Question for communists . . . .

[GePap]

Where the hell does this notion that communits have to live in poverty come from? Can anyone point this out to me? Quote it?

First question is, what type of communism? Old fashioned Marxism? marxist/leninism? Maoism? They are not the same. Both maoist and Marxist advocate common ownership, but Marxst see only wokers as the class than can do it, while maoist see the peasant as being ablke to do so as well. The Khmer Rougue were communists, but they killed the very people (the educated elite) that a marxist would want to endoctrinate. To say simply "communist" then is wrong.

As for the marxists: according to marx true communism can only come once a certain level of industrial production is reached. Marx readilly admits that Capitalism is the economic form that leads to the greatest production, but what he cares about is not ever increasing porduction, but the ability of man to enjoy this, to end his alienation. Only Capitalism can set the groundwork for this by creating an economic structure so productive that it sets up the conditions for its fall.

As for luxuries: if luxury is derived form the exploitation of the workers, then somene who believes in communism should give it up. But if it was made by an artisan, or soemone who is not being exploited, then what would be the porblem? Compuetrs and cars today are ahrdly made by horribly exploited workers (poor robots!...). Now, you have a better argument with Nike sneakers and other cheap consumer goods that are the result many times of worker exploitation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Only if they want to live up to their professed ideals. Of course if you want to simply run around saying you like those ideals but then doing nothing to fulfill them then please be my guest. Just don't mind when no one takes your ideology seriously since not even its own adherents do.

Communists aren't against Disneyland. The're against profit, interest, and rent. It's not against our ideals to enjoy the fruits of our own labor. I don't know very many rich communists, but if there are any I don't blame them for investing their money though.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Oerdin, nice points.

Technically I don't think all remaining wealth should be distributed evenly, there should be some allocation for the people that contribute more. Just not the wild variation that we have now. We have a profit sharing agreement where I work, a percentage is spread evenly since we all contribute and the extra is discretionary in case some people had extra work. It's a good system because it rewards both teamwork and individual effort.

As for you other point, well ... when in Rome... We aren't going Communist any time soon, so might as well accept it and work within the system.

Exactly my belief, Garth! Are you reading my mind?

The problem with Communism so far is that it has been too centeralized, i've heard things about a Soviet factory buying equipment 100's of miles away when there was a place to buy the stuff just across town. My ideal is a fusion of free market and worker ownership of property.

[Velociryx]

"Communists are against....interest.....I don't blame them for investing their money."

Uh huh.



-=Vel=-

[Maniac]

and in the second, it's not a diametric position to the original question posed (the diametric position is between Communists and Free Marketeers, not between Pure Free Marketeers and those who favor a range (from mild to some) of Governmental controls

I know that, but some right-wingers seem to call you a communist from the moment you are in favour of a degree of government intervention. To say it with a picture of Tassadar:

Heck, Imran Siddiqui called me a communist a few weeks back, while I'm actually only meritocratic (equal opportunities) and not really socialist (in the sense of "the government simply pays workless people indefinitely instead of providing more jobs"). Though I am of course an "étatist", as I don't trust the "invisible hand" of the free market.
And since some right-wingers call all leftists communists, I thought I'd generalize as well and call all rightists laisser-faire free marketeers.

As to the "accident of birth" thing....I don't buy it. Never have.

I know you don't. We've already had a discussion about that some time ago. IIRC it kind of ended in "Let's agree to disagree." My answer back then was the same as now. You are an exception. I'm pretty sure there are lots of people in the "lower" classes that have similar talents and the same will to get up that you had, but simply didn't have the opportunities. You could then answer that there are such things as student loans, or make a statement like "As long as you work hard enough, you'll end up where you want to.", but many sociological studies contradict those arguments. Those studies say there is a great correlation between the socio-economical status of the oriental family (the family you grew up in) and the procreational family (your own wife and kids). Unless you would claim that all lower class people are lazy, which I hope you don't think since you seem to come from the lower classes yourself, the only explanation I can think of is that there are structural and cultural factors that prevent large social mobility in a society, that prevent lower class people to climb the ladder.

Finally, capitalism has proved to be the most efficient means of allocating resources of any system that's yet come along.

Well I wouldn't say that: it kind of depends in whose hands you want all the resources to end in. But it's certainly the system that has created the biggest technological advancement and raw economical growth, apart then from the period 1930-'40, when the Soviet Union had one of the biggest economical growths ever realized in the world - at a great cost of course.

[Kidlicious]

The West is at a much higher level of technology and productivity than the USSR was then though. Supply is not a problem now and wouldn't in a centrally planned system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


"Communists are against....interest.....I don't blame them for investing their money."

Uh huh.



-=Vel=-

As long as they don't vote for politicians like Bush who want to give tax cuts to investors I don't see a problem with it.

[Dinner]

Gepap: If one is to believe Engles & Marx then communism is all about Community and Equality. Everyone is absolutely equal reguardless of ability. The only criteria is need. "Each according to his needs, each according to his ability" and all that. Once needs are met then everyone must be absolutely equal; thus if someone is less then equal then wealth must be redistributed in order to make them equal. Remember that starving African? Is he equal? No? Then a good communist would work to make him equal by giving arranging for wealth to be given to him until he is equal.

[Velociryx]

Hey again Maniac...

I guess we're still at the "agree to disagree" impasse on the "birth or hard work" question then, but I'll say this on it.

I've seen people who were born into wealthy families squander their wealth and end up with nothing.

I've seen other people who started in my from where I started from, and do worlds better than I have. It's not hard to do when you're at the bottom. Looking up at the relative affluence immediately above you is hugely motivating.

The key difference is that you are arguing from a perspective of "the people in the group we're talking about don't have the same opportunities." and I am saying that capitalism does not guarantee (nor should it) equal opportunity for everyone, but opportunity itself abounds, and is not limited to those with means. It is entirely possible (and in fact, desireable) to create your own opportunities. It's not a matter of luck or birth, it's a matter of determination and hunting for undiscovered opportunity.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Re: Question for communists . . . .

Originally posted by MrFun
How can you consistently claim to be communists if you enjoy various services and products provided by capitalist companies?

Because homelessness and starvation are not a valid alternative to living in a capitalist system.

How can you claim to be gay when you are living in a straight society? If you're gonna be gay, then you must renounce everything straight. (Won't that make driving fun.)

Socialism is about taking capitalism and improving it. When we say we mean to abolish capitalism we don't mean to tear it down. We mean to abolish it the same way an adult abolishes the child, by growing up. Socialism abolishes capitalism by transcending it, building into something bigger and better than itself. The old will be recognizable, but the new will be stronger, smarter, more creative.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The West is at a much higher level of technology and productivity than the USSR was then though. Supply is not a problem now and wouldn't in a centrally planned system.

Then why are people starving?

The world already produces enough food to feed everyone - it's the distribution that sucks.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
As long as they don't vote for politicians like Bush who want to give tax cuts to investors I don't see a problem with it.

So you don't see why providing businesses with access to capital is a good thing? Do you at least conceed that the government should be promoting the creation of jobs so as to provide employment? How then do you propose we go about creating those jobs unless we promote business creation?

[Velociryx]

No no, Oerdin....you've got it all wrong! Commies DO promote business creation....the workers just own them all.

But since they don't believe in interest/rent, then there can be no banking system, so the workers just pull the $500 billion bucks needed for "their" factory out of their collective arses....see?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

The problem with communist dogma is that labor is the holy grail.

Specifically...physical labor. Sweat.

Nothing else counts.

If I touch the shoe and glue the sole on, my labor that went into the shoe is precious, and should rightly count as more of a contribution than the effort and ingenuity that went into arranging the factory's creation in the first place (that ain't work, you see....).

And, when said shoe is created, because my PHYSICAL labor went into its creation, I should get at least 90% of the profits from the shoe (to hell with the guy who worked hard to create the plant....he didn't labor over the shoe!....to hell with the guy who drives the truckload of shoes to the store where consumers can buy them....they're exploiting me if they try to take a cut of the profits).

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Vel, I wonder where you find these ideas. A communist perfectly knows that an enterprise has a variety of jobs, all useful in the production process.

You usually have good comments, but in this thread, you are a bit like the Iraqi Information Minister : "They are lost in the desert ! They can't read a compass ! They are retarded !"

Communism is open to critics, so I think it is sad to resort to this kind of stupidity, which consists in putting words in our mouths.