Hmmm...can you give answers to this

[Issaiah1332]

I posted this in the high school thread...but responses were slow...

These are some of the comments I got from my history teacher, who is fairly intelligent, but, more importantly, is a master at using his arrogance to create an illusion of being correct.

"Okay, Issaiah. Let's say the revolution happens and the communist utopia works out. Who decides how much land you get? Who decides how big of a house you deserve? Who distributes everything? If everyone gets what they need, then everyone has only the bare essentials for life and not necessarily a higher quality of living. How do you acquire things? Does someone just come to your house and deliver 5 Lazy boys for your family? What if you want a different kind of chair? Whos place is it to decide how much food you "need" or deserve?"

"Okay Issaiah. Lets say that everything goes grand in this communist utopia and then 50 years later an intelligent teenager comes along, realizes that he can save his ration of rice, acquire a large portion and then trade it for something he finds more valuable. If he doesnt trade it then has more than others and is therefore higher in class...but if he does trade it then he has created capital."

I literally had no response to this.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'll answer your teacher's questions point by point:


Who decides how much land you get?You don't "get" any land. All land is owned by the community (if this is communism) or by the state (if this is socialism). In terms of houses - since the question was probably referring to housing - all houses will be more or less the same size and have more or less the same furnishings, but of course the layout of the rooms and the architecture will be different from house to house. You get to pick any house you want, and if someone else wants the same house, priority is given based on things like distance to your workplace.


Who decides how big of a house you deserve?Like I said, all houses will be more or less the same size, but they will be built in different styles to suit different tastes.


Who distributes everything?The community (under communism) or the state (under socialism). And all decisions about distribution are taken democratically.


If everyone gets what they need, then everyone has only the bare essentials for life and not necessarily a higher quality of living.Um, no. The whole point of communism is to ensure everyone lives a meaningful, productive life, with the best material comforts available. Luxuries will not exist, but there will certainly be many appliances to make your life easier.

Note something interesting here: Your teacher is implying that if goods were distributed equally, everyone would only get "the bare essentials for life." If this is true, then it logically means that if goods are NOT distributed equally, some people get LESS than the bare essentials for life. Is your teacher admitting that capitalism gives many people LESS than the bare essentials for life?


How do you acquire things?In socialism, you buy them with money (though a socialist monetary system is very different from a capitalist one). In communism, you just take them from some form of community supply center.


Does someone just come to your house and deliver 5 Lazy boys for your family?Huh? Of course not. You are in charge of your house. And by the way, all people are required to have a job.


What if you want a different kind of chair?Then you go get one. If your style of chair is not being produced, you talk to the workers at the chair factory and ask them if they can make one for you. If they refuse, you can bring up the issue in the next community meeting and have people vote on it - if enough people want this new style of chair to be produced, the chair factory workers will have to produce it.


Whos place is it to decide how much food you "need" or deserve?"Ever heard of all-you-can-eat restaurants? The thing is, a human stomach is limited in size. People can only eat so much food for every meal. Communism's approach to food is like an all-you-can-eat restaurant: You have every kind of food available to you, and you can eat as much as you like. The food will not run out because eventually everyone will be full, and we already grow enough food on Earth to feed everyone, so we already have the capacity to let everyone eat until they're full.


Lets say that everything goes grand in this communist utopia and then 50 years later an intelligent teenager comes along, realizes that he can save his ration of rice, acquire a large portion and then trade it for something he finds more valuable.That might be a problem considering the fact that an all-you-can-eat restaurant functions on the principle that you can eat as much as you want inside the restaurant, but you can't take any food out with you.

But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that someone saves *something* in a large quantity. No problem there. If he saved it, that means he did not consume it beforehand. Whether you eat your rice or save it, you still had the same quantity of rice. Saving does not magically create new stuff for you.


If he doesnt trade it then has more than others and is therefore higher in class...No, because the others had the same amount - they just chose to eat it instead. What you choose to do with your wealth does not change the amount of wealth you have. As I said above, whether you eat your rice or save it, you still had the same quantity of rice. Saving does not magically create new stuff for you.

Equality of wealth means that people earn equal wealth over a lifetime, not that everyone always has the same wealth as everyone else at every moment.


...but if he does trade it then he has created capital.Uh, no. Capital is wealth that can be invested - that is to say, wealth that can be used to buy means of production. You cannot buy means of production in a socialist or communist society. Suppose this teenager trades his rice for gold. That's nice, but what can he do with the gold? Well, he can stare at it and see how shiny it is - and that's about it.

Trade, like saving, does not magically create wealth where none existed before, so people can barter all they want in a communist society. But remember that most goods are available for free at the community supply store, so trade is rather pointless unless you're trying to get something that is rare for some reason or other and you can offer something equally rare in exchange. You will not be able to trade goods that anyone can get for free.

[jake williams]

Also, if the kid doesn't eat his rice he'll starve. The whole idea of capitalism is that some people have way more than they actually need, so they can invest it and earn even more they don't need.

[bezdomni]

Tell the idiot to read Marx and stop using the word "communist utopia", because he's arguing against something that is more based on his invention than anything actually pertaining to communist theory.

While he's reading Marx, I'd recommend that you do so as well.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The first response I would have is an outright rejection of his strawman argument. Utopianism is a game laissez faire marketeers play whenever they try to imply the plausibility of capitalism without state involvement.

[Moridin]

ok this is just like something i've come to work out based on talking with my friends ect basically the idea is that we all need different things be it off the stomach or of fanasty are needs are just different. Example I really dont care about cars but i care about the type or house i live in i want it to be beautufl and have the best stuff in it ect. but my friend loves cars he wants the best car that can be made but he really doesnt care about the type of house he lives in. thats my idea hope it helps:)

[RevMARKSman]

Don't just assume your teacher is incorrect, if you can't answer him yourself.


"Okay Issaiah. Lets say that everything goes grand in this communist utopia and then 50 years later an intelligent teenager comes along, realizes that he can save his ration of rice, acquire a large portion and then trade it for something he finds more valuable. If he doesnt trade it then has more than others and is therefore higher in class...but if he does trade it then he has created capital."

What does this guy want? A car? A computer? Glasses?

Why doesn't he just go get them? Why does he feel this need to hoard rice when he can just go to the nearest supplier/optician?

Also, if he keeps the rice, he's not somehow "higher in class." He just has a shitload of rice.

Turns out this teenager - not as intelligent as one might think.

[Issaiah1332]

Tell the idiot to read Marx and stop using the word "communist utopia", because he's arguing against something that is more based on his invention than anything actually pertaining to communist theory.

While he's reading Marx, I'd recommend that you do so as well.

I have read Marx. Of course not everything he has ever written, but I have read The Communist Manifesto and Capital. Although Marx tells us alot about the economics of the revolution, from what I have read...he doesnt really lay the blueprint for exactly how a communist society will work. So...yes, I am young and only 2 years into studying communism, it is only natural not to know EVERYTHING about it.

The problem in most debates is that usually cappie arguments don't really mean anything. When a proposed hypothetical situation arises...it is usually less than specific. Although I can usually, more or less, win a debate with any of the ignorant fools who walk the halls of my school...usually authority triumphs. For instance, when my teacher brought up trading=capital...my response was that, actually, that is not what capital is at all. So I explained what capital really is. So, one would assume that I he is an idiot and doesn't know the true definition of one the key points in economics...right? Wrong...he merely says "You are too young to ever grasp the complexities of economics...trust me, I used to think like you. I used to be idealistic and fighting for the well being of humanity. But...you can't. You can't make everything fair...everyone isn't equal...and morality isn't objective." <Continues until the last 5 min. of class, when he says "This argument is over."

Try debating with that

[Led Zeppelin]

Tell him that communism is based on the elimination of scarcity, and therefore all his questions are moot.

The kid won't save up rice to get "something more valuable", because he or she can already get that "more valuable" something.

Also, tell him that he's a douchebag.

[Issaiah1332]

Tell him that communism is based on the elimination of scarcity, and therefore all his questions are moot.

The kid won't save up rice to get "something more valuable", because he or she can already get that "more valuable" something.

Also, tell him that he's a douchebag.

HAHA...thanks.

He and I once got into an argument that lasted so long, he wrote me a note to be excused from my next class. The argument revolved around "human nature" surprise. I said that human nature is subjective to the social climate and challenged him to define human nature. He said that natural will of humans to possess power and to be greedy is innate. So I asked him to provide an example of how this was so...he responded with various things that I could rebut as being a part of the sociological environment. LOL...his system of logic eventually resulted in "If human behavior is pinned to the sociological environment then it is innate in this point in time." I said that "We are not born with a predisposition to the workings of capitalism" So he said "Survival instinct is innate...we need necessary things to survive...we need power to get these things. Power gives rise to greed. Therefore greed is innate. Now go to class" LMAO...yeah, so that is what I deal with.

[BIG BROTHER]

All I can say, is good job comrade! And as long as the idea of a communist society is alive in our minds a revolution will always be possible.

[Floyce White]

Issaiah, in communism there is no such thing as property or the exchange of claims of ownership. The supposedly "intelligent" teacher is completely ignorant of the subject matter, and he's baiting you on several levels.

Tell the teacher to read my Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) essays. You have my permission to inform the teacher that he is invited to pit his "intellect" against mine anytime, anywhere.

[Issaiah1332]

Like I said, all houses will be more or less the same size, but they will be built in different styles to suit different tastes.

Yes...but obviously different size families will need different size houses. Does this not perpetuate the common stereotype that we commies wont to dress everyone in the same clothes and give them all the same names?

[Issaiah1332]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

But who decides what you need...and therefore how much you get?

A few more questions...

What if someone decides not to work...do they deserve to get the same things I get, when I am working my ass off?

If we get the fruits of our labor...then what is stopping the farmer from hording everything he produces and therefore not contributing to society? If we all get the fruits of our own labor...then how do we contribute?

[Floyce White]

You didn't get my point.

Mothers' milk comes in limited amounts and for limited times. Do you count up how many ounces a baby "gets?" Are you jealous that the baby "gets" some and you don't? Are you angry that the baby "decides" to "do nothing" yet "gets" milk anyway? Are you readying to take political action to change this situation? Will you use violence to stop it?

Treating mothers' milk as property is ridiculous. Apply the same logic to cows' milk or any other thing.

[Fedsoc]

Since under communism everyone takes part in the social administration (a fact established through the use of proletarian dictatorship) the answer to the question "who decides how much you get?" is simple enough: you do. As one who is involved in administration of social affairs will be aware of the relative amount available to meet their needs as well as the approximate amount available in society as a whole, you can rationally judge what is an appropriate quantity for your needs, measured against the general consensus of what is appropriate according to new egalitarian norms and customs.

"What if someone decides not to work...do they deserve to get the same things I get, when I am working my ass off?"

There will really be no need for you to "work your ass off" under communism; and conversely, if someone "decides not to work" it will most likely not be a matter causing consternation. I imagine that in communist society, everyone will "choose not to work" for the majority of their lives. Even now there is no real need for everyone to work.

It's really annoying when philistines and sophists try to "corner" you with these stupid "oh but what if that" or "say this happens". All it really boils down to is that these people have so internalized bourgeois philistine prejudices that they can't help but assume that whatever people appear to be like under bourgeois society they will be for all time.

[Issaiah1332]

Since under communism everyone takes part in the social administration (a fact established through the use of proletarian dictatorship) the answer to the question "who decides how much you get?" is simple enough: you do. As one who is involved in administration of social affairs will be aware of the relative amount available to meet their needs as well as the approximate amount available in society as a whole, you can rationally judge what is an appropriate quantity for your needs, measured against the general consensus of what is appropriate according to new egalitarian norms and customs.

"What if someone decides not to work...do they deserve to get the same things I get, when I am working my ass off?"

There will really be no need for you to "work your ass off" under communism; and conversely, if someone "decides not to work" it will most likely not be a matter causing consternation. I imagine that in communist society, everyone will "choose not to work" for the majority of their lives. Even now there is no real need for everyone to work.

It's really annoying when philistines and sophists try to "corner" you with these stupid "oh but what if that" or "say this happens". All it really boils down to is that these people have so internalized bourgeois philistine prejudices that they can't help but assume that whatever people appear to be like under bourgeois society they will be for all time.

Thanks...for all of your comments.

[STI]

If your teacher wants to "fight dirty" with that condescending "you're just too young/used to think like you/can't really change society", fight dirty back and politely ask him not to project his own self-depricating broodings over having 'sold out' onto those who (like yourself) have decided to fight for a better world than the one we were given.