Originally posted by
[email protected] 15 2005, 08:22 AM
So who was Guevera, who was Tung? and what about Castro? Or Kim Jong Ill?
Ok, I imagine you're simply going to reply "well they weren't true communists / not my brand". Well, ok, fine, but are you going to suggest they were capitalists? I would hope not. As I said, (and they admit) they were at least very much approaching communism.
It doesn't really matter what they wrote, or what they say.
What matters is what they have done. Che doesn't count as he was never a dictator, as far as Mao and Castro, you must be kidding me.
They created capitalist countries with welfare. Wow... that is not communism. That isn't even socialism.
Try again. ;)
Um, no communism is not individualistic. You are always working for the "greater good". Rights, if any, are "extrinsic", no?
Under capitalism you are looked on as a number in a book. You are only worth the profit you pull so that some group of guys on an executive board get their pockets fat.
Unfortuneately, Political Punk, you aren't an individual under capitalism. You are the scum on some CEO's boot. If you are worth that.
Under communism, you get to do what you want, when you want. As we aren't all the same. Individuality comes in when you get what you need and what you want. Not simply what you can afford.
And you are absolutely wrong, you don't have to lift a finger under capitalism - unless of course you want to survive. That seems quite logical. Work a little, benefit a little... work a lot, benefit even more. That is simply the natural law. Why would I want to live in a society where I am forced to pay for anyone else?
Well, mainly because you are getting everything you need and some luxuries. So why complain? You get to do what you love under your terms - not to merely "make a profit", that is if you could do what you love under capitalism.
If you feel that its a raw deal to work when you want, how you want, because you love doing so then you'll never be happy. :lol:
Under communism you benefit society, but it greatly benefits you.
That is not just or equality - forced charity isn't charity - it's robbery.
It isn't charity as you choose to work or not.
? If someone doesn't have to work under communism, where the heck is the motivation?? For me personally, I would get bored, but if I could live under a communist utopia, I certainly would work a lot less harder.
Probably not, say you love to work with cars. You just love to.
But you never became a certified mechanic. Well education is free, so you go become a certified mechanic, and you can doodle with cars all day long.
Etc. etc. etc.
Under a commission one of course. I can vouch for this personally b/c I've worked in sales and it was purely commission-based. There's no way I would have put in the dedication or time had it been simply on an hourly wage.
Commission based jobs aren't needed under communism. You don't have to "sell" anything.
Shorter workdays?? How would this be the case? If people realized they could still work half as hard (or not all, for the really lazy ones) why would they want to put in the effort?
To work enough money to purchase what you need to exist, your paycheck has to stretch over the profit margins the stores and the company put out. Unless you are buying 100% wholesale from the maker with them making 0 profit, you are getting fucked over.
I'm sorry, but ppl generally only work for themselves first. Look at the real world.
You are only thinking in capitalist terms. Under capitalism, the workers work because they have to. They don't pick jobs they want, or jobs they are dying to have.
The market dictates to them what job they do. Under communism, no such dictation is needed.
Will you honestly just let them be? or like the communist-esque people of history and current times, will you force the dissenters to your will?
The idea of popular revolution, is that its popularp.
If someone wants to be oppressed by the bourgeois, then they can vote and work for a political movement.
We aren't going to stop them, and since we'd be under communism democracy would be a fair scale.
But I'm quite comfortable that if there is a communist society, it will speak for itself.
Capitalism is simply that natural economic state: any number of parties exchanging money (or bartering) for goods and services.
What about primitive communism? Where tribes would distribute everything?
Or did I just blow your mind? :P
Each person individually has to carry their own weight and if they don't contempt will breed and eventually a rising up will occur, collapsing the system from within.
No. Each person carries their own weight, and if they don't, life will suck. People will ostracize them, there is deabte as to whether they should lose their voting rights, and other ideas have "floated around".
Why would a "rising up" occur? All that would happen is that those jackasses would probably get up and do something, or just wallow in a shit-hole of a life.
I also know that, on a world-scale it is impossible to implement communism since there's a very significant population of people opposed to such an idea.
Yes. That's true.
You have to work from the ground up. Start in countries with socialism. Build up a large socialist base, and then once the state has withered away, bada-bing bada-boom, communism.
It will "speak for itself" as I have mentioned earlier.
BTW, if you have questions about the "withering away" of the state... I guess nows the time. But if you haven't grasped this and you are debating economic theory, then please read some.
Again, I ask, will you or will you not force the, anti-communist people to live under your regime if it were ever implemented on a world-wide scale?
Regime? You seem to have this idea that communism is ration lines and KGB agents.
It isn't.
There is no gun-to-the-head, no siberian landscape with people waiting in line for bread.
If anti-communists didn't want it, they could work for their own society. But if they were creating an imperialist society (as all capitalist societies need to continue to produce) then it will be met with intense anger, and force.
Given my examples of communist-esque persons, I would think the answer is quite obvious: Force will be required. I want no part of such a system.
You made no examples. You listed some revolutionaries, who some indeed may be Marxists, communists, you name it. But none of them implemented the ideals of marxism or communism so it was pointless to give those examples.
You "answer" you gave was construde and just baseless. Don't think that making a claim like that will make us forget what was said. You haven't set up any base that can withstand actual communist theory.
Also, I didn't get to say this earlier: welcome to the board.
Ok, I'm just going to address what you've said in as short a time as possible... b/c yes, I am new to here, but already I am running into the very same, circular, re-hashed defenses of communism.
bla bla bla... Castro/Mao/Tung weren't true communists... well, here's a newsflash, they much closer to the left/commie side than not. That is without debate.
Again, I said, if anyone wants to live under such a system, then by all means, I agree w/ your right to choose.
But on a world-wide scale: This can never happen.
Furthermore, it is completely ignorant, paranoid and cynical to assume that you are just the shit off your boss' shoe. If someone agrees to work for someone else under any given conditions, then that's their business. No one has the right to step in and force them to do otherwise. I hated a job I had, so I went and found another one.
The market will automatically set the price for what's a decent wage. Of course doctors will make more than a janitor - it takes much more time, energy, intelligence and overall comprehension to be a doctor.
under your world-wide commune though, people won't be encouraged to push themselves to their full potential b/c they apparently already have a number of luxuries by default, but since that very nature will breed laziness and not improvement and competition, you will become lazier or at least stagnant at a lower level than if you were forced to absolutely work for everything you had.
I have seen this example of "free" schooling - I went to one. The gov't can never, ever run any business, especially schools in an efficient manner. To do this requires profit - people don't work for free - and the gov't can not run a business in such a manner b/c there is simply no accountability.
Look at any two schools: public and private, the private school always has the superior education, smaller class sizes, smarter students. It's funny even most of the socialist bureaucrats send their kids to said schools.
So yeah, you want to live in a commune off in the woods somewhere? Great. Are you going to force your will upon me on a worldwide scale? Good luck, I will fight to the death for my personal freedom to live as I please.