[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Of course you cannot have whatever you want, as resources are limited... but that's not the issue.

The need Marx talks about is really better defined as two things.

Things needed for survival

and

Things that could be used to better yourself

You could have as much of these things as you wanted, so long as you weren't wasteful, because people would work to fill these needs.

If you can have whatever you want without effort, why would you put in effort?

But you can't. If you don't put in effort, you get fired and you starve.

Of course lazy people surviver in both. But you miss the point. Equitible distribution of wealth offers litte incentive...

Before I respond, are you talking about lack of incentive to innovate, or something else? If so, what?

thought I'm happily surprised to see you defending communism.

I have really been digging into communism lately. I like it and think it would work as a global system. My only quarrel with it is land...

When your sister and you both want the corner bedroom?

Have mom and dad pick? Flip a coin? Work it out?

Mom and Dad would imply having the government distribute it.

Flipping a coin is no way to run an economic system.

'Working it out' will result in war if one of the parties doesn't like the outcome.

There is surely another solution...?

Yes, a local election of the workers...the solution...

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by Sean

The problem isn't with "needs" but with "wants." If everyone was simply interested in getting what they need, then communism might make for a good system. The problem is that people aren't simply interested in getting what they "need." People are greedy and more interested in "wants." This leads to another problem, there aren't enough resources to provide for everyones wants. There isn't enough beach front property to provide for everyones desire for beach front property. There aren't enough diamonds, gold and pearls to give every girl all the jewelry they want. Disney World isn't big enough to accommodate everyone who wants to visit. Production is not (and can't) simply be a matter of demand because production is requires resources and resources are scarce.

You’re looking at two things from the wrong perspective, I think. First, you confuse the ‘needs’ of communism with the ‘needs’ of survival. In communism, each man betters himself, and with this comes the betterment of society. So, if each man only had his needs of survival, he couldn’t do much in improving himself. So, the ‘needs’ of communism are the needs of survival and also those things that man needs to improve upon himself. This would nearly amount to his wants, but not quite. A person could not have what they wanted if it depleted resources or other things along those lines. And no, people would not have to hold themselves accountable. The government would do that, just like they do now. If you steal property from me, you will be tried, and if found guilty, sent to prison. In communism, if you steal (a.k.a. are depleting resources knowingly and intentionally) from the communal property, you will be tried, and if found guilty, sent to prison.
The second thing is your approach to wealth. The only reason people like diamonds and gold more is because it costs more and looks nice. The cost factor would no longer exist, so the only reason people would want it would be for its looks. And we have many diamond and gold substitutes that would satisfy people if the values of these items were eliminated. If a resource was severely limited (like land) then you would hold a local vote periodically to figure out who gets what.

...and X-Box 360s will begin to grow on trees. What you're saying is EXTREMELY idealistic. One could just as easily write a paragraph about capitalism with equal idealism.

Why is it idealistic? 360s wouldn’t begin to grow on trees, obviously. But, production of 360s would no longer be done in a way that would keep their labor costs high (If there’s a higher demand, then more factories.) "In a common property society, most objects would be shared; when one person is not using such an object, someone else may pick it up and use it." (Wikipedia)

That sounds an awful lot like communist propaganda rather than an accurate depiction of reality. Sure you can offer Paris Hilton as an example of someone who does little real work but who is rich. However, the only reason she has money is because someone worked hard, made wise choices, and was rewarded for their effort. The idea that the majority of rich people just do not work is absurd.

Do you really think that most of the people who are truly rich in the world worked equally for the worth of what they received? Do you really think that most of the poor people in the world don’t work hard enough to make more money, and could find their way out if they wanted to? And you call me idealistic?!?

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I think the Wikipedia definition of communism was written by a communist - honest.

You’re probably right. Just like the capitalism definition was probably written by a capitalist... Why does that make a difference? The word means what it means. Read the Critique of Gotha Program by Marx. He gives a rough understanding of the lesser (socialism) and the higher (communism) forms of communism in it. And yes, it was probably defined by a communist, because communists know what they believe. That is the definition I would have put. Again, is capitalism defined by what Hitler did? By what America has done?

Anyone who lived to witness the rise and implementation of communism knows how oppressive the governments of Russia, Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, East Germany, etc. all were.

And how do you know this? Have you ever looked into these systems? Have you ever tried to do any of your own research on these countries? Or do you just stubbornly believe our American media? The original Soviet Union (R.S.F.S.R.) had more rights for its citizens than America does. Unfortunately, the setup of the government (not having to do with the economics, strictly the setup of their democracy) allowed for quick corruption and takeover by Stalin (who wasn't as bad as we say he is, he was bad, but not that bad), who then wrote his own constitution.

These governments also felt that free countries were a threat to the idealism of socialism and communism, which usually went hand-in-hand with each other.

Ha. Don’t we as American’s think that communist countries are a threat to our idealism of capitalism? Don’t we say that those countries are not free? We are no different from them.

That's why they built the wall between East and West Germany - to keep people from escaping to freedom and to keep them prisoners in their own country.

And that’s why Hitler put the Jews in concentration camps, because of capitalism and the lack of freedom in it.

Sean used the word "propaganda" which is a word used to describe the mind control practiced in these countries.

...mind control...makes me think a lot about the propaganda of Hitler as well. Stalin was a dictator, as was Mao. Anyway, do you not think that we have constant government propaganda as well? You don’t think that our government lies to us, or hides things from us?

What kind of Universities or higher education do you think these countries had? Virtually none if you were not aligned with the ruling party. Thus, their greatest tool was ignorance among the masses.

Like during the first and second Red Scares in America, right? We sent hundreds of people to jail for being communists. We used ignorance of the masses by teaching them falsely about communism in our universities and education. If you weren’t aligned with the capitalist mindset, you were evil.

The 60's and 70's were very tense times that I remember growing up in. In fact, it was so tense we practiced crawling under our schooldesks in preparing for a nuclear attack from Russia or Cuba.

You don’t think they did this in other countries as well? The Soviet Union was as afraid of a nuclear war as we were. Our government was no different from their dictatorial leaders; we just might not know all of it. The kids in the Soviet Union probably hid under desks periodically to practice bomb drills as well.

These were not benevolent governments and they all depended on having a strong military in order to keep power.

And America doesn’t? Ronald Reagan’s solution to our protection (a.k.a. our power) was a super strong military, so strong that no other country on earth would consider challenging it. The Soviets had to grow their military so that they could defend themselves from America. If we didn’t have a strong military, we wouldn’t have our power either. You have to have a strong military in order to defend your country.

As a result, the beneficiaries to this form of government were usually those at the top, including many military leaders.

And this is different in America how?

This was also the breeding ground for dictatorships.

No more than Germany was. Russia was in a serious economic crisis, so a dictator easily rose to power in their weak democratic system. The same thing happened in Germany with Hitler. Does that mean that Capitalism is breeding ground for dictators?

There really is no individual freedom in these countries and as such, one of the casualties is the right to worship freely. Also, you hoped you did not belong to certain ethnic groups, otherwise you were subject to overt racism and even death.

In the R.S.F.S.R. they had the right to worship freely and no particular race or ethnic group was under any more prejudice than there was in America.

Another thing you need to remember is that the U.S.S.R. stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They admitted they were socialist, not communist.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Says you.

Says the definition of communism. Why do you disagree with this? Socialism is gov’t control of business, like the ultimate form of capitalism (one big monopoly, which is why it leads to corruption), communism is common control of resources.

This is laughably dumb. What does scripture say? Proverbs 27:20 and Ecclesiastes 5:10 prove conclusively that at least God disagrees with you.

This is annoyingly dumb. Scripture does not disagree with me. It says that men who love money will always want more of it. When money doesn’t exist, men won’t sin with it. This doesn’t mean men wouldn’t be sinful, just that this type of sin would be eliminated. Just like when we moved to democracy, and kings no longer were in control, so you couldn’t sin against the king anymore, the same would happen with communism. When money is eliminated, you won’t be able to sin with money anymore.

This plan is as far fetched as Ernst's iron machine to be honest. If he was able to work, and did not, he would not be allowed to consume, is nothing but capitalism.

It is not capitalism, I will explain this at the end of my post.

You really believe this!? I did not think anybody would actually be gullible enough to believe this.

You don’t believe this?!? I did not think anybody would actually be gullible enough not to believe this!

I know a lot of rich people and most all of them have busted tail to get there. Sure, there are a minuscule portion of society who are wealthy and do not work, but seriously, they are an insignificant portion of society.

They are not an insignificant portion of America. They are the significant portion of America. But, they are not the significant portion of the world: that would be the poor workers. Anyone in America who makes a large sum of money likely doesn’t deserve it. There’s no way they have worked so much harder than anyone else in the world that they deserve that much more. Bill Gates, Sam Walton and his family, the owners of GM, etc. The list goes on and on, and those are only the national businesses. Even small businesses require exploitation in order to make significant money.

In short, you believe capitalism is a critical component of communism, either that, or governments killing the lazy by starvation.

No. The supposed working of capitalism is “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities.” The working of communism is “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” If you have the ability to work, but you don't, you don't receive what you need. It's very simple.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

The second thing is your approach to wealth. The only reason people like diamonds and gold more is because it costs more and looks nice. The cost factor would no longer exist, so the only reason people would want it would be for its looks. And we have many diamond and gold substitutes that would satisfy people if the values of these items were eliminated. If a resource was severely limited (like land) then you would hold a local vote periodically to figure out who gets what.

Meaning that popularity=wealth. You merely change the commodity. In short, the cost factor would exist, the medium of exchange is all you would change. Thus the greatest demagog would be the wealthiest.

Why is it idealistic? 360s wouldn’t begin to grow on trees, obviously. But, production of 360s would no longer be done in a way that would keep their labor costs high (If there’s a higher demand, then more factories.) "In a common property society, most objects would be shared; when one person is not using such an object, someone else may pick it up and use it." (Wikipedia)

Ever actually been in a "shared property society"? I have, and it ain't so Idealistic as you describe. On a very basic level, humans are territorial and possessive by nature.

Do you really think that most of the people who are truly rich in the world worked equally for the worth of what they received? Do you really think that most of the poor people in the world don’t work hard enough to make more money, and could find their way out if they wanted to? And you call me idealistic?!?

Worked, or were smart, or lied cheat or stole. Oddly enough, your system would merely eliminate the advantages of innovation or hard work. Theft, fraud, and dishonesty would remain a constant.

Says the definition of communism. Why do you disagree with this? Socialism is gov’t control of business, like the ultimate form of capitalism (one big monopoly, which is why it leads to corruption), communism is common control of resources.

Ummm, no. You need central ownership for communism. It must be seized such as in the Bolshievic revolution. You saying its the ultimate form of Capitalism just shows you do not understand what capitalism is. Someone has to have ownership. In a communal system, the government has to have this for control.

This is annoyingly dumb. Scripture does not disagree with me. It says that men who love money will always want more of it. When money doesn’t exist, men won’t sin with it. This doesn’t mean men wouldn’t be sinful, just that this type of sin would be eliminated. Just like when we moved to democracy, and kings no longer were in control, so you couldn’t sin against the king anymore, the same would happen with communism. When money is eliminated, you won’t be able to sin with money anymore.

This is silly and Naive. The scriptures I pointed out said more than that. You neglected the Proverb, which pointed out that the eyes of all men are never full, which quite simply means all men have a love of things.

Hence, God still disagrees with you.

Eliminating money just reduces things to a barter system which it is far easier to take advantage of another with. So you eliminate money... You do not eliminate Greed. Money has value because of what it can purchase. You do not eliminate resources.

You don’t believe this?!? I did not think anybody would actually be gullible enough not to believe this!

You propose Utopia. Its naive, unstable and unfounded in any historical example. Cite a historical example of this? You can't because mankind's nature precludes this and it assumes that people like the green stuff for green stuff and that resources are infinite. They are not. Some are precious and RARE. Some involve great difficulty in production.

They are not an insignificant portion of America. They are the significant portion of America. But, they are not the significant portion of the world: that would be the poor workers. Anyone in America who makes a large sum of money likely doesn’t deserve it. There’s no way they have worked so much harder than anyone else in the world that they deserve that much more. Bill Gates, Sam Walton and his family, the owners of GM, etc. The list goes on and on, and those are only the national businesses. Even small businesses require exploitation in order to make significant money.

Your solution is universal exploitation without regarding hard work. In the era of Sam Walton, I heard nobody complaining about exploitation from Walmart. I heard nothing but praise from walmart workers in that time frame...In short, Bill gates marketed a better mousetrap. Does Bill gates deserve the same rate of pay as a customer service representative who can barely read? How about the skilled artisan. What motivation is there to pursue complex and dificult tasks.

My Father in law is an executive. He works 100+ hours a weak fairly routinely. He makes 6 figures, but frankly, its not a lack of work. Is he wealthy? yes. Would I do his job for the money he makes? NO FREAKING WAY!

You assume creation of wealth requires exploitation. What if, for example a man produces a nice guitar effect, builds them himself or pays his employs a good wage, but still makes a healthy profit. I can think of such companies offhand.

No. The supposed working of capitalism is “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities.” The working of communism is “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” If you have the ability to work, but you don't, you don't receive what you need. It's very simple.

In short, someone decides a certain class of people starve. Who plays God?

[Danny]

Where did Sean's post go?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Danny

Where did Sean's post go?

It was in another thread.

*testing*

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Meaning that popularity=wealth. You merely change the commodity. In short, the cost factor would exist, the medium of exchange is all you would change. Thus the greatest demagog would be the wealthiest.

You still misunderstand communist wealth. You also misunderstand communist operations with land. With land, there would only be an election when there was a disagreement on what can be done to land, and when multiple people want to occupy the same area of land. Even with those elections, the goal would be to generate a consensus using an 'open source' communal council local government. Wealth would no longer be tied to acheivement or luck or money or value or capability or anything else. The concept of objectified wealth would be completely eliminated. A demagog could not come to physical power in a community at all, localities would be run by councils. Now, they may follow his ideals, but that is what democracy is all about. He would not be in control of any more property than anyone else, that would not be in the interest of the community.

Ever actually been in a "shared property society"? I have, and it ain't so Idealistic as you describe. On a very basic level, humans are territorial and possessive by nature.

Care to elaborate? I highly doubt this 'shared society' was communist, and I highly doubt that the problems had to do with communism.

Worked, or were smart, or lied cheat or stole. Oddly enough, your system would merely eliminate the advantages of innovation or hard work. Theft, fraud, and dishonesty would remain a constant.

Are you aware that around 55% of Americans (these are the workers) are living under the average wage? That nearly 30% of Americans are living in poverty? That most of the people in that 55% bounce back and forth between poverty and having a low paying job? That more than 30% of the money in America is held in the hands of less than 1%? That about 32% of Americans live on an average wage? That 15% of Americans live with between $100,000 and $500,000 while really doing not much more work than the 55%, but having authority over them and their wages? Do you really think that most of these people deserve this, that they can control what they earn and that they deserve what they earn?

This is only the tip of a worldwide iceburg of capitalism's injustices.

Ummm, no. You need central ownership for communism. It must be seized such as in the Bolshievic revolution. You saying its the ultimate form of Capitalism just shows you do not understand what capitalism is. Someone has to have ownership. In a communal system, the government has to have this for control.

Socialism is central government ownership, communism is common ownership of all property by the people, not the state.
In capitalism, monopolies often form over individual markets. That is the nature of the system. Socialism is the government having a monopoly over the entirety of the market, without any competition. This is why I stated that socialism is state capitalism. Capitalism is the final expression of feudalism. Socialism is the final expression of capitalism. Communism is the final expression of socialism. This is historical materialism.

This is silly and Naive. The scriptures I pointed out said more than that. You neglected the Proverb, which pointed out that the eyes of all men are never full, which quite simply means all men have a love of things.

When you eliminate the exchange based on value from the society, you eliminate the value-based idea of wealth in the eyes of the society.
Besides that, if they steal now, they go to jail. The same would apply in communism. What's to not understand?

Hence, God still disagrees with you.

I'm sorry I questioned your authority on what God agrees with...
Jesus and the Church of Acts were communist.

Eliminating money just reduces things to a barter system which it is far easier to take advantage of another with. So you eliminate money... You do not eliminate Greed. Money has value because of what it can purchase. You do not eliminate resources.

I didn't make myself clear, apparently. Not just the elimination of money, the elimination of capital. The elimination of the ability to exchange goods and services based on value, and the bringing about of the ability to exchange goods and services based on need, and need alone.

You propose Utopia. Its naive, unstable and unfounded in any historical example. Cite a historical example of this? You can't because mankind's nature precludes this and it assumes that people like the green stuff for green stuff and that resources are infinite. They are not. Some are precious and RARE. Some involve great difficulty in production.

Communism is not utopia. Communism does not assume men are inherently good, it does not assume anything of the sort. Communism is the organization and understanding of the workings of what the most efficient and beneficial and enlightened system of economics, politics, sociology, etc. would look like. Communism has never been attempted. This is why I have no example. It is a relatively new idea that is as of recently beginning to get completely worked out. Capitalism is much older, and yet it is still riddled with problems.

Your solution is universal exploitation without regarding hard work. In the era of Sam Walton, I heard nobody complaining about exploitation from Walmart. I heard nothing but praise from walmart workers in that time frame...In short, Bill gates marketed a better mousetrap. Does Bill gates deserve the same rate of pay as a customer service representative who can barely read? How about the skilled artisan. What motivation is there to pursue complex and dificult tasks.

It is not universal exploitation, it is the abolition of the capitalist exploitation of the worker. Of course you didn't hear anyone in America complaining about Wal-Mart. The only people who have much of a voice were getting really cheap prices. The people being exploited in Wal-Mart's factories (whether in America or elsewhere) had little to no voice, and had to work there or be unemployed. How often do we hear the voice of the worker on the news or on the radio or anywhere else?

My Father in law is an executive. He works 100+ hours a weak fairly routinely. He makes 6 figures, but frankly, its not a lack of work. Is he wealthy? yes. Would I do his job for the money he makes? NO FREAKING WAY!

What work does he do? Who does he work for? Who works under him? What does his business do? Who makes their products?
Either way, he is the minority, not the majority.

You assume creation of wealth requires exploitation. What if, for example a man produces a nice guitar effect, builds them himself or pays his employs a good wage, but still makes a healthy profit. I can think of such companies offhand.

In capitalism, profit is a critical measure of how much value is created by the production process, and so any compensation the workers receive in exchange for labour should be based on profit. In this case, the CEO (presumably the guy who made the product), would make almost, if not completely, zero profit. He would therefore not exist, and the workers would begin to organize and lead themselves. They would then begin to separate their wages based on profit. Each worker would have to work the same number of hours to fill the number of guitar effects they needed to sell. As this system progressed, workers would begin earning more and more, and begin earning closer and closer to the same wages as tasks became more and more similar. At this point, it would be a simple transition to the needs based exchange instead of the value based exchange. That is such a compressed and 'part of the picture' way of saying it, but that is one way communism could come about if only workers were paid what they deserved.

In short, someone decides a certain class of people starve. Who plays God?

What does what you said have to do with anything? If you don't work when you are able to, no one will contribute to your need, because you aren't contributing your ability.

[Ax]

And CLOSED!!!!

This thread is not going anywhere near anything constructive. In fact, I see it turning ugly very quickly. So... Clopsed!