Marxist's Apartment A Microcosm of why Marxism Doesn't Work

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's a really old example.

But why is this any different from trying to institute a capitalist society without police to enforce contracts and the like?

In a Capitalistic society we beleive that you shouldn't have to make another contract with the moth******er who breached your other contract. Under Communism, thanks to a State imposed monopoly, you have no choice in the matter and the company has no police to watch them either. I could go on for hours about the inefficiencies and tyrranies of state enforced monopoly, would you like me to? Ironically the Commies here are usually the first to call for anti-trust legislature getting belted out; constantly whining about Microsoft, well, if they called it Commie-Soft and were intergrated as part of the American state, allowing them to force their almost decent product upon us and outlaw competition. Whoopity Dooo! I'm excited about the proposition, next stop: USSA!

You are so narrow minded Aga.

[Shi Huangdi]

It's funny people are gettting their panties all up in a bundle over an article from The Onion.

[mrmitchell]

Communism has much less tolerance for deadbeats, slackers, and no-goods, before it starts to unravel.

[Sandman]

Its from The Onion, Sandman. Its a joke not a scientific study.

Ok.

But I do think the principles are valid and can be 'taken to scale' to show how communism breaks down.

I do not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD


In a Capitalistic society we beleive that you shouldn't have to make another contract with the moth******er who breached your other contract. Under Communism, thanks to a State imposed monopoly, you have no choice in the matter and the company has no police to watch them either. I could go on for hours about the inefficiencies and tyrranies of state enforced monopoly, would you like me to? Ironically the Commies here are usually the first to call for anti-trust legislature getting belted out; constantly whining about Microsoft, well, if they called it Commie-Soft and were intergrated as part of the American state, allowing them to force their almost decent product upon us and outlaw competition. Whoopity Dooo! I'm excited about the proposition, next stop: USSA!

You are so narrow minded Aga.

Not really. You have missed my point. The problem with this flat is that there are no sanctions imposed on free riders. This is because there is no authority to enforce the rules. Same goes for capitalism when there is no central authority to enforce the rules (even though they are different rules). Thomas Hobbes taught everyone this centuries ago.

If you are disagreeing, you are ignoring the plain fact that capitalist societies have an immense legal-bureaucratic structure which keeps track of who owns what and enforces the rules.

Capitalists often think that all you have to do is let free people associate and a workable economy will thereby form. This is completely false - some enforcement of authority is always needed to prevent free riders - that is the central point of Leviathan.

It's narrow minded to forget this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Communism has much less tolerance for deadbeats, slackers, and no-goods, before it starts to unravel.

No way. Those who don't work are the enemies of the people. That is why communists oppose the idea of a leisure class.

[mrmitchell]

No way. Those who don't work are the enemies of the people. That is why communists oppose the idea of a leisure class.

That's exactly what I said! While in capitalism so many deadbeats are okay because they go unsupported and starve, in communism you've got to be all rude and force them to work to begin with.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

That's exactly what I said! While in capitalism so many deadbeats are okay because they go unsupported and starve, in communism you've got to be all rude and force them to work to begin with.

Um... letting people starve isn't just as motivating as being rude and making them work? Besides you wouldn't get paid in a commie state if you didn't work, so it's much the same.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Agathon


No way. Those who don't work are the enemies of the people. That is why communists oppose the idea of a leisure class.

All right, you're an educated man, and I hear that Marxism and Communism are sciences. So maybe you can answer something that I've always been curious about:

Just how many people are in the "leisure class" and precisely how is it defined?

Then, can we compare the stats to the moneied(sp?) "leisure" class (which I assume to be people like JFK Jr before he finally passed his Bar) to the moneied "non-leisure" class (which I assume includes rich people like Bill Gates, who still goes to work for 8-12 hours a day and works many weekends and nights as well) - in short I'm interested in seeing what percentage of people in the monied class are leisured and which are not.

Having done that, can we do the same in regards to the number of poor people who don't work of their own volition viz the number of poor people who do work? It would also be great to do so in regards to a number of wealth classifications: that way we can run some statistical correlations and other crap that GP goes on about to see whether "leisure" is a condition dependant upon "wealth" or just "humanity."

Thanks! I eagerly await your results.

(Oh, can we get some specific names of these leisured people?)

[Agathon]

How would I know exactly how many people are in the leisure class? I'm not a census.

Like a lot of people (not necessarily communists) I object to people who don't work. If you want a concrete definition I suppose it is those people who live solely from rents or gifts and are not retired or juveniles.

[SKILORD]

I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work. You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

And who expects a bunch of students to be able to organize anything useful other than beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests?

Aside from the occupants' rants about how others were behaving and the political rhetoric which were humorous, that was what I kept thinking when reading the article. Sounds like the typical guy's dorm in college ala Animal House. But there is a moral to the story - one of communisms downsides is the valid resentments that build among those who work while others slack off on their dime. Communism can only overcome this by forcing people to work and that ain't freedom..

From the article:

A bulletin board in the kitchen was chosen as the spot for household announcements, and to track reimbursements for common goods like toothpaste and toilet paper.

"Re-imbursements"? You mean these common goods weren't shared "property"? Ouch! There's the moral of the story...

[Berzerker]

I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work.

Bingo!

You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

He's a commie, what did you expect, freedom?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work. You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

I have never ever said that morality is subjective; you must have me confused with someone else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work. You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

This is a moot point.

A person who does not work in a capitalistic society starves to death.