Global Wealth: One Giant Pyramid Scheme?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
A major problem with Communism to me is that it looks like nobody is willing to accept any responsibility for their position in life, and by extension their own actions. Is social position really always linked to exploitation, or is it just people shirking responsibility?

That's why I disputed the existence of a 'underproletariat.' But I would have to admit that possibly farm workers and teenagers may constitute a class of their own.

Expolitation exists when people sit on their ass while others do the work for them. This includes the rich and the poor who abuse the system or are too stupid to get an education that will get them off the public doles. I don't include farmers as those being exploited, because the farmers where I live don't work all that much. It's the farm workers who do all the work.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Azazel
cyclotron: This is not true. In my society ( call it extreme socialist, not communist, whatever) We'll any proffession that we have today, except a handful of them. You'll still be the one to choose who do you want to be. You still be taking responisbilities in your life. Why not so?

You answered your own question: your country isn't communist. Having socialist services, etc. doesn't mean that you are communist, as you have observed. In your society, people do take responsibilites in their lives, and that's a good thing.

Would you say that the people on the top of your society are exploiting the rest, simply by virtue of the fact that they are on top?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Expolitation exists when people sit on their ass while others do the work for them.

I would change that to read, "Exploitation exists when people sit on their ass while others are forced to do the work for them."

If the work isn't forced, you have defined stupidity, not exploitation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


I would change that to read, "Exploitation exists when people sit on their ass while others are forced to do the work for them."

If the work isn't forced, you have defined stupidity, not exploitation.

The work is forced. That is the exploitation.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The work is forced. That is the exploitation.

Yes, I agree. I was correcting your definition, which seemed to imply that even altruistic help of another is exploitation. Only a minor change.

[Az]

You answered your own question: your country isn't communist. Having socialist services, etc. doesn't mean that you are communist, as you have observed. In your society, people do take responsibilites in their lives, and that's a good thing.

Would you say that the people on the top of your society are exploiting the rest, simply by virtue of the fact that they are on top?

Perhaps, you haven't understood me correctly. In my system, a democratically elected government is controlling the economy. The people in the top are elected, and responsible to the people at the bottom. The press is not private, too, but it's free, and separated from the government like the court system nowadays.

We won't have stock brokers, and capitalists, but we can keep most of the rest of them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Yes, I agree. I was correcting your definition, which seemed to imply that even altruistic help of another is exploitation. Only a minor change.

Yeah true. However, some people do work even though they don't have to. I don't think the're shoveling the sh1t though.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Azazel
[q]
Perhaps, you haven't understood me correctly.

Ah, here's the problem: when you said "In my society" I thought you were talking about Israel, when in fact you were talking about your ideal soceity. Understanding achieved.

In my system, a democratically elected government is controlling the economy. The people in the top are elected, and responsible to the people at the bottom. The press is not private, too, but it's free, and separated from the government like the court system nowadays.

I just don't understand why it is the duty of the state to completely support you economically. Communism separates work from results: In a capitalist system, I see immediate and very personal results from the quality of my work and my success at my job. In a Communist system it seems to me that your work is removed from your success: You can't climb the economic ladder and be rich, and you can't really backslide and become poor. Thus, your actions have fewer direct consequences.

The upshot of all this is that I would fear a Communist society would quickly turn into one devoid of responsibility and independence, because people don't see the consequences of their actions.

We won't have stock brokers, and capitalists, but we can keep most of the rest of them.

How will you build things without concentrated capital?

[Az]

I just don't understand why it is the duty of the state to completely support you economically.

It will support the same way your employer currently supports you. Only better.

I just don't understand why it is the duty of the state to completely support you economically. Communism separates work from results: In a capitalist system, I see immediate and very personal results from the quality of my work and my success at my job. In a Communist system it seems to me that your work is removed from your success: You can't climb the economic ladder and be rich, and you can't really backslide and become poor. Thus, your actions have fewer direct consequences

That's not true even for the mismanaged and faulty system that the soviet system was. My father was born and spent the majority of his life under the soviet system. He went from being a nobody, to maritime cadet, to a sailor, to an officer in the merchant marine, to a captain, to an fleet exploitation administrator in the Georgian shipping company. His parents weren't privilleged or upper-class.

[Cyclotron]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Azazel

It will support the same way your employer currently supports you. Only better.

And how is that?

[Az]

How's your employer supporting you? by paying you salary for your job. In "My" system, your real wage will be higher, since it would redistribute the wealth the usually is accumulated by the the employer.

[Solly]

Let's give everyone $1,000,000!
Then we'll all be rich!

[Az]

noone said that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Azazel
How's your employer supporting you? by paying you salary for your job. In "My" system, your real wage will be higher, since it would redistribute the wealth the usually is accumulated by the the employer.

That's the point, my employer isn't supporting me.

Isn't it my responsibility to support myself? Why should my employer or my state have responsibility for me? This is what I mean by the lack of responsibility.

[Kidlicious]

Let's give everyone $1,000,000! Then we will all be rich

That's the problem with the current system. People get paid for nothin'