenager who has not yet had a job.

What would force me to go out and get one?

I would much rather be doing any number of things than working, and the only work I would like to do actually wouldn't exist under communism, or would be to plentiful under communism.

Sure could! :)

Most people don't like books as much as you seem to. Might be a good idea!

By 'be a librarian' I mean 'read books in the library and tell people to fuck off if they ask me any questions', but it's all the same thing, at least in the libraries around here.

Does that mean that you've come up with some proof for the "human nature" hypothesis or are you just making stuff up again?

Proof that humans are motivated by self-interest?

It's obvious.

Sure, there are numerous other motivators, but isn't self-preservation at the forefront?

Publius

10th July 2005, 22:06

They elected Bush because of how they were educated about him; with lies. Most people don't pay a lot of attention to politics and all of Bush's media friends helped him out by bashing kerry.

But under communism people will be so hyper-educated they can run everything!

Don't make me laugh.

How is that a lie if that is what is being offered. Do you think I'm lying to you?

In the vain of Mao lying to the Chinese with: Hard work for a few years, paradise for a thousand, but yes.

Yes, people grow up learning to be selfish. This has to do with the existance of private property and the competitive world we live in. Let's look at the native americans. There was never a native american that said "I could just take control of all these people and my life would be great." It didn't happen. Native americans weren't selfish people. They weren't raised to be selfish. They were raised to cooperate. And that is exactly what happened! So........ignorant and myopic but true. Or you're just wrong. Why don't you study societies other than your own and you'd understand that this is true. This is one of the biggest misconceptions that capitalism preaches. It has to say that in order to survive!

The Indian nations fought with eachother over land and other issues all the time.

And the comparison falls flat for this reason:

They could not be 'selfish' and survive. As hunter/gatherers they had to band together to survive. It was a perfectly 'selfish' thing to do.

It didn't make sense to be selfish and live on your own and own your own property. It simply was not feasable.

But with the advent of farming, ancient hunter/gatherer societies moved UNIFORMLY to a system more endearing to private property.

It's that simple: Hunting requires tribes, farming doesn't.

And do you have evidence that Indians felt this way? I've heard the very claim brought into question by libertarians before.

Forward Union

10th July 2005, 22:08

Originally posted by Capital [email protected] 10 2005, 06:55 PM

I never said anything about you supporting kerry. I was only pointing out the fact that the whole bush using propaganda thing is pretty lame considering that kerry had all of hollywood on his side. You just happened to say it. No need to flip out. Although thats what you communists do. Look for a reason to start a revolution.

There is no such thing as "You communists" we are all individual, free thinkers that want a society that allows people to contribute their independent opinions in a constructuve and supportive manner. We want a society of freedom, Democracy and equality. The ideal alone is enough to revolt for, we don't need to make excuses.

oh btw, an independent pres would be better because his/her mind wouldn't be diluted by party bullshite.

100% agreed.

Publius

10th July 2005, 22:10

News Flash: If everyone stopped working, capitalism, or any social system for that matter, would collapse - but I can't think of a single historical example of that happening. No human being simply throws their hands up in the air and says "Let us starve in squalor!" when the means exist to live happy, comfortable, productive lives.

I'm not talking about 'everyone', I'm talking about people individually.

Why does every single individual person work. What are his/her incentives?

No human throws their hands up and says that. It would be stupid.

They do say "My work isn't important. THere are 300 million other people working, my labor doesn't matter."

And they're RIGHT.

But what happens when 1% of the people learn this? Or 10%? Or 20? THe collapse.

It doesn't take as much unemployment as you think to destroy an economy.

The question becomes about the organization of "work" and "free time" - should a small minority enslave the earth with the threats up to and including nuclear anihilation, or should people freely organize themselves?

And of course those are the only two options...

Of course, friend-Publius has already expressed his distaste for democracy, but . . .

Of course I have.

'Democracy' is a lie. If the people voted democratically for slavery, would it be at all right to institute it?

Capitalist Lawyer

11th July 2005, 00:50

All very noble indeed - until you communists describe the alternative that you would supplant it with.

Thanks but I'll take the current oppression as opposed to your advertised oppression instead...

Sorry no sale.

You feel its a dirty job and you're entitled - but I'm also entitled as a freeman of this "oppressive society" to call you all nut jobs. Nut jobs.

Wow - no GWB knocking on my door with guns to haul me away! Imagine the horrific oppression.

Too much mind masturbation isn't good for you.

11th July 2005, 04:46

I was only pointing out the fact that the whole bush using propaganda thing is pretty lame considering that kerry had all of hollywood on his side.

Yes because having a bunch of actors (not all of hollywood) supporting Kerry is the same as bush using the media to distort the truth.

No need to flip out. Although thats what you communists do. Look for a reason to start a revolution.

There's already too many, I wouldn't have to look too hard.

The Federal Government does not have the power to pass said ammendment.

Even if they did, it would hold no weight.

Read the founding documents. A government that oppresses its people needs to be abolished.

Let's think about this. The founding documents state that. But guess what; after the country was founded - for a whole century - there was slavery! Know how they got past it? Saying that the slaves weren't people and were property. All they have to do is define the word slave and they'd be able to do it!

A good way to describe economics is 'the study of incentives'. Why incentives do people have to work under communism?

Saying this is like proving that communism wouldn't work because using current economics it would fail. My economics teacher said this long ago; it's laughable.

Proof that humans are motivated by self-interest?

It's obvious.

Sure, there are numerous other motivators, but isn't self-preservation at the forefront?

Yes, humans are motivated by self interest. That's obvious. Where do they get the motivation? They learn it from the day they were born. Self preservation and self interest are completely different. That's like saying need and want are the same thing.

In the vain of Mao lying to the Chinese with: Hard work for a few years, paradise for a thousand, but yes.

I'm not talking about anything anyone else said; I'm talking about what is being offered here right now.

The Indian nations fought with eachother over land and other issues all the time.

If you studied native americans youd understand that this fighting was essential to their survival. You would also notice that the tribal lines hardly moved because of war or human causes.

They could not be 'selfish' and survive. As hunter/gatherers they had to band together to survive. It was a perfectly 'selfish' thing to do.

Sure, the chief and his family could have stopped working and told everyone else what to do.

But with the advent of farming, ancient hunter/gatherer societies moved UNIFORMLY to a system more endearing to private property.

Private property started when the food was locked up.

'Democracy' is a lie. If the people voted democratically for slavery, would it be at all right to institute it?

If the people voted for slavery and it passed, the world would be a lot different than it is. So saying that is pretty stupid.

Read My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It's not communist, but will teach you a lot about the current state of society and how we got here.

werewolf

11th July 2005, 07:49

Kerry had Hollywood, Bush had Ozzy. Now the question is, who is worth more? Answer- Kerry. How can somebody who has lived in the upper-middle and upper class all their lives represent somebody who has to cut back on food to pay bills?

Sounds like taxation without representation to me.

As for incentives for working? Why are we living the way we are now? Have we been lazy for the past 1 million years, scavenging for food killed by other predators? Incentive was and always should be survival. Getting rich beyond what you need is pointless. As for luxuries, I'm kind of in favor of "points." Like if you do double work one day, you get three points that you can put toward buying a guitar or something. Either way, you are actually WORKING for it. Unlike people who sit behind a computer all day and make thousands.

As for sharing? I'm surprised one of the first things about social interaction children are taught is to share. It seems as though the only reason it's taught is so that they won't fight. I guess there isn't some way to teach young children that the wealthier child will always get the toy.

11th July 2005, 08:34

Like if you do double work one day, you get three points that you can put toward buying a guitar or something. Either way, you are actually WORKING for it. Unlike people who sit behind a computer all day and make thousands.

Or if you do double work one day, you get paid twice as much that you can put toward buying a guitar? Sounds an awful lot like capitalism. Too much for me. Couldn't you just go down to the guitar shop and pick up a guitar?

LSD

11th July 2005, 10:02

The Federal Government does not have the power to pass said ammendment.

Again, constitutionaly any ammendment can be passed so long as it passes the congress and is ratified by 3/4ths of the states.

There is no "good ammendment" test.

If it passes ...it passes.

And before you get all high and mighty and tell me that a slavery ammendment is "incongruous" with the rest of the constiution, I would remind you that for half ot its history the US permitted slavery. It's actually in the damn constiution.

Those "founding documents"? They were written by slave-holders.

Even if they did, it would hold no weight.

Why not?

The prohibition ammendment "held weight" even though it was an infringement of rights.

Once an ammendment is passed it is supreme law.

And, remember, in this hypothetical a majorty of the US supports slavery. So they're hardly going to "fight back" against a law they supported!

Read the founding documents. A government that oppresses its people needs to be abolished.

...right, but not a slave-holding one!

Remember, the authors of those documents, they all had slaves!

A case can be made that the "founding fathers" intended for the US to be a slave-holding nation. Certainly that's how the constitution set it up!

First, how could everyone work at a job they love? An economy cannot be solely run on the basis of what people 'like'.

Of course it can ...for the most part.

There may be some jobs which are so distatesful that no one wants to do them, but these can probably be automated or otherwise minimized.

If they are absolutely nescessary then we can have some sort of rotation scheme. Perhaps, everyone spends a couple days a year doing them.

But, generally, people will be able to work at what they enjoy.

They will go into an area that interests them and will be motivated bv a genuine interest in the field, and by a desire to contribute back to their society.

What thought would ring through my head as I lie in bed that tells me I should get up and go to work today?

Well, I'd probably better get to work to finish that project. If this works, we'll have almost doubled production speed. Bill's probably already at work. Damn Bill, he's always early isn't he... anyways, better get up....

If given the oppurtunity, would you and those you know rather do more or less work?

Depends on what I'm working on.

I know a good deal of people who spend a lot of time working on projects and such for which they recieve no material reward.

I know a guy who spends a few hours everyday working on his car. It's not just that he wants a good car, he just loves working on it.

Imagine what he could do with a plant!

I know another guy who is constantly cranking out software. He doesn't "sell" it, he just puts it out there.

Again, he is motivated by his love for the work.

People aren't nearly as simple as the "market" says they are.

What INCENTIVE do they have to work?

They love the work, they love their community, they seek social approval and praise.

I do other things, yes, but none of them are work related.

Really?

You'll just spend your time on the beach reading and tanning?

How boring!

Not to mention that you'll find yourself quite socially isolated and ostracized.

Oh look, it's comrade Beach...let's cross the street.

and the only work I would like to do actually wouldn't exist under communism, or would be to plentiful under communism.

...and what is that?

Proof that humans are motivated by self-interest?

No. Proof that that motivation is innate and not a result of socialization.

Of course when we live in a society that glorifies and promotes material-accumulation motivation as the norm, people are motivated by material accumulation!

But if you are going to claim that it is deeper than that, that it is a part of "human nature", then yes you will need to provide evidence for it.

werewolf

12th July 2005, 23:05

Or if you do double work one day, you get paid twice as much that you can put toward buying a guitar? Sounds an awful lot like capitalism. Too much for me. Couldn't you just go down to the guitar shop and pick up a guitar?
In Capitalism you have to work double to stay alive, and even then sometimes it's not enough. Do you NEED a guitar? (I play guitar, so I feel as though I NEED a guitar, however, that's just a want, and if I had to, I could make one) Luxuries should require extra work. I don't believe in laziness, in fact, that is where I feel we lose support, is when we support laziness. My grandfather was dying of cancer and he still worked hard (chores, etc.) because he had to much dignity to make others serve him.

13th July 2005, 00:22

There aren't luxury items in communism as everything is free.

LSD

13th July 2005, 00:32

Luxuries should require extra work.

Why?

Why is there a "natural" association between work and material possessions?

Normally capitalists argue about "incentive", but I get the feeling that you're making a moral argument instead.

Something like work is good, laziness is bad. Bad things should be punished. Withholding of luxuries is punishment.

...correct?

I don't believe in laziness

Good!

Most people aren't "lazy". They are just often bored with the "work" they are required to do.

Communism is not about "forcing" people to work, it's about allowing them to work in their own chosen fields and to do so freely without coercion, exploitation, or oppression.

If someone continually refuses to do any productive work then it is very likely that producers would put his name pretty low on the distribution list, but he won't be institutionally "refused" any items!

werewolf

17th July 2005, 21:39

I know the thread kind of died, but I just saw this and bugged me.

Normally capitalists argue about "incentive", but I get the feeling that you're making a moral argument instead.
Yes, and also normally, Capitalists call me a SOCIALIST.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but are you saying that "if you don't want to work, no problem." If that's what you are saying, then you could probably lay down on a train track, get your legs removed. You'd probably be able to go onto welfare and not have to work a day in your life. I mean, hey, you won't have to wait for a Revolution. I guess a work 'o holic like myself cannot be a Socialist.

I guess Marx was actually saying, "If you don't work at all, you still get what you need."

If Communism allows you to work at a job you won't be bored at, then your whole argument against mine, (which I am having a hard time understanding) is pointless, because everyone would be working and enjoying the fruits of their labor equally.

Also work isn't really open to moral discussion. It's kind of straight forward. If you were flying and suddenly there was a plane crash and you were the only survivor, if you didn't work, you'd die of dehydration because you wouldn't WORK hard to find a source of water.

violencia.Proletariat

17th July 2005, 21:52

ive heard ideas of having work vouchers(a time card thats shown you have worked), which i would suspect only applying to the transitionary period

werewolf

17th July 2005, 22:12

Yeah, that's along the lines I was thinking. Hopefully by the time of Communism, people would be enlightened enough to work without having to be guided like that.

violencia.Proletariat

17th July 2005, 22:34

with the luxuries should require extra work, i dont agree with that. who decides how many work ours its worth? and also many luxuries would just loose there appeal. when i think about tv in communism, there would be many more informational channels, whatnot, since anyone could have airtime. many people would loose interest in tv because stupid sitcoms and soap operas wouldnt come on anymore.

werewolf

18th July 2005, 02:33

I don't think we should start deciding value until we get to that point. Hey who knows, the rest of you may be right and nobody will care enough about luxuries to require any kind of value. However, in my own personal experience, people don't respect the things they have unless they work for them. That's just my own personal belief that has always held true.

To me as an artist, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of what we consider "luxuries" to be held by everyone. For instance, every town could have its own art gallery or museum. (now most of the local works of art and antiques are held privately, I work for an auction company, that's our job is to sell things like that) And who knows, maybe hobbies such as rock collecting or playing instruments could become a second job and the "tools" that are now considered luxuries would just be tools. For instance, rock collecting could be done to benefit the local Natural History Museum. (I imagine the children in this world would grow up being well educated. Reading loses the interest of some children, but being able to see the things first hand is a great way to keep attention.)

On the topic of television- Reality TV, that's kind of like what the Romans had with the Gladiators. It's a way to make people forget just how bad their lives are. Who can complain when they watch people eat bugs? It's just a modernized version of "Bread and Circus." Who would need television, theaters would be free.

LSD

20th July 2005, 04:26

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but are you saying that "if you don't want to work, no problem."

No. I'm sure there will be a lot of problems. People will be mightily, and justifiable, pissed off at you!

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a material "problem".

I guess Marx was actually saying, "If you don't work at all, you still get what you need."

If you are refering to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", then I fear you've misinterpreted his meaning.

Marx was not outlining a quid pro quo, saying "if you work according to your ability then you'll get according to your need".

The two are independent variables. One's working or lack thereof has no bearing on whether or not they recieve material bennefits or "luxuries". Otherwise, we're back to capitalism where you're "paid" for working!

Communism isn't about making slavery "nicer", it's about ending slavery!

everyone would be working and enjoying the fruits of their labor equally.

Absolutely, which is why this is a moot discussion....but then you brought it up. <_<

If, hypotherically someone "refused" to work, in your model, they would be refused "luxuries".

All I am saying is that that is not communism.

However, in my own personal experience, people don't respect the things they have unless they work for them.

Really?

So you don't "respect" your body? How about your parents?

your whole argument against mine, (which I am having a hard time understanding)

My "whole argument" is incredibly simple, I'm sorry you are having trouble with it.

I guess a work 'o holic like myself cannot be a Socialist.

Of course you can. There's nothing "wrong" with work.

The problem comes when you try to make a moral issue out of work, saying things like "I don't believe in laziness" and "Luxuries should require extra work".

That kind of thinking is counter-leftist.

violencia.Proletariat

20th July 2005, 05:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:33 PM
I don't think we should start deciding value until we get to that point.
i say for luxuries, until they can step up production, the item should be given in place of a work voucher card equal to the ammount of time the item took to make. but this would be dropped as soon as possible.

werewolf

21st July 2005, 06:07

Of course you can. There's nothing "wrong" with work.

The problem comes when you try to make a moral issue out of work, saying things like "I don't believe in laziness" and "Luxuries should require extra work".

That kind of thinking is counter-leftist.
That is what I am misunderstanding. Work is not a moral issue, work is a matter of survival. If work is counter-leftist, then basically we are a bunch of lazy people. I'm not sure what you are trying to debate me on. I just got accused by Christian Fundamentalist Capitalist that the fact I am a Socialist and believe strongly in Equality, that that way of thinking is evil and against the natural order of men being better than women. Now on the other end of the sprectrum, suddenly my belief in hard work is Anti-Leftist?

Nate is actually understanding what I am trying to say. (great idea btw)

red_orchestra

21st July 2005, 07:53

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 11:50 PM
All very noble indeed - until you communists describe the alternative that you would supplant it with.

Thanks but I'll take the current oppression as opposed to your advertised oppression instead...

Sorry no sale.

You feel its a dirty job and you're entitled - but I'm also entitled as a freeman of this "oppressive society" to call you all nut jobs. Nut jobs.

Wow - no GWB knocking on my door with guns to haul me away! Imagine the horrific oppression.

Too much mind masturbation isn't good for you.
http://www.engrish.com/image/engrish/yes-american-meat.jpg
OINK... if you love America. Fucking Cappy, you just another PIG!

LSD

21st July 2005, 16:50

If work is counter-leftist, then basically we are a bunch of lazy people.

Work isn't counter-leftist, making work a "requirement" for "luxuries" is.

I'm not sure what you are trying to debate me on.

This:

Luxuries should require extra work.

werewolf

21st July 2005, 17:44

Hey, that's the way I feel. Be happy I'm don't also believe in Dictatorships. Maybe you should be concentrating on the real enemy and not the specifics of what a fellow Leftist believes in.

LSD

22nd July 2005, 03:19

Hey, that's the way I feel.

Obviously.

Be happy I'm don't also believe in Dictatorships.

I am.

Maybe you should be concentrating on the real enemy and not the specifics of what a fellow Leftist believes in.

Believe it or not, I can do both.

Defeating capitalism means nothing if it is replaced by an equaly oppressive system. Therefore it is nescessary to simultaneously fight the class enemy and ensure that "fellow Leftists" are actually fighting for the right thing.

Maintaining a system of "material reward" only perpetuates the systemization of greed, occupational apathy, and forced labour that we so condemn in capitalism.

Replacing capitalism with capitalism lite isn't liberation!

werewolf

22nd July 2005, 23:33

So how many people am I? One or perhaps thousands that outnumber the ones that think like you? Replacing hard workers who get nothing in life with lazy people who get everything is no victory, it's defeat. Now if you think by debating me on some online forum that you can change a view that is more personal than political, than you might as well go talk to a wall.

LSD

23rd July 2005, 01:19

Replacing hard workers who get nothing in life with lazy people who get everything is no victory

What are you ranting about?

No one is proposing "eliminating work" or somesuch nonesense. All that I am saying is that making work a requirement for "luxuries" is the same kind of materialist thinking that capitalism is predicated on.

It assumes that people will only work out of material greed and furthermore enslaves and coerces them to work. In so doing, it leads to apathy, resentment, and a general anger with the society.

Communism is about liberating the worker such that he does not work because he is forced to, but because he wants to!

Now if you think by debating me on some online forum that you can change a view that is more personal than political

It's a political contention, whether it has personal roots or not. And we must all be prepared to debate every aspect of our poltical beliefs. Sticking to "views" out of "personal" reasons is as bad as superstititon. As leftists, we must craft our ideas on material reality not project, like the right does, our beliefs onto the world.

No "view" should be so sacrosanct as to be "undebatable".