Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

[tooAlive]

All are not equal in abilities, but everybody can do something well. Under Communism people are able to develop thier abilities to thier fullest, while, under capitalism it's often limited. For instance, how can a talented piano player in Haiti ever get discovered? Or, for that matter, how can he even discover he has talent?

Youtube.

And if he's a talented piano player I would assume he already has a piano.

[#FF0000]

Under capitalism, a disgruntled worker and quit and start his or her own company.

How did Bill Gates start Microsoft? How did Steve Jobs start Apple?

Did they have millions of dollars to invest?

Yeah actually Bill Gates came from money in a big way.

And the ability to climb the social ladder doesn't justify the class system anyway. Helots in Greece could become free citizens as well. Doesn't justify the existence of slavery, though.

[tooAlive]

tooAlive keeps talking about how people can start their own business, but when I brought up that everyone starting their own business at once the economy would collapse because we ultimately need wage-workers to act as producers, who just went on a standard Randian tract about how the richest people in our society are that way because they're the strongest, most moral, most creative, blah blah blah, and everyone else just isn't working hard enough.

Then he said that poor people in other countries should just move to America and start their own business which shows he has a very narrow-minded selfish view of the world. Capitalism is fine to him because it's working for him (or he perceives it as working for him). Fuck everyone else.

First of all, not everyone would start a business at once. Simply because not everyone wants the responsibility and risk associated with running their own business.

Some people are perfectly happy working for someone else, so long as they're treated with respect and paid a generous wage.

Then why you aren't rich?

I don't think I've mentioned my financial status on here, nor do I intend to.

[Let's Get Free]

Under capitalism, a disgruntled worker and quit and start his or her own company.

How did Bill Gates start Microsoft? How did Steve Jobs start Apple?

Did they have millions of dollars to invest?

See, here's the thing. The typical worker has the mentality that they're incapable of doing anything on their own, and that their capitalist bosses are responsible for their shortcomings. With that mentality, none of will ever do anything.

If Gates and Jobs thought like that, they would have never bother to start anything.

Why do so few succeed? Because so few have to correct mentality.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

don't know about Steve, but actually mr Gates did indeed come from a ver privileged background. Gates's parents had a lot to do with his success. At a very young age, Bill was staying up all night experimenting with computer programming. Keep in mind, this was the late 60s and early 70s, so having access to a computer was like having access to a helicopter. He gained incredible amounts of experience because his upper class parents were able to enroll him in an exclusive prep school that had a computer available.


Certainly, there are the occasional members of the Proletariat who infiltrate the exclusive world of the Bourgeoise, but they are so few and far between that they pose little threat to the dominance of the capitalists resting at the pinnacle of the pyramid. Besides, thanks to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and the inevitable repeal of the inheritance tax, America's wealthy elite will be further insulated from threats to their virtual monopoly on excessive wealth.

[tooAlive]

Anyhow, this guy must have read the Harrison Bergeron story (from Kurt Vonnegut Jr.). No society could exist like that, even communists would agree.

Never heard of it.

Will look it up now though.

[tooAlive]

don't know about Steve, but actually mr Gates did indeed come from a ver privileged background. Gates's parents had a lot to do with his success. At a very young age, Bill was staying up all night experimenting with computer programming. Keep in mind, this was the late 60s and early 70s, so having access to a computer was like having access to a helicopter. He gained incredible amounts of experience because his upper class parents were able to enroll him in an exclusive prep school that had a computer available.


Certainly, there are the occasional members of the Proletariat who infiltrate the exclusive world of the Bourgeoise, but they are so few and far between that they pose little threat to the dominance of the capitalists resting at the pinnacle of the pyramid. Besides, thanks to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and the inevitable repeal of the inheritance tax, America's wealthy elite will be further insulated from threats to their virtual monopoly on excessive wealth.

That may have been true years ago, but with the internet today, there's no excuse for someone not to learn and be informed.

And those that can't afford internet access can get access it for free at local libraries.

There's is no pyramid, and greedy capitalists don't have dominance over anything. That's simply an excuse people have made up to make themselves feel better about not accomplishing anything.

Because it's always easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility yourself.

And inheritance and wealth mean nothing. Plenty of people have won the lottery, inherited billions, or earned millions of dollars (like athletes and actors), and have ended up broke and bankrupt soon after. So the statement that those with wealth control everything is nothing but a fallacy. Money helps, but it isn't the be all and end all.

[Jason]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) - Karl Marx

Notice the "according to his ability" which implies everyone doesn't have the same type of ability, but does have an ability.

There's is no pyramid, and greedy capitalists don't have dominance over anything. That's simply an excuse people have made up to make themselves feel better about not accomplishing anything.

Yeah right, tell that to Mexican farmers who have been driven off thier land (and later have to emigrate to the US). How about some poor nation where kids work in sweatshops? How about Greece, Spain, or Ireland where the economy is in shambles?

[tooAlive]

He gained incredible amounts of experience because his upper class parents were able to enroll him in an exclusive prep school that had a computer available.

So you're saying that private education is better than public education?

I will actually agree 100%. The "free" education our kids get here in the US is terrible.

Not a single mandatory class to teach kids how to be smart with, and manage their money. No wonder there are so many people broke and in massive debt.

Yeah right, tell that to Mexican farmers who have been driven off thier land (and later have to emigrate to the US). How about some poor nation where kids work in sweatshops? How about Greece, Spain, or Ireland where the economy is in shambles?

We're talking about the US, here. Where the only cause of a Mexican farmer being evicted from their land would be not paying property taxes to the government.

That's not capitalism.

Show me where a child in America is working in a sweat shop. And for those in third world countries that are, have you thought about what the alternative to that might be? Would they be better off starving on the street? I'm not advocating sweat shops, just trying to add some perspective.

[Tim Cornelis]

We need to make a FAQ that tackles these arguments so we don't have to reiterate the same old arguments again and against

tooAlive suffers from a condition known as "just-world hypothetiseritus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) is the cognitive bias that human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately, noble actions are duly rewarded and evil actions are duly punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to, or expect consequences as the result of, an unspecified power that restores moral balance; the fallacy is that this implies (often unintentionally) the existence of such a power in terms of some cosmic force of justice, desert, stability, or order in the universe.

Look up what it means there ^. This is reflected not only by justifying famines and starvation (of which in India alone 10 million people befall victim to) for supposedly not wanting to produce rather than market forces disallowing them to subtract enough value from the market to sustain their own lives; but also by his belief in the supernatural force of reincarnation.

Believe in the just world hypothesis is perhaps a psychological mechanism to cope with a world so riddled with exploitation and oppression.

Reward Hard Work
tooAlive assumes that markets happen to coincide with what is morally just--how convenient (see again just world hypothesis). If you work hard, you are rewarded, if you are a lazy you starve.

Let's look at the Somali famine. It was caused by drought but amplified by food speculation. Rich food speculators bought food, driving up prices, making food unavailable to the starving people. Irrespective of the willingness to produce and work, the food was unavailable due to market forces.

Rich people do not necessarily work harder than poor people. How much money would Heineken have made if he had hired zero employees? Exactly, zero €. Most work that is done is socially valuable (needed in society), from factory work, to cleaning, to administration. Work that is not needed is of course financial speculation, etc.

We simply cannot rely on markets to dictate who works hard and who doesn't and reward accordingly, that's simply not how markets function. Bargaining power, capital gains, etc. all influence it, additionally we have the genetic lottery: not everyone is smart enough to become rich.

How can you manage to get rich under capitalism?

1. Appropriate a position of undemocratic authority within an enterprise.
2. Inherit money--requires no contribution to society.
3. Corruption, nepotism, etc.
4. Win the lottery--requires no contribution to society.
5. Have the physical or mental superiority that allows you to specialise in a certain field and thus create an immense bargaining power (e.g. become a professional football player). Is only for those few who won the genetic lottery.

All of this is unfair. (1 is dealt with bellow).

Innovation
Research funded by the Federal Reserve, done by MIT, has shown that the more money you throw at innovative work, the less innovative people become. Instead there are three factors that lead to innovation.
1. Mastery: desire to master a certain skill (e.g. understand how a machine works).
2. Purpose: desire to have a certain goal (e.g. cure cancer).
3. Autonomy: desire to be self-directed.

+ YouTube Video

Wage-Labour is voluntary
Only if you drop context, as Ayn Rand might have called it--ironically.

The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation.

But, you will insist, they are free to leave, free to start their own corporation.

Remember, when we enter this world all wealth is already divided. All means of production already owned. This is either in our favour or not, but it's fundamentally unjust since there is no equality.

All productive resources -- financial assets, land, means of production, workplaces, natural resources -- are already owned, appropriated, dispossessed when we are just born. We enter this world in a complete dependence on those who own those productive resources. From this dependency (since we need access to means of life), we are compelled by circumstance (not physical coercion) to subjugate ourselves to an employer. This is not a free arrangement since there is no equality. Equality and freedom are complementary, not contradictory. The absence of equality implies one person rules over another, which implies a loss of autonomy of the ruled, and thus a loss of freedom.

Wage-labour and debt-bondage is force by circumstance (in contrast to chattle slavery which is force by physical coercion).

That's not capitalism.

It may not be the capitalism you desire, but it's the real world capitalism.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Yeah, it sounds very noble. Nobody would starve, nobody would envy anyone, and everyone will be an equal.

But isn't the beauty of life the fact that we're all uniquely different, and each one of us with our own unique purpose?

Isn't it beautiful when people starve?

[Questionable]

First of all, not everyone would start a business at once. Simply because not everyone wants the responsibility and risk associated with running their own business.

You're still missing the point. Regardless of what people want to do, the fact remains that IF everyone started their own business, capitalism would collapse because there would be no more workers generating surplus-value with which to reproduce capital.

I feel like your point about people not wanting to take on responsibility is shaky at best. What about the economic climate people are facing? Business are not a force of will, you can be as brave as you want and still fail.

Some people are perfectly happy working for someone else, so long as they're treated with respect and paid a generous wage.

But many people in the world (including America) don't have much of a choice. I live in a Southern USA town that is poverty-ridden, and many of the people here will openly say they despise their jobs (The two big places in my town are a plastic cup factory and a grocery store), but these people don't have enough money to ever dream of starting their own business.

That may have been true years ago, but with the internet today, there's no excuse for someone not to learn and be informed.

And those that can't afford internet access can get access it for free at local libraries.

There's is no pyramid, and greedy capitalists don't have dominance over anything. That's simply an excuse people have made up to make themselves feel better about not accomplishing anything.

Because it's always easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility yourself.

And inheritance and wealth mean nothing. Plenty of people have won the lottery, inherited billions, or earned millions of dollars (like athletes and actors), and have ended up broke and bankrupt soon after. So the statement that those with wealth control everything is nothing but a fallacy. Money helps, but it isn't the be all and end all.

That's right, the millions of people living in poverty and obscene conditions aren't victims of a system, they're just lazy parasites.

Show me where a child in America is working in a sweat shop. And for those in third world countries that are, have you thought about what the alternative to that might be? Would they be better off starving on the street? I'm not advocating sweat shops, just trying to add some perspective.

The US fashion industry makes a killing of employing extremely underpaid immigrants in sweatshops. This practice happens a lot in California. An alternative to working in a sweatshop in a third-world country would of course be the working class organizing itself and demanding better conditions and higher wages, or perhaps the overthrow of capitalism and installation of socialism.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the notion that if people are suffering under capitalism, it's because they're too stupid or lazy to do anything about it. If this is the case, I'd like to see some proof, because as it stands you have to have a lot of guts to say that EVERYONE who fails under capitalism failed because it was their own fault.

It's funny that you say people who blame capitalism are just trying to make themselves feel better by playing the victim part. I think people who blame individuals for the failings of capitalism are trying to make themselves feel better for not giving a damn about their fellow man.

[tooAlive]

It may not be the capitalism you desire, but it's the real world capitalism.

By that same token, the communism you desire isn't the one that exists in the real world.

[Jason]

The US fashion industry makes a killing of employing extremely underpaid immigrants in sweatshops. This practice happens a lot in California. An alternative to working in a sweatshop in a third-world country would of course be the working class organizing itself and demanding better conditions and higher wages, or perhaps the overthrow of capitalism and installation of socialism.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the notion that if people are suffering under capitalism, it's because they're too stupid or lazy to do anything about it. If this is the case, I'd like to see some proof, because as it stands you have to have a lot of guts to say that EVERYONE who fails under capitalism failed because it was their own fault.

It's funny that you say people who blame capitalism are just trying to make themselves feel better by playing the victim part. I think people who blame individuals for the failings of capitalism are trying to make themselves feel better for not giving a damn about their fellow man.

An American or Japanese has more social mobility than a third worlder because of his nation's dominant position in trade. Note the phrase "American Dream", because it only exists in America (or other 1st world nations). Note: It could be argued, that it exists at the expense of the rest of the world.

Yes, though, if you consider 1st world people alone, then you could say that much failure is caused by laziness (via unwillingness to work or get an education). You can say the same factors are true in the third world. However, they exists to a far lesser degree, because the environment is so bad.

[tooAlive]

You're still missing the point. Regardless of what people want to do, the fact remains that IF everyone started their own business, capitalism would collapse because there would be no more workers generating surplus-value with which to reproduce capital.

The same could be said about Communism. What would happen if everyone stopped working, since their basic necessities are already provided for?

Neither scenario is realistic.

I feel like your point about people not wanting to take on responsibility is shaky at best. What about the economic climate people are facing? Business are not a force of will, you can be as brave as you want and still fail.

You failed? Then you try again.

Repeat the process until the desired outcome is achieved.

But many people in the world (including America) don't have much of a choice. I live in a Southern USA town that is poverty-ridden, and many of the people here will openly say they despise their jobs (The two big places in my town are a plastic cup factory and a grocery store), but these people don't have enough money to ever dream of starting their own business.

Who says you need money to start a business?

Again, that's simply another excuse people use to justify not doing anything. Other times they just don't know any better because it's what they've been led to believe.

And even if they needed capital to start their chosen business venture, there's plenty of of options available to anyone in the US. See; Kiva.org, Kickstarter, ect..

That's right, the millions of people living in poverty and obscene conditions aren't victims of a system, they're just lazy parasites.

No. They're just very unfortunate.

The US fashion industry makes a killing of employing extremely underpaid immigrants in sweatshops. This practice happens a lot in California.

If they're undocumented immigrants and are paid below the minimum wage, that's illegal. Also, California has pretty high taxes. If they didn't perhaps there would be more money to pay the workers.

An alternative to working in a sweatshop in a third-world country would of course be the working class organizing itself and demanding better conditions and higher wages, or perhaps the overthrow of capitalism and installation of socialism.

That could be an option. But we all know what has happened in history when socialism has been attempted. See Cuba. The average Cuban today makes less money than they did under Batista's dictatorship.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the notion that if people are suffering under capitalism, it's because they're too stupid or lazy to do anything about it. If this is the case, I'd like to see some proof, because as it stands you have to have a lot of guts to say that EVERYONE who fails under capitalism failed because it was their own fault.

Not necessarily. Some people were just very unfortunate and failed, regardless of how hard they worked. Now, if they admit defeat and never try again, that's their own fault.

Countless individuals have failed miserable a bunch of times only to finally make it one day.

It's funny that you say people who blame capitalism are just trying to make themselves feel better by playing the victim part. I think people who blame individuals for the failings of capitalism are trying to make themselves feel better for not giving a damn about their fellow man.

Capitalism is simply an economic system which gives people the freedom to make economic decisions. Thinking about yourself and caring about your fellow man can coexist.

More money simply makes you more of what you already are.

[Questionable]

The same could be said about Communism. What would happen if everyone stopped working, since their basic necessities are already provided for?

They would stop working to expand capital. I sincerely doubt people would let their own needs go unattended.

You failed? Then you try again.

Repeat the process until the desired outcome is achieved.

You really don't understand how capitalism works if you think business can be conjured up out of thin air. You're literally ignoring the fact that small business is shrinking up more and more in America each year. Even bourgeois economists would be sickened by what you're saying here.

No. They're just very unfortunate.

But at least you're fortunate, right?

If they're undocumented immigrants and are paid below the minimum wage, that's illegal. Also, California has pretty high taxes. If they didn't perhaps there would be more money to pay the workers.

Can you give me some studies that prove a link between taxes and wages?

Also, your pretty much said once again that you don't give a fuck about people who suffer under capitalism, because it's illegal to be an immigrant. Arguing with you is becoming pointless because in your world everyone gets exactly what they deserve. It's exactly what Tim Cornelis accused you of (and you subsequently ignored).

That could be an option. But we all know what has happened in history when socialism has been attempted. See Cuba. The average Cuban today makes less money than they did under Batista's dictatorship.

Money is not everything. Cuba also has a lot of social services available to assist the poor (Although I wouldn't call it "socialist" at this point in history). Also every country that experienced a socialist revolution also experienced a sharp jump in life expectancy, literacy rate, a drop in infant mortality, and an overall increase in quality of life. I can give you statistics if you'd like.

Not necessarily. Some people were just very unfortunate and failed, regardless of how hard they worked. Now, if they admit defeat and never try again, that's their own fault.

So the massive shrinkage in small business is because everyone is afraid?

I'm getting tired of arguing against what is merely your own interpretation of capitalism. You haven't brought up any statistics or economic laws to support your own beliefs, I'm just arguing against what you THINK capitalism is. If this continues, this conversation will go nowhere.

Capitalism is simply an economic system which gives people the freedom to make economic decisions. Thinking about yourself and caring about your fellow man can coexist.

No, it is a market system based on the social reproduction of capital.

More money simply makes you more of what you already are.

Whatever that means. Your philosophical sloganeering bores me.

Also, you've still yet to explain how capitalism can exist without workers and how every can go to start their own small business. Can you explain that? Please don't dodge the point. Your solution throughout this whole thread has been for people who don't like being workers to move to America and start their own business. If this solution does not work for everyone, your argument is bogus.

If you're claiming that capitalism can be fixed by everyone starting their own business, the burden of proof belongs to you. Don't ask me to disprove something that is already being disproved daily by reality.

[Rational Radical]

There's simply no debating with people like you,you're so indoctrinated and conditioned that you can not form coherent arguments ,all of them have been destroyed by each poster. You merely spew basic pro-capitalist rhetoric without a second thought as a well trained parrot would do,and the fact that there's so many that hold such delusion and illogic as you do deeply bothers me.

[Fourth Internationalist]

perhaps one day they'll come to america and become just that.

Attachment 8998

[Jason]

That could be an option. But we all know what has happened in history when socialism has been attempted. See Cuba. The average Cuban today makes less money than they did under Batista's dictatorship.

You can't measure everything in terms of money. You have to factor in "free healthcare and education". In some non-communist nations like the Phillippines, getting a college education is a big deal, cause nobody can afford one, and there isn't any free government money (like in the US).

Not necessarily. Some people were just very unfortunate and failed, regardless of how hard they worked. Now, if they admit defeat and never try again, that's their own fault.

Countless individuals have failed miserable a bunch of times only to finally make it one day.

The obstacles to success are much greater in the third world.

No. They're just very unfortunate.

But that can be changed under socialism, preferably a future one where the US isn't harassing the system.

[tooAlive]

Also, you've still yet to explain how capitalism can exist without workers and how every can go to start their own small business. Can you explain that? Please don't dodge the point. Your solution throughout this whole thread has been for people who don't like being workers to move to America and start their own business. If this solution does not work for everyone, your argument is bogus.

I already addressed this.

The solution isn't for everyone to start their own business, because as I said before, not everyone wants to do that. They would rather go work for someone else and earn a steady paycheck.

Those that do want to start their own small business can easily do so. If they don't have a product or service they can sell themselves, they can sell someone else's products as an affiliate and earn a commission. That would effectively make them their own boss.

So in reality, anyone that does want to start their own business can. What would happen if everyone did it? I don't know.

I'd assume business owners wouldn't have any employees and would have to start doing the work themselves. Which would be catastrophic for large corporations with various locations/stores, ect..

If you're claiming that capitalism can be fixed by everyone starting their own business, the burden of proof belongs to you. Don't ask me to disprove something that is already being disproved daily by reality.

No I didn't. I said it would never happen.

I already said: Some people want to be CEOs, others want to be employees.

It balances out. Just look at how many people are going to school. How many are going to learn how to open up their own business? In reality, the vast majority of people are going to school to get a job working for someone else.

So no, capitalism isn't about everyone having their own business. It's about people doing what they want.

There's simply no debating with people like you,you're so indoctrinated and conditioned that you can not form coherent arguments ,all of them have been destroyed by each poster. You merely spew basic pro-capitalist rhetoric without a second thought as a well trained parrot would do,and the fact that there's so many that hold such delusion and illogic as you do deeply bothers me.

Ditto.

[l'Enfermé]

You're making it very difficult to take you seriously because you insist on maintaing this stupid notion that there is a considerable amount of people that would prefer to be submissive and subservient "employees", doing their masters bidding for shitty pay, under shitty conditions, instead of being millionaire CEOs with multiple mansions and yachts, buddy.