thinking about left and right wing...

[adz170]

ok , i have been thinking about this and iam starting to develop some decisions although they kind of contradict themselves .
i dont believe in facism and never will although capitalist countries seems to make more sense....
for example in a communist country as i understand it ( please correct me if iam wrong) is that all land , food, resources , money is shared at an equal rate . at first this idea seemed plausable and was moral pleasing , but after thinking it over , i dont think that it is fair. A good example which i thought of was in the work industry . For example if the country is communist , doesnt that mean that doctors would get the same resources , money and land , as a lower skilled profession i.e cleaning or basic labour , and the conclusion i have come to is that is not fair.
these are just some things which i thought of can you give me your opinions please and whether or not communism actually works like that.....

[Phugebrins]

"that is not fair"
Why not?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

If the cleaner stops sweeping the hospital floor, the hospital gets dirty, and the doctor is as good as obsolete because then it's infections galore. Both are necessary cogs in the machine.

-Alex

[Whitten]

One would argue that it doesnt make sense, and is not fair, that in a capitalist society, the most capital generated goes to those who have made very little, if any, contribution other than investing their already existing capital. When such investment of resources could be decided upon democraticly by the community, an dthen run more efficiantly.

[adz170]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:47 AM
"that is not fair"
Why not?
why u say? lol .
it is harder to become a doctor then a floor sweeper....
the doctor would have to study and work harder then someone with a broom...
This is why i think communism wouldnt work , because its too fair... a harsh point to say but i think it is the truth .
aslong as capitalism is not pushed to extreme facism then i think it is a good idea. :D :D

[Orion999]

If the cleaner stops sweeping the hospital floor, the hospital gets dirty, and the doctor is as good as obsolete because then it's infections galore. Both are necessary cogs in the machine.

So who decides who gets to work the farms, clean the sewage, put tar on roofs in the Arizona Sun, and who is allowed to study medecine, produce movies, be a jouralnist, become an engineer, or any other job that does'nt require backbreaking labor? No one is going to volutarily choose manual labor, and almost everyone is going to want to be in a highly educated profession.

So who works the farms and who gets to sit aroung writing newspaper articles?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:55 AM

If the cleaner stops sweeping the hospital floor, the hospital gets dirty, and the doctor is as good as obsolete because then it's infections galore. Both are necessary cogs in the machine.

So who decides who gets to work the farms, clean the sewage, put tar on roofs in the Arizona Sun, and who is allowed to study medecine, produce movies, be a jouralnist, become an engineer, or any other job that does'nt require backbreaking labor? No one is going to volutarily choose manual labor, and almost everyone is going to want to be in a highly educated profession.

So who works the farms and who gets to sit aroung writing newspaper articles?
How about the ones who are best for the jobs get them? Who should be in the highly educated profession? Maybe the guy who spends a decade of his life studying for it?

[Phugebrins]

"almost everyone is going to want to be in a highly educated profession"
Yeah, but not everyone has the ability to do those jobs.

"the doctor would have to study and work harder then someone with a broom"
Work which will of course be paid for.


Incidentally, I like the way Orion and adz's arguments against socialism are mutually incompatible.

[Orion999]

Most essential work can be done by machines, and most of that is already being done by machines. Many jobs that people do now are useless as far as material production and distribution are concerned.

So in communism superadvanced machines do all the work while most people just sit around enjoying life. Ya right. Most of you have no idea what communist society will mean.



Exactly! How many calls have you received today by people pushing newspapers and charity over the phone today. I get it at least twice a day. These people should simply go the hell home and receive the products of automated manufacturing and stop working at their annoying "jobs", but in this system that's an impossibility.

Why do communists hate "jobs" so much. Probably because none of you can get a descent one. Another commie believing he'll be able to just lay around under communism.


Definately. People should be able to choose to be musicians, artists, et cetera. Obviously, the gift economy - or whatever economic system exists - is probably not going to reward the untalented. People will be encouraged to do what they like, within reason, assuming they can be productive doing it. Striking a balance is important.

I find it really offensive how many communists think the arts will not be legitimate jobs after the revolution. It's classic anti-arts bias perpetuated by the bourgeoisie.

Communism is a system based on providing very little if any reward for anyone. This is why it is so inefficient because there is no incentive to perform to the best of your abilities.
So under communism what if everyone decides to become a musician? Who tells people you have to do something besides lay around and play music and pretend to be a musician. Deadbeat musicians will recieve the same benefits as a hard working engineer? what kind of economic sense does that make?

[Whitten]

So under communism what if everyone decides to become a musician? Who tells people you have to do something besides lay around and play music and pretend to be a musician. Deadbeat musicians will recieve the same benefits as a hard working engineer? what kind of economic sense does that make?

They do themselves, if they plan to eat.

[Orion999]

Am I wrong in assuming that under communism people will recieve the same amount of money or benefits regardless of theit profession? Are musicians going to be excluded from this?

[Phugebrins]

"Am I wrong in assuming that under communism people will recieve the same amount of money or benefits regardless of theit profession?"
Personally, I'd not be against small incentives for the most unpopular jobs. Contrast with capitalism, in which the dirtiest and hardest jobs are generally also paid the least.

[Orion999]

Thank you. thats basically what I was trying to point out. That unless some sort of extra incentive is created for undesirable jobs, no one is going to voluntarily choose them.

I still don't understand how being a musician could be considered a legitimate profession or you'd end up with millions of deadbeat musicians doing nothing and still recieving the same benefits.

[adz170]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:13 PM
Thank you. thats basically what I was trying to point out. That unless some sort of extra incentive is created for undesirable jobs, no one is going to voluntarily choose them.

I still don't understand how being a musician could be considered a legitimate profession or you'd end up with millions of deadbeat musicians doing nothing and still recieving the same benefits.
this is exactly my point , why would someone want to clean without an incentive ? and why would a doctor study much harder for just the same benefits? this is why iam thinking communism can never exist , and if it is like this i hope it never does... , because people already know what capitalism is and most people live in a capitalist country , so to make the change from capitalism to communism , you would be hearing the same question . " why do i have to " . This would imply to all the people who are chosen to be cleaners and other janitorial jobs.

[Orion999]

adz if you want reasons why communism will never work hear you go.

Of coarse communism sounds great in theroy, but this idea of a stateless society living in communes, with everyone being equal is an utopian dream.

First: A communist revolution occuring in the west is never going to happen. Why would the people of the most prosperous country in the world (even the poor in America are better off than most people in the third world) want to revolt and tear down the system that has led to this prosperity. A Communist revolution would require the complete breakdown of American society. The American system has thrived for over two hundred years, and there is nothing to suggest it is about to collapse.

Second: "Modern" communists claim that all past failed communist states had nothing to do with real communism. Their reasoning for this is that true communism is stateless and therefore all past communists states are not true CS.
The reason none of these states ever progressed to the stateless stage is because in every single case a dictatorship emerged with no intention of ever relinquishing power. How or Why this will be different when the next revolution comes is never explained reasonalbly. Is the risk of turning America into the next Stalin slave society worth it?

Third: If a communists revolution were to succeed in America, and the Government was then abolished; America would be invaded in no time by the rest of the world. A strong centrlaized govt. is a requirement for national security. Without a govt there would be no entity capable of mounting a defense against an invader. The idea of a Stateless society even being able to function is untrue.

Fourth: Under Communism how is it decided who performs jobs of manual labor (such as farm work, construction, sewage maintance, and many others) and who is allowed to spend years studying medecine to become a doctor or who is educated in engineering improve society. No one is going to volunteer for sewage maintance, 95% are going to want to be involved in a highly educated profession. So who gets stuck cleaning the seweres? Ridiculous explanations include: automating these tasks as if there are superrobots capable of this, Everyone sharing the undesirable labor equally as if a doctor is going to do neurosurgery one day and the next day go clean the sewers. Ultimately a majority of the people will want to work in a handful of desirable jobs and nobody is going to want to go toil in the fields raising the crops.

Fifth: they incessantly claim that American workers are slaves of the elite with no control over their lives. As if people from poor and middle class families are incapable of attending college and earning a degree and then recieving a job that provides a great lifestyle. It happens all the time. Anyone in America wiht a strong work ethic and some brains can obtain a high position in society. In Communism they tell you what you to do and and the betterment of your situation is impossible.

Granted: Capitalism is far from perfect. 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth is an abhorrent fact. And the rich wield way to much power in our society. Some sort of redistribution of wealth should occur, but I hav yet to see a good way of doing this. But, revolting and overthrowing the govt., installing a supposedly benign dictatorship to oversee the transition to stateless society who will then freely surrender this power (when has this ever happened), and then going off to live in comunes is definitely not the answer.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:28 PM
Am I wrong in assuming that under communism people will recieve the same amount of money or benefits regardless of theit profession? Are musicians going to be excluded from this?
Recieve money? From whom?

Money will be obsolete under communism.


First: A communist revolution occuring in the west is never going to happen. Why would the people of the most prosperous country in the world (even the poor in America are better off than most people in the third world) want to revolt and tear down the system that has led to this prosperity. A Communist revolution would require the complete breakdown of American society. The American system has thrived for over two hundred years, and there is nothing to suggest it is about to collapse.
Who cares whether the Western poor are better than the third world's poor? They're still disenfranchised.

They would want to tear the system down because it is ultimately built for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.


Second: "Modern" communists claim that all past failed communist states had nothing to do with real communism. Their reasoning for this is that true communism is stateless and therefore all past communists states are not true CS.
The reason none of these states ever progressed to the stateless stage is because in every single case a dictatorship emerged with no intention of ever relinquishing power. How or Why this will be different when the next revolution comes is never explained reasonalbly. Is the risk of turning America into the next Stalin slave society worth it?
I hear this term "true" communism all the time. It's a redundant statement. Communism is communism, it will be stateless and democratic, or it will not be at all.

You're falsely assuming that all communists are Leninists and favor a centralized one party worker's state. You also seem confused by the term 'distatorship of the proletariat'.


Third: If a communists revolution were to succeed in America, and the Government was then abolished; America would be invaded in no time by the rest of the world. A strong centrlaized govt. is a requirement for national security. Without a govt there would be no entity capable of mounting a defense against an invader. The idea of a Stateless society even being able to function is untrue.
A communist revolution isn't going to immediately abolish all government. It is going to replace the capitalist dictatorship and establish the revolutionary, democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.


Fourth: Under Communism how is it decided who performs jobs of manual labor (such as farm work, construction, sewage maintance, and many others) and who is allowed to spend years studying medecine to become a doctor or who is educated in engineering improve society.
The individual decides.


Fifth: they incessantly claim that American workers are slaves of the elite with no control over their lives. As if people from poor and middle class families are incapable of attending college and earning a degree and then recieving a job that provides a great lifestyle. It happens all the time. Anyone in America wiht a strong work ethic and some brains can obtain a high position in society.
Anyone, but not everyone. The lazy and stupid get into high positions all the time through sheer dumb luck. How many people do you know that have worked hard all their lives and have no riches or fame to prove it?


In Communism they tell you what you to do and and the betterment of your situation is impossible.
Who are "they"? There are no rulers or masters in communism.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

i dont think that it is fair. A good example which i thought of was in the work industry . For example if the country is communist , doesnt that mean that doctors would get the same resources , money and land , as a lower skilled profession i.e cleaning or basic labour , and the conclusion i have come to is that is not fair.
these are just some things which i thought of can you give me your opinions please and whether or not communism actually works like that.....

I agree.

Under their system, Billy Bickle...a guy who does nothing but sit in a room and guard a door at some warehouse would receive the same standard of living as a software developer and a doctor who has saved numerous of lives.

Of course, they're going to say, "well...Billy Bickle won't have to perform guard duty, he'll have other work interests in mind."

True, but what if that's what Billy wants to do with the rest of his life?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Personally, I'd not be against small incentives for the most unpopular jobs. Contrast with capitalism, in which the dirtiest and hardest jobs are generally also paid the least.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Truck drivers make almost 80k a year starting off and can retire at the age of 45 if they wanted to. Plus, that whole month paid vacation that they receive every year.

I've read somewhere that unionized janitors can make up to 40k a year in most cities.

Construction laborers, who are at the low end of the totem-pole, receive up to $25 an hour..and all they do is pick up scrap and wood.

And haven't you heard the cliche' about "how much the garbage man makes"?

Popular jobs like acting, teaching, social worker, mural painting or any other non-manual labor job that requires atleast a college degree make no more than $25k a year starting off. Probably worse for the actor if they don't have steady acting gigs all year round--which is probably the majority.

The so-called "popular jobs" tend to pay the least compared to other professions that I listed above.

[Orion999]

Recieve money? From whom?

Money will be obsolete under communism

I also said benefits. Surely some thing must be given for work preformed or anyone could just sit around and read comic books all the day.


Who cares whether the Western poor are better than the third world's poor? They're still disenfranchised.

They would want to tear the system down because it is ultimately built for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

If this is true why has nothing like it even come close to happening in the past 150 years of American capitalism. Ya I can just see everyone waking up one day and quitting their jobs to go revolt for communism. American economics would have to completely fail in order for this to happen.


hear this term "true" communism all the time. It's a redundant statement. Communism is communism, it will be stateless and democratic, or it will not be at all.

You're falsely assuming that all communists are Leninists and favor a centralized one party worker's state. You also seem confused by the term 'distatorship of the proletariat'.


My claims make perfect sense. Your rejection of all previous communist systems as not being communism because they were never stateless means that these previous forms claim that they were communist were than FALSE. Which means you regard Stateless communism as the TRUE form.

You also do not answer the question of why this next revolution you want to bring about is'nt going to result in the same dictatorship and horrible standard of living that every other communist revolution has produced.


A communist revolution isn't going to immediately abolish all government. It is going to replace the capitalist dictatorship and establish the revolutionary, democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.

What difference does it make whether they abolish the state immediately are in a decade? The same rule is still going to apply. A stateless society cannot defend itself. Not a place I would want to live.



The individual decides.

And who is going to decide to lay cement as opposed to being a bartender. The only reason someone would choose a job like laying cement over being a bartender were if some sort of extra incenive or benefit were given, and this is not allowed under communism.



Anyone, but not everyone. The lazy and stupid get into high positions all the time through sheer dumb luck. How many people do you know that have worked hard all their lives and have no riches or fame to prove it?

Yes this does happen. Not everyone can be filthy rich. Rarely does someone in America work hard their whole lives and not make a descent living. In your theroy of communism is everyone going to filthy rich, or is everyone going to be living equvialint to a middle class (I think it will be drastically lower) lifestyle ?

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:26 AM
ok , i have been thinking about this and iam starting to develop some decisions although they kind of contradict themselves .
i dont believe in facism and never will although capitalist countries seems to make more sense....
for example in a communist country as i understand it ( please correct me if iam wrong) is that all land , food, resources , money is shared at an equal rate . at first this idea seemed plausable and was moral pleasing , but after thinking it over , i dont think that it is fair. A good example which i thought of was in the work industry . For example if the country is communist , doesnt that mean that doctors would get the same resources , money and land , as a lower skilled profession i.e cleaning or basic labour , and the conclusion i have come to is that is not fair.
these are just some things which i thought of can you give me your opinions please and whether or not communism actually works like that.....
Saying a doctor deserves more then a manual labourer is capitalist. It is fundamentally flawed argument. Going to school in order to make more money later is capitalist, it is the manipulation of money. That behaviour is not deserving of more money.

All labour is the same. Dont you understand going to school is an investment. You need money to make an investment. You dont deserve more because going to school to be a doctor is hard work. Because its not about hard work, its wether you already have money or not. The poor dont have money. Youre a dumbass, very shallow thinking.

To Orian666:

So in communism superadvanced machines do all the work while most people just sit around enjoying life. Ya right. Most of you have no idea what communist society will mean.
No real communist thinks that. Only technocrats, and 12 year olds.

The state will be the employer, they will choose who gets the job. I personally think that if you dont do a job then you get the very minimum required for life. If you do a job then you get the same as everyone else. Why? Because all labour is the same. The only incentive for working hard and ivention will be respect, we will stress the importance of respect highly, to the degree that the japanese used to stress honour.

Too Orion666:

The reason none of these states ever progressed to the stateless stage is because in every single case a dictatorship emerged with no intention of ever relinquishing power. How or Why this will be different when the next revolution comes is never explained reasonalbly. Is the risk of turning America into the next Stalin slave society worth it?

You clearly dont understand what a state is. A state has borders. The reason they were never communist is:

A) because there was still capitalist countries in existence
B) because it would take several generations of worldwide socialism to reach communism

[Orion999]

You clearly dont understand what a state is. A state has borders. The reason they were never communist is:

A) because there was still capitalist countries in existence
B) because it would take several generations of worldwide socialism to reach communism


Your fellow comrades tend to disagree with you. Almost all of them advocate abolishing the central Govt. What ridiculous defeniton. Communism can't exsist until the Whole World is Communist. Good luck achieving that one. Another reason why this Communism is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Answer these questions please. How can you let everyone choose thier own profession and reward everyone the same. Explain to me why someone is going to volunteer to lay cement all day? (The only way this would work would be to pay less desirable jobs more money or have some authority delegate who does what. which is not equal at all.

Every communists revolution to date has produced an authoritarian dictatorship and a slave society. So why is the next one going to be different?

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:04 PM

You clearly dont understand what a state is. A state has borders. The reason they were never communist is:

A) because there was still capitalist countries in existence
B) because it would take several generations of worldwide socialism to reach communism


Your fellow comrades tend to disagree with you. Almost all of them advocate abolishing the central Govt. What ridiculous defeniton. Communism can't exsist until the Whole World is Communist. Good luck achieving that one. Another reason why this Communism is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Answer these questions please. How can you let everyone choose thier own profession and reward everyone the same. Explain to me why someone is going to volunteer to lay cement all day? (The only way this would work would be to pay less desirable jobs more money or have some authority delegate who does what. which is not equal at all.

Every communists revolution to date has produced an authoritarian dictatorship and a slave society. So why is the next one going to be different?
None of my comrades disagree with me. Anarchists are not my comrades.

How are people going to lay cement instead of be failed musicians? Well if they dont go through the education they will not be accepted for easier jobs, and they must work a job or they will make the absolute minimum to keep them alive.

Also you might have argued that socialism where education is free would be fair because even the poor would be able to make more money with effort put in. The problem with socialism is that instead of the manipulation of money, we have the manipulation of time and effort. And a doctor manipulates time and effort, and in the end he ends up working less time in his life, and putting in less effort for the same amount of money. So how is that fair?

[lithium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:45 PM
Going to school in order to make more money later is capitalist, it is the manipulation of money. That behaviour is not deserving of more money.
But surely, as we live in capitalist societies we must "do as the Romans do" in order to gain some sort of education, regardless of whether it is biased or not. Do you not agree?


All labour is the same. Dont you understand going to school is an investment. You need money to make an investment.

Only in some cases, I believe. What if education is free? What if it doesn't cost anything to go to school?

[Avtomatov]

But surely, as we live in capitalist societies we must "do as the Romans do" in order to gain some sort of education, regardless of whether it is biased or not. Do you not agree?

Well in a capitalist society we should exploit the system. But we shouldnt use the money we make for our self indulgence, we should give it to communist movement.


Only in some cases, I believe. What if education is free? What if it doesn't cost anything to go to school?
Read the last paragraph of my post before this one.

EDIT: ill just quote it here:

Also you might have argued that socialism where education is free would be fair because even the poor would be able to make more money with effort put in. The problem with socialism is that instead of the manipulation of money, we have the manipulation of time and effort. And a doctor manipulates time and effort, and in the end he ends up working less time in his life, and putting in less effort for the same amount of money. So how is that fair?

[Orion999]

Well in a capitalist society we should exploit the system. But we shouldnt use the money we make for our self indulgence, we should give it to communist movement.

Ha, HA, HA, Ya Right. I bet none of you all do this. Please

[Orion999]

How are people going to lay cement instead of be failed musicians? Well if they dont go through the education they will not be accepted for easier jobs, and they must work a job or they will make the absolute minimum to keep them alive.




This does not answer the question. Does being a bar tender require more education than laying cement. It's not that people are'nt going to want to work it's why would they choose to work in the sun all day laying cement instead of serving drinks inside. How many times can I restate this.

[Orion999]

How are people going to lay cement instead of be failed musicians? Well if they dont go through the education they will not be accepted for easier jobs, and they must work a job or they will make the absolute minimum to keep them alive

Again this does not answer the question. Does being a bartender require more education than laying cement? NO. The question is why someone would choose to lay cement outside in the sun all day, instead of serving drinks inside all day. people will be willing to work, their just not going to volunteer for the worst jobs, so who is going to do these jobs?

[lithium]

First: A communist revolution occuring in the west is never going to happen. Why would the people of the most prosperous country in the world (even the poor in America are better off than most people in the third world) want to revolt and tear down the system that has led to this prosperity. A Communist revolution would require the complete breakdown of American society. The American system has thrived for over two hundred years, and there is nothing to suggest it is about to collapse.

This is just assuming that the USA (which is what I assume you mean by 'America') has a Revolution on its own. From what I gather, a lot of Communists and Socialists agree on the following:

1. The world becomes capitalist
2. Then, Socialist societies emerge
3. The world becomes Socialist
4. Then, Communist societies emerge
5. The world becomes Communist

You will notice that many of us say that a Communist Revolution must be a Worldwide Revolution, as opposed to a localised one. If this is the case, and a Communist Revolution does occur on a worldwide scale (with national borders beig ignored), the USA is suddenly a minority of capitalists. Thus, US society can be completely broken down.

Of course, a Worldwide Revolution need not neccessarily occur: once a significant number of other Communist societies appear at the same time, a Communist Revolution can occur in the US. It seems the problem with single left-wing (Socialist or Communist) societies is that they are surrounded by societies that have the complete opposite political and/or economic stance. If the populations of a large number of countries revolt at the same time, the more chance those societies have of being successful Communist societies.


Second: "Modern" communists claim that all past failed communist states had nothing to do with real communism. Their reasoning for this is that true communism is stateless and therefore all past communists states are not true CS.
The reason none of these states ever progressed to the stateless stage is because in every single case a dictatorship emerged with no intention of ever relinquishing power. How or Why this will be different when the next revolution comes is never explained reasonalbly. Is the risk of turning America into the next Stalin slave society worth it?

There is a risk, yes. However, most real Communists you will meet are not Stalinists. Where Stalin was a totalitarian dictator, the majority of Communists I have met are pushing for democratic Communism. Such a Communist society would have councils, made up of workers. In practice, these may be major industry reps, trade union reps, etc.. So, the society would be run by workers, who elect colleagues to put into action the wishes of the workers. This removes the whole hierarchy system - in effect, anyone could become a representative on the council.


Third: If a communists revolution were to succeed in America, and the Government was then abolished; America would be invaded in no time by the rest of the world. A strong centrlaized govt. is a requirement for national security. Without a govt there would be no entity capable of mounting a defense against an invader. The idea of a Stateless society even being able to function is untrue.

No. Remember that government does not equal state. The councils I have mentioned above would basically be a type of government. But as the councils are directly made up of workers it removes the "state" idea (i.e. no "top down" politics/economics).

These councils, along with the workers, would establish a national defence programme, much the same as a capitalist society would.


Fourth: Under Communism how is it decided who performs jobs of manual labor (such as farm work, construction, sewage maintance, and many others) and who is allowed to spend years studying medecine to become a doctor or who is educated in engineering improve society.

Well an example I would use is one I picked up at university where a class would be given a list of projects they can undertake, and list them in order of preference. Those with the best grades would be given their prefence.

Similarly, people could list their prospective carreers in order of preference. Those who are most able for their top preferences would be given them. Say my top preference was astrophysicist, and my second preference was teacher. The employment section of the council would look at my past experience. They might see that I don't know much about physics, and that I have no experience in working with telescopes or observatories. However, the might then see that I work well with children, and have good management and interpersonal skills. Thus, I would be given a job as a teacher - a job that suits my ability and skills.


Fifth: they incessantly claim that American workers are slaves of the elite with no control over their lives. As if people from poor and middle class families are incapable of attending college and earning a degree and then recieving a job that provides a great lifestyle. It happens all the time. Anyone in America wiht a strong work ethic and some brains can obtain a high position in society. In Communism they tell you what you to do and and the betterment of your situation is impossible.

What if you're so poor that you can't afford to go to school or college? In a society that demands payment in exchange for education, poorer people are automatically segregated from the education and "great lifestyle" that people with money have.

In Communism, regardless of work ethic, everyone will be able to attend college and receive a good and enjoyable education.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:53 PM

How are people going to lay cement instead of be failed musicians? Well if they dont go through the education they will not be accepted for easier jobs, and they must work a job or they will make the absolute minimum to keep them alive.




This does not answer the question. Does being a bar tender require more education than laying cement. It's not that people are'nt going to want to work it's why would they choose to work in the sun all day laying cement instead of serving drinks inside. How many times can I restate this.
because they wont get any other jobs unless they are better at them then other people.