Greetings with questions

[jlovato]

Hello,

I'm new to the forum and had some questions in hopes of getting your take on them. I'd imagine that most, if not all, of these topics have been discussed prior to my post but I'd prefer not to jump in to an old conversation.

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?

2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?

3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?

4. Do you see fictional titles such as 1984 and Anthem as being a non-possible end result in a leftist oriented culture?

Thanks.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 08:38 pm
Hello,

I'm new to the forum and had some questions in hopes of getting your take on them. I'd imagine that most, if not all, of these topics have been discussed prior to my post but I'd prefer not to jump in to an old conversation.

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?

2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?

3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?

4. Do you see fictional titles such as 1984 and Anthem as being a non-possible end result in a leftist oriented culture?

Thanks.
1) There is no need for a "concept" or qoute for in order for people to work hard. I don't know about you but being lazy drives me nuts, that's mostly all the inspiration that I personally need.

2) Many of the more backward cultures around the world would not be very compatible with communism. However there are elements in all cultures that could be brought out to flourish.

Socialism would be less detrimental to most third world societies than capitalism is. Technology would not be increased in one particular sector, only for that corporation to just get up and leave the economy in shambles years later.

In the first world Communism would destroy racism, sexism, elitism..... pretty much the majority of the problems average people see in their daily lives.

3) What do you describe as a left oriented society?

4) Same as 3. But I will have to say that much of what is talked about in '84, is not only possible but actually happening in our current "right oriented society".

[jlovato]

Thanks for responding.

1. I agree and share your beliefs as far as my personal work ethic goes. I guess my question is how does a society that punishes the successful with higher taxation and gives it to those who don't/can't work inspire people to work hard. I know ideally that people should have the drive to do their best, but how do you combat the lazy and non-motivated? How do you stop/prevent free loading from social services?

2. Point noted. I was more curious about whether you thought third world countries had the self discipline and motivation to take communism to heart and make it work for the good of the nation or not.

3. I'd describe a leftist oriented society as one primarily dominated by socialist or communist ideology. I'm curious about whether a ruling class is required and if so, who dictates the ruling class?

4. Same definition applies for ideology. I feel that the books very strongly painted a nightmare scenario for a worst-case socialist possibility. What's to keep a ruling class from progressing to such an extreme? Seems like a rational possibility with the media being run by the state and so much of the government having no genuine form of checks/balances.

[Raj Radical]

George Orwell was actually a socialist and I see 1984 as him expressing his disgust at what had been done in the name of socialism in the USSR etc.

He actually mentions in 1984 how "old socialism had been betrayed" (im paraphrasing of course)

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:41 pm
Thanks for responding.

1. I agree and share your beliefs as far as my personal work ethic goes. I guess my question is how does a society that punishes the successful with higher taxation and gives it to those who don't/can't work inspire people to work hard. I know ideally that people should have the drive to do their best, but how do you combat the lazy and non-motivated? How do you stop/prevent free loading from social services?

2. Point noted. I was more curious about whether you thought third world countries had the self discipline and motivation to take communism to heart and make it work for the good of the nation or not.

3. I'd describe a leftist oriented society as one primarily dominated by socialist or communist ideology. I'm curious about whether a ruling class is required and if so, who dictates the ruling class?

4. Same definition applies for ideology. I feel that the books very strongly painted a nightmare scenario for a worst-case socialist possibility. What's to keep a ruling class from progressing to such an extreme? Seems like a rational possibility with the media being run by the state and so much of the government having no genuine form of checks/balances.
1) You don't combat laziness with slavery. You stop people from "freeloading" on social services by making it so that they don't need social services.

2) I suspect that third world countries have the same self-descipline and motivation that we do in the first world. The problem is that there are male dominated power structures in many of these countries. It would be a question of whether we could override these elements in those cultures enough for communism to flourish.

3) Ruling classes almost certainly develop in socialist governments. I would not agree that it is required but in a situation such Russia in the early 1900's (that had been ruled ruthlessly by czars for centuries) it is unlikely that any government, capitalist or otherwise that followed would ever have been able to accomplish a truely egalitarian society. The same could be said for current third world countries.

Communism in my view is a non-hierarchical society where all major decisions are made democratically, and not by so-called representatives. A ruling class would not be possible in such a situation.

4) All the same can be said for our so called "democratic" governments in the west. Powerful corporations use thier money to both lobby for decisions in parliament, and do what they like with the economy. The corporations own media outlets, they also fund the very military and police forces that protect thier interests. There are little to no checks and balances in such a situation.

[jlovato]

Thanks again for the reply RC. Due to the length of this post (sorry), I've tried to organize it a bit with bold characters to keep it from all running together.

I see the points you're making against capitalism but you're not really addressing my questions. I certainly see the problems that capitalism is facing in America and other countries with powerful corporate influences in our government and media. I don't dispute those facts. My questions are how will communism/socialism defeat those issues?

1. How does an ideal communist/socialist society deal with the lazy? How do you make it so that they don't need social services? It seems to be that social services reward laziness by giving them something for nothing. Have more kids and you get more welfare, etc. I know ideally (and from personal experience) that people will take temporary assistance through hard times, get back on their feet and become a participant in the workforce again, but what about the people who just don't have any work ethic or don't want to work? Who feel that the government "owes" them a living and have no ambition to achieve? (like so many in America today).


2. Point noted. I hadn't considered that angle. The original point that I was looking to address was the dictatorship/corruption issues currently plaguing most third world nations. It seems that it's been such an acceptable standard by these countries for so long that it could prove difficult to break. Even with socialism, the end result could prove the same with a brutal ruling class exploiting the citizens under the guise of fairness and egalitarianism. Do third world countries have the cultural discipline and morality to become a successful first-world socialist society? Does socialism have a minimum economic requirement to get started and does the third world qualify?


3. It seems so radically different in the differences between Communism and Socialism in that one is based on communal rule and the other is based on a massive governmental rule. Are leaders of a socialist society elected via free elections? Who appoints the ruling class and how is the appointment process (elections?) kept honest?


4. Again, I whole-heartedly agree with your summary of the situation in America as is. I believe that the corporations are out of control and play too major a role in America's course of action on a majority of topics. But in an ideal right-wing/capitalist society, a government exists for law enforcement/defense only. It should have a stone-wall separation between itself and the corporate interests. This creates a form of checks/balances between the powers that be. As long as the government is honest, the corporations are kept in check. Socialism has a similar requirement with having an honest government.

My question is "who checks/balances a socialist ruling class?" What's to keep a government from being any less corrupt that a greedy corporation? And with a corrupt government having full police/military and media control, who can stand up to them if needed? With guns being restricted and dissidents being executed, what does a population do? I ask because these have become issues in corrupt examples like the USSR and China.

I know that they're not text book examples of socialist government but they say they are. They use their populations like a slave workforce paying them next to nothing all the while referring to themselves as the "worker's paradise" in their state run propaganda media. Greedy leaders get rich all the while. Anyone who protests gets executed.

Now I'm not expecting excuses for the USSR and China. I'm just looking to find out how a legitimate socialist government keeps from becoming that with the wrong ruling class in power.


5. Adding a new question to the list as well. :D How does a communist/socialist society inspire people to go in to more difficult/advanced career fields while paying them the same end result (salary) upon completion? I know some people are born with the notion of becoming a doctor or an astronaut, but beyond personal satisfaction and drive to become the best for yourself, what other incentives, if any, exist for people to go through a decade of school for a career that pays the same as a garbage collector?

If I'm wrong and career fields pay out differently to citizens, then please correct me. I haven't read any significant books on the topic to have a clear enough understanding of these topics. It just seems to me that regardless of personal effort, everyone gets paid the same. That philosophy just seems like it would stifle difficult/dangerous/advanced career fields in general. Would you agree?

Thanks again for your time.

[t_wolves_fan]

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?

Fairy dust. If that fails, guns.


2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?

In Candyland fairy dust will make people forget culture or nationality and concentrate solely on the fact that they're of the same class.

If that fails, they can be deported or liquidated.


3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?

Whichever faction proves to be the most cunning and violent will takeover and serve this role... I mean, UHHH, like nobody would take power, thanks to fairy dust.


4. Do you see fictional titles such as 1984 and Anthem as being a non-possible end result in a leftist oriented culture?

We're counting on... I mean, uhhhh, no.

[jlovato]

The funny part is that I imagine Bill Lumberg talking when I'm reading your post.

"Um, hi, yeeeah.. fairy dust. that'd be greeeat"

lol

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 01:41 pm
Fairy dust.
Ban - homophobia. The politically correct term is Effeminate Pixie Powder.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 08:00 pm
The funny part is that I imagine Bill Lumberg talking when I'm reading your post.

"Um, hi, yeeeah.. fairy dust. that'd be greeeat"

lol
Lumberg would make a great communist.

[jlovato]

So any more input on my questions? I figured that you guys would have all of this spelled out being that I'm sure someone has asked this before.

The root question to everything I've asked is "Does a utopian society require a utopian people in order to run successfully?"

Does mankind have what it takes to successfully run a socialist/communist system in its entirety? Will the hard working and successful essentially be exploited to support the poor and lazy? Are people good enough in general to make this work?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by patton+October 31, 2006 04:35 pm--> (patton @ October 31, 2006 04:35 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 12:41 pm


The root question to everything I've asked is "Does a utopian society require a utopian people in order to run successfully?"

That is a question i have often asked myself, there are a heck of a lot selfish self entered poeple in the world. [/b]
And according to a lot of people here, the solution to self-centeredness is to make everything free and yet not really require people to work.

:wacko:

[uber-liberal]

My answers tend to take 2 forms: cut & dry or long & arduous. Bare with me...

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?
Simple: if you don't work, you don't eat.
I'm not the "true believer", that everyone should get the same pay and all of that, either. If you put in twice as much work, you should get twice as much pay. You get out of it what you put into it.
Example: you and I are working in a warehouse full of widgets. You get twice as many widgets loaded into the trucks and out the door than I do in an eight-hour shift. Therefore, you make twice as much as me.

2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?
Cultural homogeny is the atrophied soul of humanity. Capitalism brought everyone to the factory floor, but stripped them of their heritage. Socialism/Communism can work in all cultures with all peoplesYou just need to adhere to a few basic groundrules, like the good of the many, etc.
Benefit? If done correctly it would benefit all people, not just one side of it.

3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?
All governing bodies should rule by the will of the ruled, and by the consent of the ruled. The true power should lie with the oxen, not the man with the yolk.

4. Do you see fictional titles such as 1984 and Anthem as being a non-possible end result in a leftist oriented culture?
Unfortunately 1984 was a good example of part of the problem in a post-Stalin Soviet Union. The rulers became the new aristocracy, much like Russian mafiosos and Vladimir Putin and his underlings are becoming: the New Romanoffs.
Anthem was crap, along with most Ann Rynd novels. Conservative intellectual smatterings paraded aroung like great literature. Remember what the conservatives said about Mein Kampf...

[t_wolves_fan]

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?
Simple: if you don't work, you don't eat.
I'm not the "true believer", that everyone should get the same pay and all of that, either. If you put in twice as much work, you should get twice as much pay. You get out of it what you put into it.
Example: you and I are working in a warehouse full of widgets. You get twice as many widgets loaded into the trucks and out the door than I do in an eight-hour shift. Therefore, you make twice as much as me.

This sounds great to me except:

1. Unions are generally opposed to this concept, and communism relies on unions of employees.

2. How would the pay compare between someone who works for 8 hours and loads 300 crates of lettuce onto 6 trucks (which is better than his coworkers) compare to someone who spends 12 hours working on one brain surgery that saves someone's life?


2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?
Cultural homogeny is the atrophied soul of humanity. Capitalism brought everyone to the factory floor, but stripped them of their heritage. Socialism/Communism can work in all cultures with all peoplesYou just need to adhere to a few basic groundrules, like the good of the many, etc.
Benefit? If done correctly it would benefit all people, not just one side of it.

This is absurd. If being on the same factory floor stripped two people of their culture then breathing the same air stripped them of their culture. Working 8 or 12 hours a day doing the same thing on the factory floor does not mean an Irishman doesn't act like an Irishman when he gets home or is on vacation. Hell he may act like an Irishman while working the factory floor.

Second, you contradict yourself when you complain that the factory floor stripped people of their culture and then tell us that people have to put the common good above their culture in your utopia. What on earth is really the difference? There is none.


3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?
All governing bodies should rule by the will of the ruled, and by the consent of the ruled. The true power should lie with the oxen, not the man with the yolk.

What happens when the populace is split 50-50, 51-49, 64-36, or 97-3? What happens if the populace decides a minority that makes up 3 percent will now be doing slave labor?

In other words, aren't you slightly afraid that your slogans about the "will of the people" doesn't take into account that people tend to disagree on just about everything? Or will you simply shoot, starve and torture people until they're of one mind?

[jlovato]

Hi uber-liberal, thanks for jumping in.

1. I see where your beliefs differ from those of standard communist/socialist ideologies. Your beliefs seem to reflect more of the capitalist model of more reward for hard work (or responsibility) as opposed to same access to benefits (no money in true communism) regardless of job or responsibility.

So my original question stands (for anyone here): How does communism/socialism, in its textbook form, deal with freeloaders or inspire people to work hard? I see many poor Americans overly reliant on social welfare programs with absolutely no ambitions to free themselves of them and stand on their own two feet. This problem costs America billions in generational (meaning families living on welfare for multiple generations) tax dollars. It will essentially break a communist/socialist society if not properly dealt with.

A specific scenario would be a person who's chronically late for work. No matter what, their priority is not getting to work on time. In a capitalist society, the person would be (hopefully) warned a time or two and then likely fired. Their pay would end, they couldn't afford to buy food or pay rent and they'd be, more or less, screwed.

In communism/socialism, what would happen? Would they draw any sort of benefit until they get a new job? In communism, would they still have access to free food and other free fruits of others hard work? Would there be some sort of membership card that's activated by being an active employee and deactivated upon losing your job due to your own laziness? These, I suppose, are more theoretical examples of a real-world scenario for life under communism/socialism. Besides personal work ethic, what's the motivation for doing your job and contributing to the common good.


2. After reading RevolutionaryMarxist's article on why the USSR failed (which was very informative, thanks), I see that capitalism is required for socialism to come about. This leads back to my question. In third world countries where poverty is rampant and what little money there is is typically horded by the local dictator, how difficult would it be to convert that economic model to one of socialism? Is a certain size/sophistication of economy (amount of money, really) required for socialism to come about? Socialism requires a great deal of money due to the nature of benefits it provides via social services. I'm simply wondering how far along a nation has to be to properly implement socialism.

3. The media plays a massive role in elections by promoting the candidates that they most favor. They can slant information to favor one candidate while only showing the negative of another. They can also exclude other lesser known candidates to the point where no one's even heard of them until they see their name on the ballot (much like communist presidential candidates, as you can imagine).

This is a powerful factor and will be a serious issue in a socialist society. When a leader of the state is running for reelection, what's to keep the media from slanting in favor towards the current leader? What's to keep the elections honest? This goes back, in a way, to my checks and balances question. How can we ensure fair elections throughout the socialist phase?

4. My fourth question was what sort of checks and balances should exist to keep a socialist government honest? Any organization of people has the possibility of being corrupt and a corrupt socialist government can be scary as we've seen by other examples. How can we keep it honest and in the best interests of the people?


5. My fifth question kinda snuck in to my earlier reply. I know your answer varies on this from communism but I'm again wondering: How does a communist/socialist society inspire people to go in to more difficult/advanced/dangerous career fields while paying them the same end result (salary or benefits)?

Thanks again for the reply.

[uber-liberal]

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?
Simple: if you don't work, you don't eat.
I'm not the "true believer", that everyone should get the same pay and all of that, either. If you put in twice as much work, you should get twice as much pay. You get out of it what you put into it.
Example: you and I are working in a warehouse full of widgets. You get twice as many widgets loaded into the trucks and out the door than I do in an eight-hour shift. Therefore, you make twice as much as me.


This sounds great to me except:

1. Unions are generally opposed to this concept, and communism relies on unions of employees.

2. How would the pay compare between someone who works for 8 hours and loads 300 crates of lettuce onto 6 trucks (which is better than his coworkers) compare to someone who spends 12 hours working on one brain surgery that saves someone's life?
Well, let's start with the 101 stuff...
1. Unions are opposed to what, pay by your value as a worker? Not necessarily. Look at agriculture unions and what Cesar Chavez did in the 70's and 80's. Even in that union you get paid by how much you produce, not hourly.
And, when you eliminate the concept that your labor is making someone else rich, getting paid for your production versus your time seems more equitable. You also get rid of the twin problems of laziness in the work force and taking advantage in the system.
2. Pay disparity will occur between job types based on their importance to the society in general in ANY economic situation. If it is deemed that a brain surgeon should get more money per operation than the guy picking lettuce, so be it. The emphisis here is on importance, not demand.




2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?
Cultural homogeny is the atrophied soul of humanity. Capitalism brought everyone to the factory floor, but stripped them of their heritage. Socialism/Communism can work in all cultures with all peoplesYou just need to adhere to a few basic groundrules, like the good of the many, etc.
Benefit? If done correctly it would benefit all people, not just one side of it.


This is absurd. If being on the same factory floor stripped two people of their culture then breathing the same air stripped them of their culture. Working 8 or 12 hours a day doing the same thing on the factory floor does not mean an Irishman doesn't act like an Irishman when he gets home or is on vacation. Hell he may act like an Irishman while working the factory floor.

Second, you contradict yourself when you complain that the factory floor stripped people of their culture and then tell us that people have to put the common good above their culture in your utopia. What on earth is really the difference? There is none.

The Industrial Revolution set up concepts such as shift work which fundamentaly changed ANY and ALL societies it touched. Working 8 to 12 hour a day for any culture will put a strain upon it and change it, usually for the worse. Remeber the London latch-key kid issue of the 70's and 80's? Throwing a bandage on it, like after school programs, didn't work worth a damn because they didn't address the core issue: a shifting cultural landscape. Culturally, mom should stay at home while dad goes to work. Fortunately for women they aren't teathered to the oven anymore, but men aren't opting to stay at home with the kids, either.
Go to the mountains west of Nairobi, Kenya. You'll find tribes of people who have been there since the days of the Arabic traders settling along the coast. What you'll also find is a tribe of people in desperate need of an identity. Tehy're living between two worlds, the western world's "need" for cheap agriculture, and the identity of their ancestor's, and their own making. If they want to be seen as more of a contributing member of the global society, some concessions will have to be made, but not at the cost of their identity.
And I never said cultural identity is secondary to the common good. Every group should take care of themselves, and part of that is maintainig your roots, your heritage. Your heritage IS benefitial to the common good, and should be seen as such. It is NOT, however, more important that those in New York, London, the most remote parts of the Amazon or in the Himalayas. From pram-pusher to Premier, NO ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHERS!!!!




3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?
All governing bodies should rule by the will of the ruled, and by the consent of the ruled. The true power should lie with the oxen, not the man with the yolk.


What happens when the populace is split 50-50, 51-49, 64-36, or 97-3? What happens if the populace decides a minority that makes up 3 percent will now be doing slave labor?

In other words, aren't you slightly afraid that your slogans about the "will of the people" doesn't take into account that people tend to disagree on just about everything? Or will you simply shoot, starve and torture people until they're of one mind?

Shoot and starve people? No, no capitalist tactics have no place here...
If you go by the principle that Thomas Jefferson put in the preamble to the United States' Declaration of Independence, that "...all Men are created equal,that they are endowed,... with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", than no one peson's rights are more important that anyone else's, be they an individual or the society at large.
People disagree all the time (this thread being exibit A). That's why we govern byconsent through a representative government instead of a dictator. That's why we support left-wing ideals like communism and socialism instead of fascism or the great American fasciast microchosm that is the international corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...of_Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence)

And, before you even start, don't give me the whole Uber-Reicht-wing argument about, "if you loved your country you wouldn't be a commie". I deeply love my country. That's why I stand and fight. Remeber, one man's revolutionary is another man's patriot.

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 10:20 pm
Hi uber-liberal, thanks for jumping in.

1. I see where your beliefs differ from those of standard communist/socialist ideologies. Your beliefs seem to reflect more of the capitalist model of more reward for hard work (or responsibility) as opposed to same access to benefits (no money in true communism) regardless of job or responsibility.

So my original question stands (for anyone here): How does communism/socialism, in its textbook form, deal with freeloaders or inspire people to work hard? I see many poor Americans overly reliant on social welfare programs with absolutely no ambitions to free themselves of them and stand on their own two feet. This problem costs America billions in generational (meaning families living on welfare for multiple generations) tax dollars. It will essentially break a communist/socialist society if not properly dealt with.

A specific scenario would be a person who's chronically late for work. No matter what, their priority is not getting to work on time. In a capitalist society, the person would be (hopefully) warned a time or two and then likely fired. Their pay would end, they couldn't afford to buy food or pay rent and they'd be, more or less, screwed.

In communism/socialism, what would happen? Would they draw any sort of benefit until they get a new job? In communism, would they still have access to free food and other free fruits of others hard work? Would there be some sort of membership card that's activated by being an active employee and deactivated upon losing your job due to your own laziness? These, I suppose, are more theoretical examples of a real-world scenario for life under communism/socialism. Besides personal work ethic, what's the motivation for doing your job and contributing to the common good.


2. After reading RevolutionaryMarxist's article on why the USSR failed (which was very informative, thanks), I see that capitalism is required for socialism to come about. This leads back to my question. In third world countries where poverty is rampant and what little money there is is typically horded by the local dictator, how difficult would it be to convert that economic model to one of socialism? Is a certain size/sophistication of economy (amount of money, really) required for socialism to come about? Socialism requires a great deal of money due to the nature of benefits it provides via social services. I'm simply wondering how far along a nation has to be to properly implement socialism.

3. The media plays a massive role in elections by promoting the candidates that they most favor. They can slant information to favor one candidate while only showing the negative of another. They can also exclude other lesser known candidates to the point where no one's even heard of them until they see their name on the ballot (much like communist presidential candidates, as you can imagine).

This is a powerful factor and will be a serious issue in a socialist society. When a leader of the state is running for reelection, what's to keep the media from slanting in favor towards the current leader? What's to keep the elections honest? This goes back, in a way, to my checks and balances question. How can we ensure fair elections throughout the socialist phase?

4. My fourth question was what sort of checks and balances should exist to keep a socialist government honest? Any organization of people has the possibility of being corrupt and a corrupt socialist government can be scary as we've seen by other examples. How can we keep it honest and in the best interests of the people?


5. My fifth question kinda snuck in to my earlier reply. I know your answer varies on this from communism but I'm again wondering: How does a communist/socialist society inspire people to go in to more difficult/advanced/dangerous career fields while paying them the same end result (salary or benefits)?

Thanks again for the reply.
The problem with the welfare system now is that we are being forced onto it by low wages and constant outsourcing. And, once you're on welfare it is almost defeating, so a certain level of depression sets in and people get "stuck". It may sound like a lame-ass exuse, but I've seen it happen to more than one person.

And as far as nations being ready for socialism go, they should be AT LEAST developing. A cetain primitive type of it exists on a tribal level. But, in places like the Sudan, it would almost have to start on a socio-capitalist level, much like Canada, first and evolve over time.

Media, elections, undue favoritism for candidates. Quaagmire. I say ban all politicing from mass media save web sites run by the candidates and public service announcements & public debates where ALL candidates are invited, not just those seen as being "valid"..

It's really not poosible to make any system corruption-proof. Unfortunately it will always come down to electing the most trustworthy people. Good luck...

And inspiration comes down to one question: benefit to the worker. Those jobs should have a pay reflective of the societal need of the people. It's the only way to attract qualified workers and keep it fair by comparison. A doctor should make more than a guy mucking stalls, but he shouldn't be seen as a better person for his profession. Shoveling horse shit is a necessary job, just like a biopsy is.

[t_wolves_fan]

1. Unions are opposed to what, pay by your value as a worker?

Every union I've ever come across has been opposed to the idea that the individual worker should be paid what they're worth.


Not necessarily. Look at agriculture unions and what Cesar Chavez did in the 70's and 80's. Even in that union you get paid by how much you produce, not hourly.

Sounds good to me.


And, when you eliminate the concept that your labor is making someone else rich, getting paid for your production versus your time seems more equitable. You also get rid of the twin problems of laziness in the work force and taking advantage in the system.

While I can see the advantages of your pay system, it's extremely idealistic to assume it would eliminate laziness.


2. Pay disparity will occur between job types based on their importance to the society in general in ANY economic situation. If it is deemed that a brain surgeon should get more money per operation than the guy picking lettuce, so be it. The emphisis here is on importance, not demand.

Fair enough, who sets the wage? What are people paid with? How are prices set?


Your heritage IS benefitial to the common good, and should be seen as such. It is NOT, however, more important that those in New York, London, the most remote parts of the Amazon or in the Himalayas. From pram-pusher to Premier, NO ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHERS!!!!

You haven't really added very much. Frankly a given heritage could be in conflict with what is perceived as the "common good", especially considering many heritages are inherently religious in nature and those religions don't seem conducive to communism.

You also seem to be under the impression that cultural heritage can or should be static. It isn't and it's never going to be. It's not like capitalism was the first economic system that destroyed cultures and altered others. Cultures have been getting wiped off the face of the earth since time began.


If you go by the principle that Thomas Jefferson put in the preamble to the United States' Declaration of Independence, that "...all Men are created equal,that they are endowed,... with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", than no one peson's rights are more important that anyone else's, be they an individual or the society at large.

But TJ and they boys would almost certainly disagree with your views that people have rights to all kinds of things that are actually entitlements. You understand that, right?


People disagree all the time (this thread being exibit A). That's why we govern byconsent through a representative government instead of a dictator. That's why we support left-wing ideals like communism and socialism instead of fascism or the great American fasciast microchosm that is the international corporation.


I grow tired of your sloganeering. Tell me how your society operates based on the "will of the people" when people disagree on just about everything. Be specific.

[uber-liberal]

Okay,



Every union I've ever come across has been opposed to the idea that the individual worker should be paid what they're worth.

That's why apprenticeship programs can fire you for not appearing to be ight for the job. If a journeyman thinks you have no business being in the business, they will tell the JATC and, after enough of them, you get canned.


While I can see the advantages of your pay system, it's extremely idealistic to assume it would eliminate laziness.

All systems are at least a touch idealistic. If someone is hell-bent on sitting on their ass all day nothing is going to deter them. That's reality. And you can either accept it or deny it, but it's still reality.
Some people will never change. Oh well...




2. Pay disparity will occur between job types based on their importance to the society in general in ANY economic situation. If it is deemed that a brain surgeon should get more money per operation than the guy picking lettuce, so be it. The emphisis here is on importance, not demand.


Fair enough, who sets the wage? What are people paid with? How are prices set?

The wages would be set by the governing proletariat, the Worker's Unions and, by a vote, the workers themselves.
The Proletariat Assembly, much like Congress or the old Soviet Pulit Bureau, would appropriate funds for employment as part of the semi-annual budget. The Unions would lobby the Assembly for funds for their trade(s). The workers would vote on how much to lobby the Assembly for.
Very rough, I know, but it's still somewhat conceptual. I haven't hammered down all the lose ends yet.




Your heritage IS benefitial to the common good, and should be seen as such. It is NOT, however, more important that those in New York, London, the most remote parts of the Amazon or in the Himalayas. From pram-pusher to Premier, NO ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHERS!!!!


You haven't really added very much. Frankly a given heritage could be in conflict with what is perceived as the "common good", especially considering many heritages are inherently religious in nature and those religions don't seem conducive to communism.

You also seem to be under the impression that cultural heritage can or should be static. It isn't and it's never going to be. It's not like capitalism was the first economic system that destroyed cultures and altered others. Cultures have been getting wiped off the face of the earth since time began.

You're right; cultures aren't static, they are very transient. However, I think you're misreading the subtext a bit.
Your culture is your identity in a larger form. Your beliefs, your mannerisms, your outlook on the world: all are eventually directly influenced by your cultural history. Religion, in my opinion, is not in opposition to the common good. If you want to believe in Jesus, go right ahead. Where Stalin and Co. went wrong, in one respect at least, is their total aversion to religion in spite of the popular "need" for it. You can't control the human heart.
You also can't control someone's history or the beliefs that spring up from them. Communism isn't very receptive to religion, but neither is capitalism. Sunday is really just another day for profits, right? Yet, somehow, we allow people to believe in it and go to church/temple/mosque/whathaveyou. Probably because we'd be lynched for even suggesting it.
Point being if you don't respect other people's cultures you won't be leading jack shit, in ANY economic system.




If you go by the principle that Thomas Jefferson put in the preamble to the United States' Declaration of Independence, that "...all Men are created equal,that they are endowed,... with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", than no one peson's rights are more important that anyone else's, be they an individual or the society at large.


But TJ and they boys would almost certainly disagree with your views that people have rights to all kinds of things that are actually entitlements. You understand that, right?

Well, again it goes down to beliefs and concepts of the best for society. To the USA, voting is a right while in the UK it's seen as more of a privelage.
I see things like health care, paid retirement and a livable wage for all workers as fundamental human rights. Jefferson may not think so, and you either, but I see these as central to my beliefs.


I grow tired of your sloganeering. Tell me how your society operates based on the "will of the people" when people disagree on just about everything. Be specific.

I grow tired of your smug attitude but I'm polite enough not to be an ass, ass.

The will of the people through voting. Just as everywhere else that governs by concent, you have an elected body that is directly responsible unto their constituency. They elect an executive (thus eliminating the problem of situations like the Electoral College), not the people, who is in turn responsible unto the Assembly. Then add a Judiciary that is responsible unto the Chief Executive, all while the Assembly's bills and propositions must (emphasis on MUST, as a matter of legal proceedure) be approved by the Judiciary.
To help combat corruption in the government, the pay of the Assembly members will be the median pay of those within their district, the Chief Executive and Judiciary will recieve the national median pay plus 5%, while all support staff will recieve pay based on a scale, each step going up 5% from the lowest level. How many levels at this point I don't know. Again, still somewhat conceptual.
The election results, like any other nation, are VERY RARELY so fragmented as to not have an absolute majority. The majority will rule, no matter what the result. And yes, even if they vote for a capitalist economy.
However, we have to remember this is theoretical. Nothing is proven until it is put forth in the real world. I'll just have to try harder...

[uber-liberal]

How's this for sloganeering?

"And when the sky darkens and the prospect is war
Who's given a gun and then pushed to the fore
And expected to die for the land of our birth
Though we've never owned one lousy handful of earth? "
-from "Worker's Song", by the Dropkick Murphys

[encephalon]

Hi uber-liberal, thanks for jumping in.

1. So my original question stands (for anyone here): How does communism/socialism, in its textbook form, deal with freeloaders or inspire people to work hard? I see many poor Americans overly reliant on social welfare programs with absolutely no ambitions to free themselves of them and stand on their own two feet. This problem costs America billions in generational (meaning families living on welfare for multiple generations) tax dollars. It will essentially break a communist/socialist society if not properly dealt with.

If 50% of the population decided to sit on the couch every day for the rest of eternity, civilization would fall--whether it is under socialism, feudalism, capitalism, communism or any other social system.

The problem with your logic, I think, is that you automatically assume that people need coercion to work; if this were the case, we wouldn't be here today. Work, by and large, is the one thing that humans do that differentiate them from other animals. We are naturally creative, and don't merely stop after we dig a hole or catch a mouse. Which is rather strange, considering the fact that a lot of people think the exact opposite differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.. that is, they think we're the only species that entertains itself. Anyone that owns a pet knows better.

But back to the point: I don't need anyone to tell me that I need to do what I must do in order to stay alive, nor do you. It's never been different in the past and it won't be in the future: if we can afford leisure, then by all means we will have it; if we can't, then we work as much as we must.

I think, perhaps, a better question for you might be that of class consciousness, and how one might make the leap from "i need this" to "we need this."




2. After reading RevolutionaryMarxist's article on why the USSR failed (which was very informative, thanks), I see that capitalism is required for socialism to come about. This leads back to my question. In third world countries where poverty is rampant and what little money there is is typically horded by the local dictator, how difficult would it be to convert that economic model to one of socialism? Is a certain size/sophistication of economy (amount of money, really) required for socialism to come about? Socialism requires a great deal of money due to the nature of benefits it provides via social services. I'm simply wondering how far along a nation has to be to properly implement socialism.


You might want to be careful here, as not all of us advocate the type of "socialism" that has been used in the past. While I'll say that socialism does require a certain level of a sophisticated economy, I wouldn't say it needs a large amount of money--even under capitalism, money can be virtually useless if the economy isn't working.

What socialism of any sort requires is a sophisticated means of production that can provide for the general welfare of the populous as a whole, with less human labor than would be needed under capitalism. That is to say, capitalism eventually succeeded because it required less work of more people to create better circumstances for the majority of those under feudalism (though at a high cost); the prerequisites for the next step in social evolution is no different.

Most of us "leftists" generally agree that the majority of the economy (if not all of it) should benefit each of us equally, not some more than others. Really, it's only been quite recent (since the green revolution, though that has its problems as well) that we've been able to produce far more in food than we need--this is the same goal, relatively speaking, that communists have for all facets of production. When there's plenty to go around even when only a very small portion of the population works in a specified field (like today, with farming), then "laziness" as you call it isn't an issue. If it were, we'd have all starved to death by now.

But yes, socialism requires a technologically advanced society; however, this doesn't mean the third world doesn't count. Most of us are internationalists as well, and we don't believe that the "first world" should gain any more than the third world.



3. The media plays a massive role in elections by promoting the candidates that they most favor. They can slant information to favor one candidate while only showing the negative of another. They can also exclude other lesser known candidates to the point where no one's even heard of them until they see their name on the ballot (much like communist presidential candidates, as you can imagine).

This is a powerful factor and will be a serious issue in a socialist society. When a leader of the state is running for reelection, what's to keep the media from slanting in favor towards the current leader? What's to keep the elections honest? This goes back, in a way, to my checks and balances question. How can we ensure fair elections throughout the socialist phase?


This is a relatively unfair question from the start, since it assumes that an election will automatically be subject to such manipulation under a socialist society. While you make a connection to today's capitalist system, you fail to apply the same logic to today as you would under socialism.

The answer to this is easy, and has been known (and practiced) for years: if a system ever fails to represent the masses, then the masses have an obligation to destroy it. Of course, as you mentioned, the evolution of media has changed the situation quite a bit, and its much easier today to reinforce a cultural hegemony than it was in the past. But we aren't ants, even if it takes a while to overthrow an unjust system; we aren't going to put up with it forever, and we will (and have a great many times) kill our queens when we've finally had enough.



4. My fourth question was what sort of checks and balances should exist to keep a socialist government honest? Any organization of people has the possibility of being corrupt and a corrupt socialist government can be scary as we've seen by other examples. How can we keep it honest and in the best interests of the people?


democracy. It's the most effective checks and balances system ever devised. At last resort, people can use armed insurrection. You seem to automatically dismiss that option, which I think is a fatal error: it has been the check and balance of human history.



5. My fifth question kinda snuck in to my earlier reply. I know your answer varies on this from communism but I'm again wondering: How does a communist/socialist society inspire people to go in to more difficult/advanced/dangerous career fields while paying them the same end result (salary or benefits)?


Once again, you assume people go into different careers based on income. If this were true, there wouldn't be any writers. There wouldn't be any handlers of nuclear waste. There wouldn't be any trash collectors. There wouldn't be any restaurant workers. There wouldn't be any theoretical physicists, and there wouldn't be any einsteins. Hell, there wouldn't be any economists, either. We'd all be business majors.

The fact is, people go into an advanced field that requires a lot of knowledge because they have a passion for it. Most of those fields yield little income, relative to work that requires a lot less labor but yields higher income. Most artists of any kind starve to death before they see a dime, and most brilliant scientists die poor--at least, poor in comparison to what the "virtue of work" says they should deserve.

Of course, trash collectors aren't trash collectors because they have a passion for collecting trash. Today, the problem is that they can't make money doing much else for which they actually do have a passion. I've met brilliant people in the dark corners of dirty bars that work as telemarketers, and some of the dumbest people I've met in the universe are college professors. People go into these professions because it's the best option in a limited spectrum for their particular set of abilities, even if they don't have much enthusiasm for the job--and things will probably remain the same for some time in the future.

The goal is to allow people to follow their passion for a particular field of labor, not to have them be coerced. Of course, few are passionate about picking up cigarette butts and aluminum cans, or processing human waste. Yet these are things to which all of us contribute, and thus should be things that all of us contribute to cleaning--and the same goes for most any necessity of human consumption and disposal. Given the average number of hours a janitor works in a given week, for instance, it only translates to minutes a day by the total population; the same goes for farmers, sewage technicians and every other job that you might find "undesirable."

The truth is that it doesn't matter how much you get paid: it's something that needs to be done, and a janitor makes absolutely nothing compared to a CEO, even though their job meets a much more important necessity (if you question this, ask yourself how well things would work without janitorial services.. then ask yourself how badly society needs the CEO of IBM).

You really need to examine your "higher wages for more valuable work" assumption; in my experience, the opposite has been true. The more stressful, disgusting, unpleasant or altogether necessary the job, the less a person will be paid for doing it; and the more useless a job (but the more privilege required to execute it), the higher the income level attached to it. Welcome to capitalism.




Thanks again for the reply.


It seems you've not read up on communist or anarchist philosophy much, other than an excerpt from wikipedia or something (that isn't meant as an insult, only an observation). I'd suggest doing so if you have a reason for asking these questions other than mere curiosity.

[t_wolves_fan]

That's why apprenticeship programs can fire you for not appearing to be ight for the job. If a journeyman thinks you have no business being in the business, they will tell the JATC and, after enough of them, you get canned.

That sounds good, but I still haven't come across a union that advocates merit-based pay or even allowing employees to be fired unless they kill someone. But then most of my experience has been with government unions, so maybe they're different.


All systems are at least a touch idealistic. If someone is hell-bent on sitting on their ass all day nothing is going to deter them. That's reality. And you can either accept it or deny it, but it's still reality.
Some people will never change. Oh well...

True enough.


The wages would be set by the governing proletariat, the Worker's Unions and, by a vote, the workers themselves.
The Proletariat Assembly, much like Congress or the old Soviet Pulit Bureau, would appropriate funds for employment as part of the semi-annual budget. The Unions would lobby the Assembly for funds for their trade(s). The workers would vote on how much to lobby the Assembly for.
Very rough, I know, but it's still somewhat conceptual. I haven't hammered down all the lose ends yet.

Also extremely inefficient. Unions and workers are going to lobby for the highest possible wages they can get, regardless of the merit. Given that an elected body is setting those wages, a political incentive will be created to vote for the highest possible wages. As an elected official, are you going to vote against high wages for a powerful union that threatens to strike or riot? Of course not, unless you actually want to be voted out of office in the next election.

This system sounds like an invitation to high inflation and general chaos.


Well, again it goes down to beliefs and concepts of the best for society. To the USA, voting is a right while in the UK it's seen as more of a privelage.
I see things like health care, paid retirement and a livable wage for all workers as fundamental human rights. Jefferson may not think so, and you either, but I see these as central to my beliefs.

My criticisms of your plan for wage setting relate to my criticism of your belief that things like wages and health insurance are rights and not entitlements. Do you really want your livelihood to be at the mercy of elected officials? I work for a very competent unit of government, and I can tell you that under no circumstances would I want it to be deciding how much money I make or how my health care will be delivered.


The will of the people through voting. Just as everywhere else that governs by concent, you have an elected body that is directly responsible unto their constituency. They elect an executive (thus eliminating the problem of situations like the Electoral College), not the people, who is in turn responsible unto the Assembly. Then add a Judiciary that is responsible unto the Chief Executive, all while the Assembly's bills and propositions must (emphasis on MUST, as a matter of legal proceedure) be approved by the Judiciary.
To help combat corruption in the government, the pay of the Assembly members will be the median pay of those within their district, the Chief Executive and Judiciary will recieve the national median pay plus 5%, while all support staff will recieve pay based on a scale, each step going up 5% from the lowest level. How many levels at this point I don't know. Again, still somewhat conceptual.
The election results, like any other nation, are VERY RARELY so fragmented as to not have an absolute majority. The majority will rule, no matter what the result. And yes, even if they vote for a capitalist economy.
However, we have to remember this is theoretical. Nothing is proven until it is put forth in the real world. I'll just have to try harder...

Fair enough, but now you're adding elected officials' own wages to the wages of the people who elect them. Our system may not work that well, but the system you propose would require total enlightenment at all levels to avoid a disaster.

[jlovato]

If 50% of the population decided to sit on the couch every day for the rest of eternity, civilization would fall--whether it is under socialism, feudalism, capitalism, communism or any other social system.

The problem with your logic, I think, is...

I see your point and agree that a majority of people fall in to the hard working category. From what I've seen, people tend to define a minimum acceptable standard of living for themselves and tend to exist at roughly that level for their entire lives. For some, this acceptable level might be making 30k a year as a McDonald's manager. For others, they may set their minimum acceptable standard at 200k a year running a private investment business. Anything less than that level of success is unacceptable and is corrected as soon as possible to resume the minimum standard.

There are some people who are perfectly content being homeless and not having a job. Now they'd never admit this, but they've been homeless for years and accept this as within the acceptable standard. Give them a job and they don't show up for work on time. Or they show up drunk. They get fired due to their own personal issues and stay homeless as a result.

While this isn't a majority by any means, it's certainly a costly problem. If we give them a house, give them free food and clothes, free household furnishings, what's to keep them from staying home and drinking all day? I'm not talking about 50% here as you mentioned.. but what about the individuals? Do they get something for nothing? I don't think you'll see 100% of the people working hard as feel-good communists promoting the greater good. You'll have to deal with the same social blights as any other culture or society. My question is how are they dealt with? Will they be so insignificant that they won't be an issue at all?

From your response so far, it looks like they're not really addressed and individuals are free to work (or not) as they please. It just seems to me like a bum's neighbors would be pissed seeing someone freeload after they've worked in the field all day. I know I would but I'm not a true believer I suppose.

Due to your comments and the comments of others here, I'm starting to better understand the complete disinterest in money as a concept. I see where socialism/communism would much prefer to provide goods and services to the people over money. Removing money from the equation would almost have to be mandatory at some extent. I wish American social welfare programs did the same thing.


This is a relatively unfair question from the start, since it assumes that an election will automatically be subject to such manipulation under a socialist society. While you make a connection to today's capitalist system, you fail to apply the same logic to today as you would under socialism.

The answer to this is easy, and has been known (and practiced) for years: if a system ever fails to represent the masses, then the masses have an obligation to destroy it. Of course, as you mentioned, the evolution of media has changed the situation quite a bit, and its much easier today to reinforce a cultural hegemony than it was in the past. But we aren't ants, even if it takes a while to overthrow an unjust system; we aren't going to put up with it forever, and we will (and have a great many times) kill our queens when we've finally had enough.

I don't believe that it was an unfair question because it's happened in just about every implementation of socialism to date. While it can be said that they didn't go "by the book", the revolutionaries had the same mindset at heart and took over the nation with the workers in mind. It just turned in to something more sinister. China is the closest thing to 1984 on the planet. All under the guise of socialism. The people are terrified to rise up and any effort to organize a revolt is squashed by the beastly government milking the people for every penny that it can get through international business. Selling out their workers for slave wages and conditions. Just how easy is it to overthrow a government like China? Or North Korea? Why are people fleeing Cuba so desperately? They've poured in to Miami and other areas of South Florida. Cubans in America can't wait for Castro to die. Why? Why would capitalist America be more appealing to these Cubans?


Democracy. It's the most effective checks and balances system ever devised. At last resort, people can use armed insurrection. You seem to automatically dismiss that option, which I think is a fatal error: it has been the check and balance of human history.

I've dismissed it primarily because it seems like socialist governments of the past have been the most vile and difficult to overthrow. My point is that it's much harder to blow the whistle on the state when everything is run by the state. It's communists who tend to believe that a legitimate socialist government is above corruption. Or that government is somehow more trustworthy than a corporation. People make up both and can corrupt both equally. Both can pursue wealth and power equally. At least a corporation can be shut down by a government. A government can only be shut down by the people that it loses control of. Clamp down on the media, take away their guns and partition the information that they receive in efforts of stifling revolt. You can call it unlikely but it's happened multiple times and it's in progress today.


Once again, you assume people go into different careers based on income. If this were true, there wouldn't be any writers. There wouldn't be any handlers of nuclear waste. There wouldn't be any trash collectors. There wouldn't be any restaurant workers. There wouldn't be any theoretical physicists, and there wouldn't be any einsteins. Hell, there wouldn't be any economists, either. We'd all be business majors.

...Welcome to capitalism.

I agree that many pursue their preferred career fields regardless of wages. However, in just about every case, it falls within their acceptable minimum standard of living and they're OK with that. I'm just not so sure that we'll have enough people choosing the critical labor jobs over something more comfortable and personally rewarding than picking vegetables in the sun all day. I know some people are OK with that but there are many who only do it to survive and provide for their families. There's no reason for them to continue doing it once that problem's solved for them by the state. They'll do something else that they'd prefer to do instead. I also don't imagine many former IBM CEO's taking up the job in their place.

I'm just not convinced that people will meet the requirement needed for socialism/communism to work properly. I'm not sure that the labor pool will distribute properly.

Another concern is that people will have to reduce their standards of living, as a whole, due to good of the commune. Some people lead pretty comfortable lives and will fight tooth and nail over giving up what they've worked to gather. How does a well off single person with 3 houses, 4 cars and a boat go to living in some duplex apartment with other single people with no kids? What's an expected typical standard of living under an idealist communist ideology? Would people have TV's? Would they have Hi-Def TV's? Would they all have big screens? lol. I know that these are materialistic questions but people are materialistic in nature and that will be tough to break. Does the focus shift on manufacturing more standardized things for everyone to have equally (everyone gets a 20 inch set, for example). Do we deflate the drive for greater and greater advances in technology that's currently being driven by capitalist competition?


It seems you've not read up on communist or anarchist philosophy much, other than an excerpt from wikipedia or something (that isn't meant as an insult, only an observation). I'd suggest doing so if you have a reason for asking these questions other than mere curiosity.

You're for the most part correct and that's why I'm here. I understand how my questions probably sound to a true believer. I'm more of a hands-on kind of person and learn best from conversation. Having someone clearly explain things to me gives me the interest and introduction for me to get the most out of my reading. Thanks for the reply.

[theraven]

1) There is no need for a "concept" or qoute for in order for people to work hard. I don't know about you but being lazy drives me nuts, that's mostly all the inspiration that I personally need.

people don't like to do nothing, but waht you do to simulute your mind doesnt nessacirly produce productive people. example my roomamte spent the summer before sneior year basicly playing vidoe games, working (becuse he needed the money for his car/girlfired) and sleeping. had he not needed the money the work would ahve been elminted.


2) Many of the more backward cultures around the world would not be very compatible with communism. However there are elements in all cultures that could be brought out to flourish.

Socialism would be less detrimental to most third world societies than capitalism is. Technology would not be increased in one particular sector, only for that corporation to just get up and leave the economy in shambles years later.

In the first world Communism would destroy racism, sexism, elitism..... pretty much the majority of the problems average people see in their daily lives.


the majority of my problems are related to indidviausl often ofthe same class and race as myself. your problems come from other people not stretuctres

[uber-liberal]

Given that an elected body is setting those wages, a political incentive will be created to vote for the highest possible wages. As an elected official, are you going to vote against high wages for a powerful union that threatens to strike or riot?

An elected body, in my opinion, is better than an Executive Board that has no oversight from John Q. Public, only the stock holder.
Besides, wages are partially determined by cost of living, partially on cost efficiency of the specific job performed.


Do you really want your livelihood to be at the mercy of elected officials? I work for a very competent unit of government, and I can tell you that under no circumstances would I want it to be deciding how much money I make or how my health care will be delivered.

They already do, boss...


Fair enough, but now you're adding elected officials' own wages to the wages of the people who elect them. Our system may not work that well, but the system you propose would require total enlightenment at all levels to avoid a disaster.

Not on every level, just most of them. Besides, no one could, or SHOULD, impose their will upon the masses. All worthwile social revolutions start with educating the masses.

Think of it this way: the country would become an employee-owned company with profit-sharing-style benefits. The country would be trying to seek a profit from it's production on the global market, all while having input from the lowest level to the very pinnacle on how the machine runs.
Even communism has some capitalist goals, like making a buck.

[Matty_UK]

I see your point and agree that a majority of people fall in to the hard working category. From what I've seen, people tend to define a minimum acceptable standard of living for themselves and tend to exist at roughly that level for their entire lives. For some, this acceptable level might be making 30k a year as a McDonald's manager. For others, they may set their minimum acceptable standard at 200k a year running a private investment business. Anything less than that level of success is unacceptable and is corrected as soon as possible to resume the minimum standard.

There are some people who are perfectly content being homeless and not having a job. Now they'd never admit this, but they've been homeless for years and accept this as within the acceptable standard. Give them a job and they don't show up for work on time. Or they show up drunk. They get fired due to their own personal issues and stay homeless as a result.

While this isn't a majority by any means, it's certainly a costly problem. If we give them a house, give them free food and clothes, free household furnishings, what's to keep them from staying home and drinking all day? I'm not talking about 50% here as you mentioned.. but what about the individuals? Do they get something for nothing? I don't think you'll see 100% of the people working hard as feel-good communists promoting the greater good. You'll have to deal with the same social blights as any other culture or society. My question is how are they dealt with? Will they be so insignificant that they won't be an issue at all?

From your response so far, it looks like they're not really addressed and individuals are free to work (or not) as they please. It just seems to me like a bum's neighbors would be pissed seeing someone freeload after they've worked in the field all day. I know I would but I'm not a true believer I suppose.

Due to your comments and the comments of others here, I'm starting to better understand the complete disinterest in money as a concept. I see where socialism/communism would much prefer to provide goods and services to the people over money. Removing money from the equation would almost have to be mandatory at some extent. I wish American social welfare programs did the same thing.

As a side point, I've recently made friends with a girl from China who talked about how people in capitalist countries are lazy because they only do the minimum to get their pay but in China collective responsibility means people do everything they can to keep the workplace efficient and please the team. (and then apologised profusely, unaware I'm a communist) And when I think about I don't see any evidence that people would be lazy under communism, as long as you have a connection with your colleagues you're always going to work to please them.

As far lazy people....total localised democracy would mean people could come up with some sort of incentive to deal with the problem, be it excluding them from public services or in the earlier stages they simply won't get any pay. (it is unrealistic to expect an abolition of wages in the early days of the revolution, but they will be drastically changed as the bourgeois profit would go to the workers and people would get paid for what they do rather than an hourly wage-in case no-ones pointed it out it is a bare-faced lie that communism=everyone gets the same wage, and no communists believe that other than the ones who don't know what communism is)


I don't believe that it was an unfair question because it's happened in just about every implementation of socialism to date. While it can be said that they didn't go "by the book", the revolutionaries had the same mindset at heart and took over the nation with the workers in mind. It just turned in to something more sinister. China is the closest thing to 1984 on the planet. All under the guise of socialism. The people are terrified to rise up and any effort to organize a revolt is squashed by the beastly government milking the people for every penny that it can get through international business. Selling out their workers for slave wages and conditions. Just how easy is it to overthrow a government like China? Or North Korea? Why are people fleeing Cuba so desperately? They've poured in to Miami and other areas of South Florida. Cubans in America can't wait for Castro to die. Why? Why would capitalist America be more appealing to these Cubans?

None of the "socialist" countries were worker led revolutions, with the exception of Russia-but in Russia the original revolutionaries were exterminated by Stalin and the new wave of middle cadres who were necassary to faster develop Russia's backwards feudal economy. (only very small parts of Russia were industrialised) The economy always determines how things go. The others may have claimed to be aiming for communism but in reality they were a red bourgeois speedily developing capitalism; which in fairness, did work, there would be no modern powerful China without Mao. (not that I admire the man) An important point is these command economies design to faster develop capitalism are similar to (but more benevolent than) late 19th Century German and early 20th Japanese economies.

Those revolutions had nothing to do with Marx's predictions of a social revolution, and only today are we entering the last stage of capitalism. Look at all the job loss from outsourcing to countries where workers have less rights; the capital of wealthy investors flees countries which stand up for their workers. In Britain, we see our beloved NHS becoming increasingly impotent and it's death looks near; our pensions look doomed; all across Europe the hard-fought-for rights of workers are disappearing, Scandinavian social democracy was an economic failure.
Capitalism's tendency for declining rate of profit sees prices constantly rise, the cost of living ever increasing. People are forced into debt their near entire lives, banks are now willing to lend up to 5 times your annual salary. And it will only get worse, the average anual profit of companies has been decreasing since the 60s with each global recession hitting harder and harder. How long before total collapse?

And that's not all. Look at the rage of the underclass within our capitalist utopias. America already has more people than any nation behind bars, and all over Europe prison overcrowded is becoming a serious issue. Mental illness is increasing...and I have news for you. The antidepressants won't work forever and neither will violent films and video games sedate people. You think what happened in France last year was a one-off, bizarre occurrence? You are wrong, the underclass in all western countries have this rage inside them and when the system collapses and the educated upper working class (or even middle class) join with the rioters that rage will be the driving force of the revolution and the capitalists had better watch their backs.

have to go now, deal with the rest later

[Matty_UK]

I've dismissed it primarily because it seems like socialist governments of the past have been the most vile and difficult to overthrow. My point is that it's much harder to blow the whistle on the state when everything is run by the state. It's communists who tend to believe that a legitimate socialist government is above corruption. Or that government is somehow more trustworthy than a corporation. People make up both and can corrupt both equally. Both can pursue wealth and power equally. At least a corporation can be shut down by a government. A government can only be shut down by the people that it loses control of. Clamp down on the media, take away their guns and partition the information that they receive in efforts of stifling revolt. You can call it unlikely but it's happened multiple times and it's in progress today.

See my above point on the "socialist" governments of the past. They might have had communist ideals behind them (which were, in my opinion, responsible for all the good parts of them like womens rights etc) but in practise to survive they had to create a state capitalist class in order to faster develop industry.

And communists do not trust the state either, but it IS preferable as its motive is not profit, although it is corruptable; however we seek to abolish politics to be replaced with simple administrative tasks from elected representatives on a small neighbourhood/workplace scale.


I agree that many pursue their preferred career fields regardless of wages. However, in just about every case, it falls within their acceptable minimum standard of living and they're OK with that. I'm just not so sure that we'll have enough people choosing the critical labor jobs over something more comfortable and personally rewarding than picking vegetables in the sun all day. I know some people are OK with that but there are many who only do it to survive and provide for their families. There's no reason for them to continue doing it once that problem's solved for them by the state. They'll do something else that they'd prefer to do instead. I also don't imagine many former IBM CEO's taking up the job in their place.

I'm just not convinced that people will meet the requirement needed for socialism/communism to work properly. I'm not sure that the labor pool will distribute properly.

Menial tasks would not be careers under communism. As no-one wants to do them, neighbourhood councils would most likely set up a rota for the crap jobs.


Another concern is that people will have to reduce their standards of living, as a whole, due to good of the commune. Some people lead pretty comfortable lives and will fight tooth and nail over giving up what they've worked to gather. How does a well off single person with 3 houses, 4 cars and a boat go to living in some duplex apartment with other single people with no kids? What's an expected typical standard of living under an idealist communist ideology? Would people have TV's? Would they have Hi-Def TV's? Would they all have big screens? lol. I know that these are materialistic questions but people are materialistic in nature and that will be tough to break. Does the focus shift on manufacturing more standardized things for everyone to have equally (everyone gets a 20 inch set, for example). Do we deflate the drive for greater and greater advances in technology that's currently being driven by capitalist competition?

Someone who owns 3 hours 4 cars and a boat is bourgeois, and we say- fuck'em, they stole their wealth. People without class consciousness tend to see "employer" as just another way to make an honest living, but it's not. They are not being paid in accordance to how useful or skilled they are to society, but they get their money by paying the people who actually do the work less than the workers themselves have made. Everyone apart from those guys will benefit from a revolution, and as it's those guys who are our enemies.....we don't care.

But it's more than just higher pay. Modern capitalism has the tech to produce far more than demand but to do so would means prices must drop. So they leave industrial apparatus idle, ignore technological innovation, and physically destroy surplus produce. Under communism people would work in these jobs rather than jobs which would become redundant like accountancy, law enforcement, (which would be done autonomously by communities) marketing, and so on. And over a small amount of time it would be possible to automate much of the industry; but job loss would not be an issue in a communist society as dependance on the bourgeois would be eliminated if the means of production were in public hands.

[t_wolves_fan]

An elected body, in my opinion, is better than an Executive Board that has no oversight from John Q. Public, only the stock holder.
Besides, wages are partially determined by cost of living, partially on cost efficiency of the specific job performed.

If wages are set by elected officials, you can bet that wages will end up being set by the political power of the union seeking the raise.

That'll work out great.


Think of it this way: the country would become an employee-owned company with profit-sharing-style benefits. The country would be trying to seek a profit from it's production on the global market, all while having input from the lowest level to the very pinnacle on how the machine runs.
Even communism has some capitalist goals, like making a buck.

The problem is an employee-owned company in a capitalist system is restricted by the necessity to maintain profitability. That restriction is lost once it's elected officials and the government in charge of deciding wages. A powerful union wants a raise? Well I want to get reelected, so print more money and give them a raise. Hell raises for everyone! It's an election year!

A recipe for disaster.

[uber-liberal]

The problem is an employee-owned company in a capitalist system is restricted by the necessity to maintain profitability. That restriction is lost once it's elected officials and the government in charge of deciding wages. A powerful union wants a raise? Well I want to get reelected, so print more money and give them a raise. Hell raises for everyone! It's an election year...

Printing money arbitrarily NEVER works for anyone, as was proven in later-WWII Germany and 1988-1991 U.S.S.R. There has to be something backing the currency in order to give it value. The dollar doesn't have this anymore, nor does the Euro (probably one of the reasons why the Brits won't get involved there), so we place a value on... what, faith? Relative market value? Bullshit. I say it's time for something different than that, but what I don't know. I'm still investigating the possibilities...
And as for "undue political oversight" in wages, the government wouldn't be the only ones deciding this. Ultimately, the decision would rest with the government. However, like here in the U.S. (although this rule has never been used, as far as I know) a popular veto can occur with 1) a successful initiative drive to repeal the decision, AND 2) a supermajority (60%) approval for the repeal. This, both in my "utopia", as you like to call it, and here, can AND SHOULD be done on a federal level.
Remember to vote tomorrow!!! It's the only voice the working class has here, unless we band together (AFL-CIO, M-O-U-S-E...) and hire a lobbyist.

[jlovato]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 02:32 pm
As a side point, I've recently made friends with a girl from China who talked about how people in capitalist countries are lazy because they only do the minimum to get their pay but in China collective responsibility means people do everything they can to keep the workplace efficient and please the team. (and then apologised profusely, unaware I'm a communist) And when I think about I don't see any evidence that people would be lazy under communism, as long as you have a connection with your colleagues you're always going to work to please them.

As far lazy people....total localised democracy would mean people could come up with some sort of incentive to deal with the problem, be it excluding them from public services or in the earlier stages they simply won't get any pay. (it is unrealistic to expect an abolition of wages in the early days of the revolution, but they will be drastically changed as the bourgeois profit would go to the workers and people would get paid for what they do rather than an hourly wage-in case no-ones pointed it out it is a bare-faced lie that communism=everyone gets the same wage, and no communists believe that other than the ones who don't know what communism is)

I used to hear the same thing said about the soviets back in the 80's. That socialist employees only work to fill their quota and then they're done. The mindset was that if they worked harder, their quotas would be increased with no additional incentive. This all sounds like propaganda to me. The idea that workers under capitalism are lazy and workers under socialism are immediately hard working and ambitious is just silly. People are people regardless and most couldn't care less about politics. Most work hard and some are just lazy no matter what.

I'm proof positive because I bust my ass for the company that I work for and they treat me well. They often invite me (and other staff) over to their get-togethers and reward me with financial incentives for the above and beyond effort. I also see a pay increase each year and get routine pats on the back for taking ownership of projects. Everyone that works in our company works hard and people that don't or do the bare minimum get booted to the curb.


None of the "socialist" countries were worker led revolutions, with the exception of Russia-but in Russia the original revolutionaries were exterminated by Stalin and the new wave of middle cadres who were necassary to faster develop Russia's backwards feudal economy. (only very small parts of Russia were industrialised) The economy always determines how things go. The others may have claimed to be aiming for communism but in reality they were a red bourgeois speedily developing capitalism; which in fairness, did work, there would be no modern powerful China without Mao. (not that I admire the man) An important point is these command economies design to faster develop capitalism are similar to (but more benevolent than) late 19th Century German and early 20th Japanese economies.

Those revolutions had nothing to do with Marx's predictions of a social revolution, and only today are we entering the last stage of capitalism. Look at all the job loss from outsourcing to countries where workers have less rights; the capital of wealthy investors flees countries which stand up for their workers. In Britain, we see our beloved NHS becoming increasingly impotent and it's death looks near; our pensions look doomed; all across Europe the hard-fought-for rights of workers are disappearing, Scandinavian social democracy was an economic failure.
Capitalism's tendency for declining rate of profit sees prices constantly rise, the cost of living ever increasing. People are forced into debt their near entire lives, banks are now willing to lend up to 5 times your annual salary. And it will only get worse, the average anual profit of companies has been decreasing since the 60s with each global recession hitting harder and harder. How long before total collapse?

And that's not all. Look at the rage of the underclass within our capitalist utopias. America already has more people than any nation behind bars, and all over Europe prison overcrowded is becoming a serious issue. Mental illness is increasing...and I have news for you. The antidepressants won't work forever and neither will violent films and video games sedate people. You think what happened in France last year was a one-off, bizarre occurrence? You are wrong, the underclass in all western countries have this rage inside them and when the system collapses and the educated upper working class (or even middle class) join with the rioters that rage will be the driving force of the revolution and the capitalists had better watch their backs.

This seems to be the standing point in defense of the current validity of socialism "It's yet to be implemented correctly by anyone." Doesn't the whole idea seem a bit fragile by nature? It relies on a very proper implementation and the will of the people to overthrow the current government when it starts heading in the wrong direction. From my experience, people don't like to change things until it's too late (or almost too late). People will often grumble or complain about a bad situation but won't stand up and revolt until someone leads the charge and fires up the people. If history's taught us anything, it's that being a revolutionary typically means you're as good as dead. I mean, how easy was it for Stalin to just take over? Why didn't the people revolt then?

Communism also relies on everyone being hard working, loyal communists which I just don't see happening. Roughly ten percent of any population will rabidly oppose any government or managing figure (just a number pulled out of my ass by lifetime experience) and will oppose it at every step of the way. I can't think of a single nation that isn't like that today. You'll have lazy people that will be selfish, no matter what. These are just traits in people that just won't die off. People disagree on things and share different values and standards. No system of government is going to make people any better than they are today. Better off? maybe. But not better as a human being.

I agree with your points on globalization near completely. I don't agree with outsourcing work to third world countries in efforts of being more competitive. It does little but exploit the third world and put Americans and Europeans out of work. I also feel that money should have never left the gold standard. This allows for organizations to decide the value of money and makes the system much more flimsy and likely to be corrupted (in my opinion).

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 06:07 pm
This seems to be the standing point in defense of the current validity of socialism "It's yet to be implemented correctly by anyone." Doesn't the whole idea seem a bit fragile by nature? It relies on a very proper implementation and the will of the people to overthrow the current government when it starts heading in the wrong direction. From my experience, people don't like to change things until it's too late (or almost too late). People will often grumble or complain about a bad situation but won't stand up and revolt until someone leads the charge and fires up the people. If history's taught us anything, it's that being a revolutionary typically means you're as good as dead. I mean, how easy was it for Stalin to just take over? Why didn't the people revolt then?
It's not to do with implementation. Socialism could not be implemented in the past, it will only come about when capitalism collapses into depression AND the working class is organised on an international scale AND technology has developed to a point where it's workable. Read what I said again; where it was tried in the past, they were really simply command economies designed simply to speedily industrialise and introduce capitalism.

Oh and as far people don't change things till it's too late; well yeah. When the next great depression catches up prices will be astronomical, wages pitiful, and employment scarce. I think then it would be "too late" and obvious that a revolution is needed.

Unless you're talking about people revolting against "bad" socialist governments?

Socialism is highly democratic and issues are decided in neighbourhood councils, workplace committees....under socialism it would be harder for someone to seize power than it is under capitalism; and remember that USSR was NOT a country ready for socialism! It was mostly an agricultural society and industry where it existed was poor quality. This meant a form of state capitalism became necassary to develop industry.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 06:07 pm

I agree with your points on globalization near completely. I don't agree with outsourcing work to third world countries in efforts of being more competitive. It does little but exploit the third world and put Americans and Europeans out of work. I also feel that money should have never left the gold standard. This allows for organizations to decide the value of money and makes the system much more flimsy and likely to be corrupted (in my opinion).

I used to hear the same thing said about the soviets back in the 80's. That socialist employees only work to fill their quota and then they're done. The mindset was that if they worked harder, their quotas would be increased with no additional incentive. This all sounds like propaganda to me. The idea that workers under capitalism are lazy and workers under socialism are immediately hard working and ambitious is just silly. People are people regardless and most couldn't care less about politics. Most work hard and some are just lazy no matter what.

I'm proof positive because I bust my ass for the company that I work for and they treat me well. They often invite me (and other staff) over to their get-togethers and reward me with financial incentives for the above and beyond effort. I also see a pay increase each year and get routine pats on the back for taking ownership of projects. Everyone that works in our company works hard and people that don't or do the bare minimum get booted to the curb.

True enough, but I don't see why people would be lazier under socialism.


Communism also relies on everyone being hard working, loyal communists which I just don't see happening. Roughly ten percent of any population will rabidly oppose any government or managing figure (just a number pulled out of my ass by lifetime experience) and will oppose it at every step of the way. I can't think of a single nation that isn't like that today. You'll have lazy people that will be selfish, no matter what. These are just traits in people that just won't die off. People disagree on things and share different values and standards. No system of government is going to make people any better than they are today. Better off? maybe. But not better as a human being.

How does it rely on them being loyal communists? Ideology is fairly irrelevant really to revolution.

And there won't really be any permanent government in socialism. Political parties will be swept aside in favour of regularaly elected people to carry out administrative tasks.

People might be selfish and lazy, but they still have to work with society (as in capitalism so don't be like "OMGZ CONFORMITY ROBOTZ!11111" ) to meet their own needs.

And people do have different values and disagree, but they are still capable of acting democratically. If people argue too much over decisions then I'm sure they will come to some sort of system that works better, like simply voting on what to do.

[t_wolves_fan]

Printing money arbitrarily NEVER works for anyone, as was proven in later-WWII Germany and 1988-1991 U.S.S.R. There has to be something backing the currency in order to give it value. The dollar doesn't have this anymore, nor does the Euro (probably one of the reasons why the Brits won't get involved there), so we place a value on... what, faith? Relative market value? Bullshit. I say it's time for something different than that, but what I don't know. I'm still investigating the possibilities...

Agreed. Wow, we're on quite a bipartisan roll today. Must be the percoset I took for my back pain. :lol:


And as for "undue political oversight" in wages, the government wouldn't be the only ones deciding this. Ultimately, the decision would rest with the government. However, like here in the U.S. (although this rule has never been used, as far as I know) a popular veto can occur with 1) a successful initiative drive to repeal the decision, AND 2) a supermajority (60%) approval for the repeal. This, both in my "utopia", as you like to call it, and here, can AND SHOULD be done on a federal level.

Do you live in California or Oregon? Those are the two states I know have such initiatives.

I'm wary of initiatives at the federal level for two reasons. One, citizen initiatives are generally driven either by temporary inflamed passions or by charismatic ideologues with lots of money. Two, I'd rather the federal government did as little as possible and that control was excercised at the state level. I think I'd favor more initiative authority at the state level. My state does not have it.


Remember to vote tomorrow!!! It's the only voice the working class has here, unless we band together (AFL-CIO, M-O-U-S-E...) and hire a lobbyist.

I did and I'm pretty happy about the results. You?

[uber-liberal]

Do you live in California or Oregon? Those are the two states I know have such initiatives.
I just moved here from Portland, Oregon. Ah, the Hawthorne District, where patchoulli wafts through the air like pollen... and makes everyone stink.


I'm wary of initiatives at the federal level for two reasons. One, citizen initiatives are generally driven either by temporary inflamed passions or by charismatic ideologues with lots of money. Two, I'd rather the federal government did as little as possible and that control was excercised at the state level. I think I'd favor more initiative authority at the state level. My state does not have it.

That is crap and I'm sorry you don't have that option available to you. Get a hold of your Assemblyperson, start a petition with your friends and family to endorse such an idea and send it to your State Senator or Governor. Governing by consent meens sometimes going grassroots and avoiding the trappings of beaurocracy. Popular movements like this brought us the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, women's rights, repealed Jim Crow laws, and, in Oregon specifically, the Death with Dignity Act. It's as fundamental as air to a democratic-republic.
As for your second point, whenever you have a legislative body, you have beaurocracy in spades. The referendum allows you to do an end run around the system by garnishing popular support on a national level. It also sends the message to Washington, D.C. that We, the People can decide for ourselves on some issues, so they can either fall in line or get removed. That goes hand in hand with the recall election option.


I did and I'm pretty happy about the results. You?

Somewhat. Only one Dem one in my state on a federal level, and of course no Green Party or American Socialist ran. We now have an excessively right-wing Republican Governor, who's so far into the Good Ole Boy network of the northern half of the state that I'm sure the southern half will get dick over the next 4 years.

I voted and gave my opinion. Now it's time to try to get something done in the capital.

[jlovato]

True enough, but I don't see why people would be lazier under socialism.

I never said that they would be lazier under any sort of political ideology. My original question, which still stands, is how are lazy people dealt with? Can people choose to not work and get everything provided without providing any sort of effort to the commune?

By descriptions in earlier posts, it sounds like everyone can pretty much do any job that they want to do and by a natural diversity among people, all of the needed career fields will some-how work themselves out. And that by everyone doing the job that they love, they work hard and strive to be the best. I just wonder how the commune will provide for those professional video game players and couch potatoes who would prefer to sit on their butts for a living.

Are there requirements to get community benefits? or does everyone live/eat for free regardless of whether or not they choose to work?

The answer that I keep getting is that lazy people just simply won't exist under communism and that everyone will work hard for the good of the commune (my meaning of loyal communists). This is what I'm questioning.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:27 am

True enough, but I don't see why people would be lazier under socialism.

I never said that they would be lazier under any sort of political ideology. My original question, which still stands, is how are lazy people dealt with? Can people choose to not work and get everything provided without providing any sort of effort to the commune?

By descriptions in earlier posts, it sounds like everyone can pretty much do any job that they want to do and by a natural diversity among people, all of the needed career fields will some-how work themselves out. And that by everyone doing the job that they love, they work hard and strive to be the best. I just wonder how the commune will provide for those professional video game players and couch potatoes who would prefer to sit on their butts for a living.

Are there requirements to get community benefits? or does everyone live/eat for free regardless of whether or not they choose to work?

The answer that I keep getting is that lazy people just simply won't exist under communism and that everyone will work hard for the good of the commune (my meaning of loyal communists). This is what I'm questioning.
If someone isn't pulling their weight, most likely people will vote to do something about it. Ban them from public services, or not give them any produce back until they decide to work. You can't say exactly what people will decide to do because it would depend on the circumstances.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+November 10, 2006 12:30 pm--> (Matty_UK @ November 10, 2006 12:30 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 04:27 am

True enough, but I don't see why people would be lazier under socialism.

I never said that they would be lazier under any sort of political ideology. My original question, which still stands, is how are lazy people dealt with? Can people choose to not work and get everything provided without providing any sort of effort to the commune?

By descriptions in earlier posts, it sounds like everyone can pretty much do any job that they want to do and by a natural diversity among people, all of the needed career fields will some-how work themselves out. And that by everyone doing the job that they love, they work hard and strive to be the best. I just wonder how the commune will provide for those professional video game players and couch potatoes who would prefer to sit on their butts for a living.

Are there requirements to get community benefits? or does everyone live/eat for free regardless of whether or not they choose to work?

The answer that I keep getting is that lazy people just simply won't exist under communism and that everyone will work hard for the good of the commune (my meaning of loyal communists). This is what I'm questioning.
If someone isn't pulling their weight, most likely people will vote to do something about it. Ban them from public services, or not give them any produce back until they decide to work. You can't say exactly what people will decide to do because it would depend on the circumstances. [/b]

Well, the socialists tend to believe that the capitalists don't pull their own weight. In China or the USSR, such people were sent to the camps, or the coal mines, banned from public life, to work along side the proleteriat. Would such a decision qualify as an acceptable way of dealing with "lazy" people?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ZX3+November 10, 2006 01:25 pm--> (ZX3 @ November 10, 2006 01:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:30 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 04:27 am

True enough, but I don't see why people would be lazier under socialism.

I never said that they would be lazier under any sort of political ideology. My original question, which still stands, is how are lazy people dealt with? Can people choose to not work and get everything provided without providing any sort of effort to the commune?

By descriptions in earlier posts, it sounds like everyone can pretty much do any job that they want to do and by a natural diversity among people, all of the needed career fields will some-how work themselves out. And that by everyone doing the job that they love, they work hard and strive to be the best. I just wonder how the commune will provide for those professional video game players and couch potatoes who would prefer to sit on their butts for a living.

Are there requirements to get community benefits? or does everyone live/eat for free regardless of whether or not they choose to work?

The answer that I keep getting is that lazy people just simply won't exist under communism and that everyone will work hard for the good of the commune (my meaning of loyal communists). This is what I'm questioning.
If someone isn't pulling their weight, most likely people will vote to do something about it. Ban them from public services, or not give them any produce back until they decide to work. You can't say exactly what people will decide to do because it would depend on the circumstances.

Well, the socialists tend to believe that the capitalists don't pull their own weight. In China or the USSR, such people were sent to the camps, or the coal mines, banned from public life, to work along side the proleteriat. Would such a decision qualify as an acceptable way of dealing with "lazy" people? [/b]
:rolleyes:
That's such a stupid suggestion I'm not gonna bother forming a coherent response.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 08:38 pm
Hello,

I'm new to the forum and had some questions in hopes of getting your take on them. I'd imagine that most, if not all, of these topics have been discussed prior to my post but I'd prefer not to jump in to an old conversation.

1. How does the concept "From each based upon their ability to each based upon their need" promote hard work in a civilization?

2. How do you feel about different cultures around the world and how they would either be more compatible with communism/socialism? Do you feel that it would more benefit the first or third world nations?

3. What are your views on a ruling class and its place in a leftist oriented society?

4. Do you see fictional titles such as 1984 and Anthem as being a non-possible end result in a leftist oriented culture?

Thanks.
I'd suggest looking into the Young Communist League USA or maybe the Communist League. Theyre the two most extensive and precise organizations when it comes to theory.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+November 11, 2006 03:30 am--> (Matty_UK @ November 11, 2006 03:30 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:25 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:30 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 04:27 am

True enough, but I don't see why people would be lazier under socialism.

I never said that they would be lazier under any sort of political ideology. My original question, which still stands, is how are lazy people dealt with? Can people choose to not work and get everything provided without providing any sort of effort to the commune?

By descriptions in earlier posts, it sounds like everyone can pretty much do any job that they want to do and by a natural diversity among people, all of the needed career fields will some-how work themselves out. And that by everyone doing the job that they love, they work hard and strive to be the best. I just wonder how the commune will provide for those professional video game players and couch potatoes who would prefer to sit on their butts for a living.

Are there requirements to get community benefits? or does everyone live/eat for free regardless of whether or not they choose to work?

The answer that I keep getting is that lazy people just simply won't exist under communism and that everyone will work hard for the good of the commune (my meaning of loyal communists). This is what I'm questioning.
If someone isn't pulling their weight, most likely people will vote to do something about it. Ban them from public services, or not give them any produce back until they decide to work. You can't say exactly what people will decide to do because it would depend on the circumstances.

Well, the socialists tend to believe that the capitalists don't pull their own weight. In China or the USSR, such people were sent to the camps, or the coal mines, banned from public life, to work along side the proleteriat. Would such a decision qualify as an acceptable way of dealing with "lazy" people?
:rolleyes:
That's such a stupid suggestion I'm not gonna bother forming a coherent response. [/b]

I wasn't making a suggestion. I was observing the solution to the problem which previous socialist communities have tried and wondered whether those solutions would be acceptable in your version of socialism.

[Matty_UK]

ZX3, you've been on these boards long enough to understand how the previous "socialist" countries were not socialist in anyway, and you've probably had the reasons why explained too.

If the consensus is that people should be sent to do hard labour, then that's what will happen, but chances are most people have less bloody hatred of the bourgeoise than the commies on this board.

[jlovato]

If someone isn't pulling their weight, most likely people will vote to do something about it. Ban them from public services, or not give them any produce back until they decide to work. You can't say exactly what people will decide to do because it would depend on the circumstances.

Good answer, Matty. This is what I'm wanting to explore. What I see in America and the UK alike are people who tend to do the bare minimum to keep their welfare paychecks coming. Want a bigger house? Have more kids, etc.. It's a dooming philosophy for a socialist state if left unchecked.

Ideally, social services there to help good hard working back on their feet without everything falling apart with a layoff or injury. Realistically, many people abuse the system and do the absolute bare minimum to qualify for benefits. Examples of this would be doing the minimum certifiable amount of job hunting to keep an unemployment paycheck coming or refusing jobs that would pay enough to get by at the cost of losing their welfare paycheck. Using welfare to buy alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets. There was a rapper named Ol' Dirty Bastard who used a welfare id card as the cover of one of his albums and used to pride himself on picking up his welfare check in a limo after becoming famous (stayed on welfare as long as he possibly could be he believed it was owed to him). While he's certainly not an every day example, it's the mind set that matters.

These people aren't insignificant and are out there in good numbers. The question is are there few enough of them for communism to thrive? Are people good and honest enough for communism? That's what I'm really having a hard time believing.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 03:05 am
ZX3, you've been on these boards long enough to understand how the previous "socialist" countries were not socialist in anyway, and you've probably had the reasons why explained too.

If the consensus is that people should be sent to do hard labour, then that's what will happen, but chances are most people have less bloody hatred of the bourgeoise than the commies on this board.
I have been around this board long enough to notice that the socialists/communists/anarchists here lay out the same arguments that previous socialist communities, and their then defenders made. I have also noticed that the present RLers recoil in horror (most of them anyhow) as to the logical results of their arguments. I have also noticed present RLers will deny when they repeat the arguments that past generations made, and APPLIED, have anything to do with them.

But then again, maybe the "chances" are that present generation will avoid the logical pitfalls and structural problems of socialism and make it work. Let's have faith. There really is nothing else.