Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What evidence do you have to support communism, since it's never been tried? Can you show me an example of a successful, "true communist" country today, or anywhere in history?

Or perhaps, an example of a "failed communist" country that was better than what we have today?

By that same token, I could say that the idea of communism is worthless because there's no evidence to support it.

Those countries also called themselves democratic and republic. Does that mean those don't work? No, because calling a country something while not actually do that does not make it that. Also, most "democracies" throughout history were only democracies for a) native male land-owners b) white males until last century. Would you argue democracy does not work?

I simply said everyone "could try" if they so wished. Again, I didn't guarantee them success simply by trying. Under capitalism, everyone that wants to can do so. That doesn't guarantee success.

And those say in the third world capitalist exploited countries could try 10x harder than even the poorest in the first world and still not become a capitalist.

I said that I believe everything happens for a reason. That doesn't mean what happens is "fair," or is what that person "deserves." There's a big difference there. And that's not in regards to capitalism; that's in regards to life.

But why should we not make economics fair? Not life, but just economically.

For example, what would you say about a person born with a disability? I don't think that's fair. Do you? Did it happen because of capitalism?

What if that person had been born in a perfect communist society?

Actually, with the corporations funding government to make unsafe chemicals considered safe through underfunded government programs, yes, capitalism may just be causing many disabilities and birth defects.

He or she would definitely not be able to enjoy the world as everyone else would. So what would be the humane thing to do; give everyone the same disability?

The fair thing would be to not bring everyone down to his/her level, but to bring him/her up to everyone else's.

I understand that. But by my belief, not everyone stays in the lower stratums of society. Although there will always be people there, they won't be the same ones. In other words, no one is confined to that lifestyle.

For example; a kid gets a job working at a grocery store for minimum wage. He works hard, and after a few years, he's the manager of the store getting paid a much higher wage. In a few more years, he's a district manager overseeing many stores. See where I'm going with this?

That person is no longer in the lower stratum of society, and someone else has taken his place. It's a cycle. Of course, that's not always the case.

I think parents and children that are starving and dying of disease working 16 hours a day in third world countries and 19th century Europe would disagree with you.

Well, because they proclaimed to be communist. They read the same books and literature as you, and said they wanted to do the same things you say you want to accomplish.

Otherwise, communism would be nonexistent. Merely an idea that people are just starting to come up with now.

They also proclaimed to be democratic. So did the United States when women and native Americans couldn't vote and blacks were slaves. Did that make it a democracy? No. And, actually, communism is relatively new. The Communist Manifesto was only published in 1848. And communism is nonexistent, it hasn't existed yet. Otherwise, we wouldn't be fighting for it.

Exactly that; anything material that could be assigned a value. Greed isn't eliminated by doing away with currency.

And we claimed otherwise where...?

Again, I'm referring to those that proclaimed to be communists. Otherwise we'd just have to forget about history and say that this is a new idea.

Which clearly isn't the case.

We might as well just have monarchs, fascists, and dictators arguing against democracy because the United States had slaves while claiming to be a democracy (making it exactly like the countries that claim to be communist yet are not).

Thank you for bringing that point up.

That's precisely the same reason why not everyone wants to own their own business, and are perfectly happy working for someone else so long as they're paid a generous wage and treated with respect.

I'm pretty sure, considering that the person who made that comment was a communist, that his desire to not be a millionaire was because he didn't want to exploit others, rather than his desire to be a slave to the capitalist class (or, as you like to call it, "freedom")

[Luís Henrique]

Socialism would have a big state, steep progressive taxation, massive wealth redistribution, and then communism would come along and abolish the monetary system as well as de-instate the state. Am I close?

Closer.

But the abolition of the monetary system is already a task of socialism.

And I'm curious as to why you think that a person that stops working should continue to enjoy the benefits provided by the ones who do work.

Well, there are very clearcut cases - people who indeed don't work even in capitalism, and enjoy the benefits "provided by those who work". And we tend to find that very natural: children, the elderly, the ill, pregnant women, all people a month per year, one or two days per week, and sixteen hours per day.

Not to talk about the capitalists, who work only if they wish.

Why wouldn't someone enjoy the "benefits provided by those who work" if they break a leg, have pneumonia, need a surgery, etc?

What if everyone stopped working? Think about it; if one person does it, and then another, I don't think that would go very well by those that do work. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to work if I could stop and continue receiving benefits; specially if others were already doing it.

Why didn't Bill Gates stop working? He certainly could have hired other people to take care of his money, and spent the rest of his life staring at his ceiling. Why didn't he?

...because we actually abhor idleness. We like to do things, and we like to do things that are useful for others (because we also like human contact and communication).

Evidently, in a capitalist hellhole society, we think we abhor work and crave for being idle. As Marx puts it, under capitalism men feel like animals when they are doing what only humans do - transforming reality through their activity - and only really human when doing what every animal does - sleeping, eating, having sex, etc. But this is because our labour is made meaningless by the structure of a capitalist society. Except for the happy few who are engaged in creative professions - musicians, writers, a few architects, statesmen, businessmen, scientists (and even those become more and more mechanical trades by the day, their "halo" being progressively stripped by the dynamics of capital) - the rest of us behaves as if under influence of a strange madness, which makes us repeat absurd movements again and again, for no visible purpose, for the most part of our wake hours.

And you mentioned we're free to pursue our hobbies.

My hobbies include building computers and cars.

Under communism, how would I get the computer hardware? Who would "pay" for it? Could I just walk into a store, pick out the parts I want and leave? Who would even manufacture the computer parts?

You would just go int a "store", or more properly a warehouse, and pick the parts you want.

The same goes for cars. Who would manufacture them? How could I get one? If there's no money, what would be a comparable "favor" in exchange for a car? Or would there simply be no cars in communism?

You mentioned you like to build cars. So you would probably chose to manufacture cars. If you rethink that, and decide you actually don't like manufacturing cars, I am sure other people would do it, because they actually love cars, or their component parts, and would be willing to make it, because they enjoy the subject.

Cars aren't small objects like computer parts, however, and they do create scarcity of themselves (if every adult person in the planet had a car, we would lack physical space for all that self-moving trash - and it would defeat the purpose, for nobody would be able to actually move by using cars, for the traffic jam would be permanent.

So public transportation would be more the rule. But if you needed a car - say, to travel from one city to another with family - you would go to a place were cars would be available for that purpose, require one, tell them were you are going, be told of the address where you may deliver it on your arrival to the other city, and then take the car and make your travel.

You don't need to "compare" favours. Whatever you do, it is taken for granted that is something useful and necessary. Nobody would be interested in measuring whether brain surgery is "more valuable" than garbage collection or bread baking or automobile building.

Would we be limited to simple hobbies like climbing trees, flying a kite, cooking, ect..?

No; indeed, most of what we do now as "work" would be done as "hobbies" in a communist society - meaning, pleasurable activity we do because it is nice to do, not because we would starve if we didn't, and because there is an overlooker telling us to do it, and because our neighbours would call us lazy bums if we didn't.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Innovation is directly proportionate to competition. That's the same reason monopolies stifle growth; because they don't need to.

For example, the electric light. Did people want electric light? No. Did they even know what electric light was? Not even close.

How did they get it then?

Well, a very greedy man by the name of J.P. Morgan decided he wanted to build his own empire. He saw an opportunity with Thomas Edison and pursued it. This involved him investing millions of dollars into this "idea" that nobody really needed or wanted. Why? Because he wanted to make a profit.

Well.

People wanted to read (and to do other things that require light) at night. They might not realise what was necessary to that end, but they knew what the final result was: something that produced enough light to read and write at night comfortably - meaning more light than oil and/or gas lamps, with less heath and smoke.

That's why Edison was researching electric light, instead of for instance orange-flavoured soap. This, and the fact that other creative people had already shown that electricity could be used to generate heath and light (and before that, discovered electricity, etc).

And this applies to Morgan, too: if he envisioned a profit, he must have had some intuition that people would buy light bulbs. And how did he arrive at such conclusion? Because he knew people wanted reading at night (perhaps himself wanted to do that, no?), and consequently that people would buy a gadget that provided enough light for that purpose if provided at a reasonable price and without undesirable collateral effects.

Now, why do we need Morgan in this process? We need Edisons, of course, and the resources that allow the Edisons of the world to research what they want - but nowhere in the Bible, or the Kuran, or the Bhagavad Gita is it written that such resources have to be first appropriated by a "greedy individual" trying to build an empire, and only then redistributed to researchers. Indeed, most creative research is made in public institutions - universities, military technological institutes, etc., and only then appropriated by "greedy individuals".

The same could be said about almost every single significant example of innovation.

Why did John D. Rockefeller start producing gasoline? Because Morgan forced him to innovate, otherwise his kerosene empire would have crumbled.

And in a communist society people would have stopped producing kerosene because it was no longer necessary. Even Rockfeller wouldn't be able to save his empire by producing gasoline if there weren't actual ways in which gasoline could be used (which should be obvious: if products could be sold regardless of people needing them, Rockfeller would have no problem in keepin his kerosene empire: it was the fact that no other immediate utility for kerosene was found that made him turn to other products). And no amount of Rockfellerian resources would be able to make gasoline a sellable product if other inventions - namely the internal combustion engine - weren't invented at the time, making it possible to sell gasoline in the market.

Again, Rockfeller only seems necessary because he was sitting between oil and us, and consequently in a position to take his arse out of the way for a price.

Now, you will argue that these men exploited their workers inhumanely. This is true. But that doesn't change the fact that these great innovations we have today are because of the personal incentive present to those that achieved them.

Let's suppose they were the geniuses you imagine. Why wouldn't they exert such geniality by helping to correctly interpretate the necessities of people and provide the adequate alocation of resources to solve the problem, simply because they liked doing it, or because they wanted to impress their girlfriends, or enjoyed being interviewed by journalists, or craved the idea that their names would be put in print and revered long after their death?

Or, since we are at it, simply because of a Kantian notion that doing what should be done is what we do if we want no moral problems while shaving or dressing make up?

What do their empires have to do with anything? How they simply did not distract them from what was essential into foolish playground games about who has the biggest something in the block?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I believe Henry Ford came along and did it right.

He tried to do it wrong, but people still had the option to labour in other companies where the working conditions weren't as monstrous as in Ford's, so he had to rise wages to compensate for the insane increase in labour intensity in his concentration camps factories.

Luís Henrique

[Green Girl]

And I'm curious as to why you think that a person that stops working should continue to enjoy the benefits provided by the ones who do work. What if everyone stopped working? Think about it; if one person does it, and then another, I don't think that would go very well by those that do work. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to work if I could stop and continue receiving benefits; specially if others were already doing it.

In a society without money, it is possible (at first) doing away with money might make some workers lazy and some like yourself may not want to work at all. There are ways to reward hard work other than just contributing to the betterment of mankind, one suggestion I have is perhaps award the top 10 producers of the shop, plant, mill, factory, warehouse or office with extra time off. This would increase productivity of everyone and would award the one thing everyone has too little of, free time to enjoy alone or with family. That's just one idea there are many perhaps better ones.

As far as not wanting to work at all, of course those who are too young or too old are not required to work, as well as those who are sick or disabled. However I think most people would feel that working for their own benefit as well as the benefit of all men and women is reason enough to show up for work. Especially since they train for what they want to do, and select where they want to work and democratically vote in all the conditions of their workplace. It might be safe to say that most would love working under these favorable conditions.

Doing away with money would also eliminate most paperwork and give all citizens a shorter work week and more free time. This would also mean no cost to go to school for workers that want to do different work.

And you mentioned we're free to pursue our hobbies.

My hobbies include building computers and cars.

Under communism, how would I get the computer hardware? Who would "pay" for it? Could I just walk into a store, pick out the parts I want and leave? Who would even manufacture the computer parts?

The same goes for cars. Who would manufacture them? How could I get one? If there's no money, what would be a comparable "favor" in exchange for a car? Or would there simply be no cars in communism?

Would we be limited to simple hobbies like climbing trees, flying a kite, cooking, ect..?

As others have told you, once money is eliminated you don't have to pay for anything, you get what you need and want for your hobbies as well as any other aspect of life. There are no favors you must perform, showing up for work to contribute to society that which you are good at would be appreciated though.

Hobbies would be everything we enjoy now, plus much, much more, the only limit is imagination.

You see "wage labor" as something immoral. I don't see anything wrong with it.

It's the exploitation of the labor value of workers that is immoral. Workers create all the wealth as they make the products and deliver the services we all use.

I believe that if someone works harder and smarter than others, he should be compensated accordingly. If someone is unwilling to work or produce, he or she should be allowed to starve, as cruel as it may sound.

Good then you agree that capitalists most of which perform almost no work, deserve none of the money they steal for the working class.

As far as the REAL workers are concerned I believe from each according to their abilities, not all people have the same abilities, a faster worker should not be paid more than a slower worker if they are both doing their best.

Also a lazy worker who refuses to work, does not deserve to starve.

The people who perform little or no work are the lazy "fat cat" upper echelon of the super rich. In most cases they let money work for them (investments, interest, etc.) and the most work they do is reading the financial pages with their morning coffee. This ill gotten gain was either appropriated (stolen) from the workers or inherited from a dead relative's appropriation from the worker class. Remember every product you use was created by workers, and every service you receive is delivered by workers.

We need to make the lazy super rich actually do some real work, perhaps digging ditches or cleaning septic tanks. The welfare billionaires and welfare millionaires living off the middle class and poor is disgusting. Make the super rich work unless they are disabled or past retirement age.

I suppose you'll argue that many CEOs don't produce anything and simply profit off the labor of others. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. He's responsible for providing jobs that keep people off the street. And not everyone knows how to (nor wants to) run a company, which is why they shouldn't receive the same compensation as a CEO.

CEOs and Boards of Directors are not only unneeded but actually harmful to the working class. The people who invent, build, market and sell the products or services create all the wealth.

The CEOs and Boards of Directors are there to maximize profits for the shareholders. And how do they do that? By appropriating (stealing) more labor value from the ones who create all wealth, the working class. The more money they steal from the working class, the bigger their bonuses are.

I say get rid of ALL CEOs and all Board of Directors and replace them with Workers Councils.

Also, I don't see how removing the monetary system would solve anything. What's to stop someone from hoarding apple pies, logs, or other things that would give him or her an advantage over his or her neighbors?

It seems as though eliminating currency is merely symbolic, because people will ultimately trade something, making whatever they trade effectively "currency."

In the beginning doing away with money some workers might greedily take more than they can use or consume. However, once they are accustomed to the idea that everyone can have, the same fine food, the same necessities, the same material goods and the same extravagant luxuries, workers will start taking only what they need and want from the distribution centers.

Thus there would be no hoarding as it is more convenient and takes up less space to just take what one needs and wants to use in the immediate future from the distribution centers.

I don't think there would be anything to trade as if you made something special for others would give it to the distribution center on your next trip to pick up your goodies.

In fact, looking back at history you'll notice that currency was implemented to make trading easier. Removing it (in my opinion) would only make things harder, as we'd simply use other things as "currency."

There is no need for currency as there is no need for trading, any citizen can have anything he/she desires at anytime. If it is a limited item such as a boat or yacht, one would get on a waiting list. Otherwise common goods are there for the taking at ones local distribution center.

anything material that could be assigned a value. Greed isn't eliminated by doing away with currency.

Greed is made no longer logical by the immediate availability of anything ones heart desires. Thus no value will be assigned to anything. Greed just becomes a waste of space.

[tooAlive]

In a society without money, it is possible (at first) doing away with money might make some workers lazy and some like yourself may not want to work at all. There are ways to reward hard work other than just contributing to the betterment of mankind, one suggestion I have is perhaps award the top 10 producers of the shop, plant, mill, factory, warehouse or office with extra time off. This would increase productivity of everyone and would award the one thing everyone has too little of, free time to enjoy alone or with family. That's just one idea there are many perhaps better ones.

That's a good idea.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a wage system. I would much rather have a performance-based payment structure where workers are paid based on their performance or what they produce.

This could very well exist under capitalism, and already does.

As far as not wanting to work at all, of course those who are too young or too old are not required to work, as well as those who are sick or disabled. However I think most people would feel that working for their own benefit as well as the benefit of all men and women is reason enough to show up for work. Especially since they train for what they want to do, and select where they want to work and democratically vote in all the conditions of their workplace. It might be safe to say that most would love working under these favorable conditions.

Now let me ask you, under communism what would happen if everyone wanted to do the same thing? For example, what if everyone wanted to study TV Production, and work as a producer. Could they all get a job doing the same thing?

I don't think many people would enjoy cleaning toilets, sewers or collecting garbage. How would you force someone to do these jobs? And those are very important jobs; but I don't think people would happily go to work knowing what duties lie ahead.

Doing away with money would also eliminate most paperwork and give all citizens a shorter work week and more free time. This would also mean no cost to go to school for workers that want to do different work.

Again, assuming school is free. What if everyone wants to study the same subject? Or more realistically, what happens if people don't want to study one specific, undesirable subject?

As others have told you, once money is eliminated you don't have to pay for anything, you get what you need and want for your hobbies as well as any other aspect of life. There are no favors you must perform, showing up for work to contribute to society that which you are good at would be appreciated though.

In a prefect world I may agree with you on that. But knowing how people are and dealing with many people on a daily basis I would say that's now how it works in the real world.

It's the exploitation of the labor value of workers that is immoral. Workers create all the wealth as they make the products and deliver the services we all use.

We view this differently.

Good then you agree that capitalists most of which perform almost no work, deserve none of the money they steal for the working class.

No, I don't agree.

What did that person do to get to where they are? That's a big factor you seem to have overlooked. Taking that into consideration, I'm perfectly fine with how they earn their money. Because they do work, just not in the way you'd like them to.

As far as the REAL workers are concerned I believe from each according to their abilities, not all people have the same abilities, a faster worker should not be paid more than a slower worker if they are both doing their best.

Agreed.

Also a lazy worker who refuses to work, does not deserve to starve.

Why not? He knows the consequences of not working.

The people who perform little or no work are the lazy "fat cat" upper echelon of the super rich. In most cases they let money work for them (investments, interest, etc.) and the most work they do is reading the financial pages with their morning coffee. This ill gotten gain was either appropriated (stolen) from the workers or inherited from a dead relative's appropriation from the worker class. Remember every product you use was created by workers, and every service you receive is delivered by workers.

How did they get to become those lazy fat-cats? Do you think they all simply inherited their wealth, or rode a cloud up to the higher echelons of society?

And no, I don't agree that they "steal" anything from anyone. I don't see profiting from labor as stealing. I understand that you don't and I respect that.

In any case, those that you have described are the "1%." There are far, far more "lazy small-cats" that are doing nothing and living off the government handouts provisioned by those same "fat-cats" you're criticizing.

Why do you only have a problem with 1% of the population being lazy?

We need to make the lazy super rich actually do some real work, perhaps digging ditches or cleaning septic tanks. The welfare billionaires and welfare millionaires living off the middle class and poor is disgusting. Make the super rich work unless they are disabled or past retirement age.

Many of those "super rich" have already worked. And many of them are still working; just not the way you'd like them to work.

CEOs and Boards of Directors are not only unneeded but actually harmful to the working class. The people who invent, build, market and sell the products or services create all the wealth.

Then why don't they go work for themselves, if they're being exploited as they are? Don't you think many of them are perfectly contempt doing the work that they are while knowing how someone else is profiting off their work?

The CEOs and Boards of Directors are there to maximize profits for the shareholders. And how do they do that? By appropriating (stealing) more labor value from the ones who create all wealth, the working class. The more money they steal from the working class, the bigger their bonuses are.

As cruel and inhumane as you see them, many of those large corporations employ thousands of people and pay them a generous wage.

In the beginning doing away with money some workers might greedily take more than they can use or consume. However, once they are accustomed to the idea that everyone can have, the same fine food, the same necessities, the same material goods and the same extravagant luxuries, workers will start taking only what they need and want from the distribution centers.

In other words, once workers get accustomed to the equal amount of poverty for everyone.

Thus there would be no hoarding as it is more convenient and takes up less space to just take what one needs and wants to use in the immediate future from the distribution centers.

In a perfect world, yes. In our world? I don't think so.

There is no need for currency as there is no need for trading, any citizen can have anything he/she desires at anytime. If it is a limited item such as a boat or yacht, one would get on a waiting list. Otherwise common goods are there for the taking at ones local distribution center.

So I could get on that list and possibly wait for years for my boat to be completed, right?

Could the same thing be said about complex medical procedures? Or perhaps simple procedures that everyone wants?

Greed is made no longer logical by the immediate availability of anything ones heart desires. Thus no value will be assigned to anything. Greed just becomes a waste of space

I agree, communism is a perfect world. Until you bring people into the equation, and everything falls apart.

[tooAlive]

Well.

People wanted to read (and to do other things that require light) at night. They might not realise what was necessary to that end, but they knew what the final result was: something that produced enough light to read and write at night comfortably - meaning more light than oil and/or gas lamps, with less heath and smoke.

They already had kerosene lamps.

And this applies to Morgan, too: if he envisioned a profit, he must have had some intuition that people would buy light bulbs. And how did he arrive at such conclusion? Because he knew people wanted reading at night (perhaps himself wanted to do that, no?), and consequently that people would buy a gadget that provided enough light for that purpose if provided at a reasonable price and without undesirable collateral effects.

He didn't know anything. He took a very big gamble. And in the end, he made the gamble work.

And for the record, I'm not saying I agree with all the methods he used to make it work.

Now, why do we need Morgan in this process? We need Edisons, of course, and the resources that allow the Edisons of the world to research what they want - but nowhere in the Bible, or the Kuran, or the Bhagavad Gita is it written that such resources have to be first appropriated by a "greedy individual" trying to build an empire, and only then redistributed to researchers. Indeed, most creative research is made in public institutions - universities, military technological institutes, etc., and only then appropriated by "greedy individuals".

Well, because Morgan gave invested the millions (billions in today's dollars) he needed to develop his invention.

And in a communist society people would have stopped producing kerosene because it was no longer necessary. Even Rockfeller wouldn't be able to save his empire by producing gasoline if there weren't actual ways in which gasoline could be used (which should be obvious: if products could be sold regardless of people needing them, Rockfeller would have no problem in keepin his kerosene empire: it was the fact that no other immediate utility for kerosene was found that made him turn to other products). And no amount of Rockfellerian resources would be able to make gasoline a sellable product if other inventions - namely the internal combustion engine - weren't invented at the time, making it possible to sell gasoline in the market.

No, people would not have stopped producing kerosene because everyone needed it to light their homes. The electric light was in direct competition with kerosene.

Also, when gasoline was invented it didn't really have a use. It was a side-effect to producing kerosene that was previously discarded because it was thought to have no use.

If they would have stopped producing kerosene, they would have never discovered gasoline. And it was discovered because Rockefeller hired scientists to try and figure out a use of that "side effect" of kerosene; otherwise he'd lose his empire.

That discovery led to the automobile.

Let's suppose they were the geniuses you imagine. Why wouldn't they exert such geniality by helping to correctly interpretate the necessities of people and provide the adequate alocation of resources to solve the problem, simply because they liked doing it, or because they wanted to impress their girlfriends, or enjoyed being interviewed by journalists, or craved the idea that their names would be put in print and revered long after their death?

Because we don't live in a perfect world where our own interests get ahead of those of the "collective good."

What do their empires have to do with anything? How they simply did not distract them from what was essential into foolish playground games about who has the biggest something in the block?

Because those empires are responsible for some of the greatest advancements in human history. On guy working for the "collective good" would not have brought light to the entire united states in only a matter of years.

[Ele'ill]

Sorry to intervene, but i kind of have to disagree here.
I work 40 hours a week for my boss, and on the side i have my own business (just me, no employees). It's a lot of work, with long hours and it's not really making me lots of money, but hey, it's a hobby!

And that's precisly my point for communism. I'd do it for free too.

Ok there are examples like this that I can see occurring like full time employment and writing on the side, art, graphics, printing, whatever, but I thought given the nature of the conversation we were talking about 'starting a profitable business and heading towards retirement ain't no thing while working a main full time minimum wage or low wage job'

[tooAlive]

[QUOTE=User Name;2559585]Those countries also called themselves democratic and republic. Does that mean those don't work? No, because calling a country something while not actually do that does not make it that. Also, most "democracies" throughout history were only democracies for a) native male land-owners b) white males until last century. Would you argue democracy does not work?

Well, do we live in a true democracy today?

And those say in the third world capitalist exploited countries could try 10x harder than even the poorest in the first world and still not become a capitalist.

Yes, you're right. There are some places in the world where no hard work will ever amount to anything unless you're fortunate enough to leave or escape.

Cuba, for example.

But why should we not make economics fair? Not life, but just economically.

Because economics is part of life. And you can enforce equality somewhere that it already doesn't exist.

Actually, with the corporations funding government to make unsafe chemicals considered safe through underfunded government programs, yes, capitalism may just be causing many disabilities and birth defects.

Thank you for bringing that up.

I'm actually just as against that as you are. Perhaps even more so.

That's an example of crony-capitalism. If the government didn't have nearly enough power, corporations wouldn't have to "buy" it out.

The fair thing would be to not bring everyone down to his/her level, but to bring him/her up to everyone else's.

How can you do that? How can you bring an autistic child up to the level of everyone else?

They also proclaimed to be democratic. So did the United States when women and native Americans couldn't vote and blacks were slaves. Did that make it a democracy? No. And, actually, communism is relatively new. The Communist Manifesto was only published in 1848. And communism is nonexistent, it hasn't existed yet. Otherwise, we wouldn't be fighting for it.

So I guess we'll have to completely ignore history then, at least for the sake of argument.

Because true communism nor true democracies have ever existed.

[Ele'ill]

No actually, I'm not. I will tell you however from first-hand experience that it is by far not an easy thing to do, but entirely possible. You would however have to make sacrifices. When a lot of my friends are out partying or drinking, I'm home working. But in the midst of it all, I can tell you it can be a very rewarding experience.

But a few people's success stories aren't representative of the reality that most people don't. Why don't they? I'm probably going to say because they can't, not because they lack the worth ethic or intelligence but because of the reasons I listed earlier (I think I listed them) regarding education, insight and know-how, resources, overworked as it is, not enough money, not enough time, other obligations, medical reasons and so forth. I don't have links but I'm not sure that the majority of small businesses make it out of their infancy and that's a huge risk.

And when I got out of high-school I worked a minimum wage temp job because I had no other experience. After about a year and a half I got a better job. Had I decided to stay working there, I'd probably still be getting paid the same.

Wow wait, how did you get a better job how did that happen?

[tooAlive]

Ok there are examples like this that I can see occurring like full time employment and writing on the side, art, graphics, printing, whatever, but I thought given the nature of the conversation we were talking about 'starting a profitable business and heading towards retirement ain't no thing while working a main full time minimum wage or low wage job'

J.K. Rowling's side biz was simply writing a children's book on the side.

How many of her 8 movies have you seen?

[tooAlive]

But a few people's success stories aren't representative of the reality that most people don't. Why don't they? I'm probably going to say because they can't, not because they lack the worth ethic or intelligence but because of the reasons I listed earlier (I think I listed them) regarding education, insight and know-how, resources, overworked as it is, not enough money, not enough time, other obligations, medical reasons and so forth. I don't have links but I'm not sure that the majority of small businesses make it out of their infancy and that's a huge risk.

You're right, not everyone gets ahead and succeeds.

Is it because they can't? What decides whether they can or can't? Their attitude? Someone else out there making sure they fail?

Wow wait, how did you get a better job how did that happen?

I applied somewhere else, got called for an interview, got the job, quit my old one, and started working in the new one. And I know plenty of people that have done the same.

[Ele'ill]

J.K. Rowling's side biz was simply writing a children's book on the side.

What's your point though

How many of her 8 movies have you seen?

none

[Ele'ill]

You're right, not everyone gets ahead and succeeds.
Is it because they can't? What decides whether they can or can't? Their attitude? Someone else out there making sure they fail?

I've already answered this though. If you read through my posts you can actually copy and paste my reply back to me if you want I think that will be easiest for you.

I applied somewhere else, got called for an interview, got the job, quit my old one, and started working in the new one.And I know plenty of people that have done the same.

(it's pretty hard to find work in the US)

[Luís Henrique]

You're right, not everyone gets ahead and succeeds.

Is it because they can't? What decides whether they can or can't? Their attitude? Someone else out there making sure they fail?

The structure of the game. Just like in a baseball game you will necessarily have a loser, in capitalist competition there absolutely must be losers.

In capitalist competition, besides, some people start the game far ahead than others.

I applied somewhere else, got called for an interview, got the job, quit my old one, and started working in the new one. And I know plenty of people that have done the same.

And you still sell your labour force for someone else. In the deal, you produce more than you are paid for. Else your employer wouldn't employ you. "Wage slavery" doesn't mean that you can't change bosses, but that you will have to work as an employee, or face a sizeable risk of becoming a drop out.

Luís Henrique

[tooAlive]

What's your point though

You said it was impossible to earn enough money to support oneself from a side business.

I showed you how it was not only possible to make a living, but to acquire great wealth as well. That's my point.

[tooAlive]

(it's pretty hard to find work in the US)

Yes, it's hard. But it's far from an impossible feat.

It has a lot to do with our terrible economy right now as well. And since your user title states you're an anarchist, I think you'll agree with me when I say that it's largely due to the amount of government interference we have in the markets.

The structure of the game. Just like in a baseball game you will necessarily have a loser, in capitalist competition there absolutely must be losers.

In capitalist competition, besides, some people start the game far ahead than others.

It happens in nature as well. The slower animals inevitably get eaten. It's sad, but that's how life is.

Which is why I see nothing wrong with what you're stating above.

And you still sell your labour force for someone else. In the deal, you produce more than you are paid for. Else your employer wouldn't employ you. "Wage slavery" doesn't mean that you can't change bosses, but that you will have to work as an employee, or face a sizeable risk of becoming a drop out.

I labored for someone else because that's what I was capable of at that time. They profited from my labor because I didn't know of a better thing to do with it.

I've since learned, and I now work for myself. But did others take the time to learn like I have? No. They would rather invest their spare time partying or having fun. Which is why I don't feel too sorry for them when they complain about not liking their jobs. On the other hand, I do like to share my success with those that earnestly don't have another way out. But I do that out of my own free will, not because I'm forced to or because they're entitled.

[Questionable]

Again, I already told you these are my beliefs. And my beliefs are based on what I see in the world, and the way I interpret it.

But let me ask you the same thing now, and I'd like for you to answer.

What evidence do you have to support communism, since it's never been tried? Can you show me an example of a successful, "true communist" country today, or anywhere in history?

Or perhaps, an example of a "failed communist" country that was better than what we have today?

By that same token, I could say that the idea of communism is worthless because there's no evidence to support it.

All countries that experienced a socialist revolution also experienced great leaps in many fields such as scientific progress, healthcare, etc.

The argument you're putting forward here is a logical fallacy. Whether my communism can be proven (Which is somewhat can by looking at the successes of past socialist countries) is irrelevant, capitalism does exist, and because it does exist, you merely need to prove yourself with some kind of statistics in order to convince us of what you're saying. But you're not doing that. You're admitting that your view of reality is completely unfounded and may not even exist, and your defense for this childish point of view is that "true communism" has never existed, so you can say whatever you want to say about capitalism and it must be true because communism has never existed. Do you see where that argument begins to turn to shit? Capitalism is the current system we exist under. It currently exists. Therefore, as capitalism is existing, you can prove to be that it works the way you're describing it, on the contrary to what everyone is saying. Otherwise, your views are useless.

You seem pretty slow to grasp your own logical fallacies, so let me put it forth in alternative terms; you're driving a car, and I am your passenger. You're driving towards a wall. I tell you you're going to crash the wall. All the evidence points towards you about to crash into a wall (The speed of the car, its direction, its model, the way cars work, etc). However, you look over at me and say since I have never seen this particular car crash into a wall, all of my evidence is for naught, and this car could just as easily sprout wings and fly. Despite all the evidence pointing towards your car about to crash into a wall and kill us both, you still laugh in my face and say that since you've never seen a car crashing into a wall before, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe in spite of all evidence, and your opinion will be just as equal as a physicist telling you that with the speed, velocity, and direction of your car, the wall is going to kill us both.

This is why I keep saying that real bourgeois economists would scoff at you. Because even they're not deluded enough to suggest that our entire stratified, complex economy system is a fluid, semi-nonexistent structure that is based upon subjective human wills (Rather, the objective economic system is what shapes subjective wills within its own context).

[Fourth Internationalist]

Personally, I don't like the idea of a wage system. I would much rather have a performance-based payment structure where workers are paid based on their performance or what they produce.

This could very well exist under capitalism, and already does.

Are you saying with capitalism it exists, or only with certain forms of capitalism? If the former, then absolutely no it doesn't work that way.

Now let me ask you, under communism what would happen if everyone wanted to do the same thing? For example, what if everyone wanted to study TV Production, and work as a producer. Could they all get a job doing the same thing?

Again, assuming school is free. What if everyone wants to study the same subject? Or more realistically, what happens if people don't want to study one specific, undesirable subject?

The same thing would happen as if it happened in capitalism: production of food, water, resources, etc. would stop and the world would end for humanity. However, given the billions of people on earth and the fact that it hasn't happened yet (even if it's only a desire to study the same thing rather than actually being able to study it), that is unlikely to happen.

I don't think many people would enjoy cleaning toilets, sewers or collecting garbage. How would you force someone to do these jobs? And those are very important jobs; but I don't think people would happily go to work knowing what duties lie ahead.

I think people would do it because their are some people who do it already don't think it's that bad. Besides, if they didn't, the situation would be aweful, kind of like in capitalism. In communism, you'd get dirty sewers, dirty toilets, etc. In capitalism, you'd become homeless. So, there's the same desire to do that job to prevent the bad things from happening.

What did that person do to get to where they are? That's a big factor you seem to have overlooked. Taking that into consideration, I'm perfectly fine with how they earn their money. Because they do work, just not in the way you'd like them to.

Except that person probably has not worked as hard as a person in a third world capitalist country, yet are rich, whereas the other person is not. Also, the Walton family has over the wealth of the bottom 40% of bottom Americans. However, the men who founded Walmart, Bud and Sam Walton, are both dead. How did those kids work so hard to have as much as 40% of the bottom Americans?

In any case, those that you have described are the "1%." There are far, far more "lazy small-cats" that are doing nothing and living off the government handouts provisioned by those same "fat-cats" you're criticizing.

Why do you only have a problem with 1% of the population being lazy?

Because whereas the very few who live off the government live a shitty life, the lazy top 1% exploit people especially in the third world, and are rich because of it.

Then why don't they go work for themselves, if they're being exploited as they are? Don't you think many of them are perfectly contempt doing the work that they are while knowing how someone else is profiting off their work?

Because capitalism keeps them poor and unable to build their own business and most people don't understand our way of viewing capitalism.

As cruel and inhumane as you see them, many of those large corporations employ thousands of people and pay them a generous wage.

I bet those people working at McDonalds, Wal-mart, and third world slave factories would disagree.

I'll continue tomorrow.

[tooAlive]

All countries that experienced a socialist revolution also experienced great leaps in many fields such as scientific progress, healthcare, etc.

Yes, all countries that experience a socialist revolution are doing great..

capitalism does exist, and because it does exist, you merely need to prove yourself with some kind of statistics in order to convince us of what you're saying. Capitalism is the current system we exist under. It currently exists. Therefore, as capitalism is existing, you can prove to be that it works the way you're describing it, on the contrary to what everyone is saying. Otherwise, your views are useless.

No it doesn't. What we have today is a mixed economy with a lot of socialism built into it. So no, I can't argue and give examples when they aren't representing the system I'm advocating for.