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

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
Really, so if I starve someone to death, it is starvation that kills them and not me.

What about negligence?

You really don't want to go down this road.

Ugh, I know where you are going, and I think its dumb, so I'll take a stroll down irrational commie lane.

If I choose not to put food in my mouth I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to go to the cupboard and get that food I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If i choose not to go shopping for groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to get a job to afford groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself.

Though of course the response is groceries should be given to everyone by a guy in a kakki jumpsuit with a handlebar mustasche. Kinda like an evil Santa Claus. And of course I can't be blamed for not bringing the food to my mouth, obviously some oppressive capitalist is (through some vague and indirect means) preventing me from doing so, so evil Santa Claus must create a feeder corps. Effective to stop extremely lazy people from starving and a jobs program all rolled into one! Brilliant!

Point? Oh hell, don't bother me about a point, I'm wandering down Commie road at 1:30 in the morning when I'm too groggy to make any decent arguments besides witty, directionless rants. I was warned not to walk down this road, but I underestimated my sleepiness and ignored the warning.

So I'll quit while I'm ahead...or behind...or totally sleepy and confused. Let me end with these final words of groggy wisdom... Die Commie Scum!

Though of course I don't want anyone to die, just uh.. take a nap or something. Ah.. a nap. I'm going to sleep now. Night all.

[Ted Striker]

Man, I really really don't understand this fascination that some westerners have with being wannabe Commies! How many more examples of failure do you need to see? Are you guys just trying to be different?

And "example country XYZ wasn't an example of TRUE COMMUNISM" doesn't cut it!

[Drake Tungsten]

Being raised in the 80's, I hate commies with a passion, like all real Americans should. I've noticed that people younger than I, however, don't seem to have been brought up to hate commies with the proper fervor. It seems the defeat of communism in the Cold War, while great, has removed the reality of communist rule from the public eye and created a generation who don't really understand how completely evil communism is. These naive saps seem to revel in their support for leftist and communist policies, something that in the past was limited to the moronic and smelly hippy fringe. I don't know what the reasons are for this continued belief in communism, but it scares me that this many people could still believe in such a failed and evil ideology.

[Berzerker]

UR -

Just because such charities has always existed within a capitalistic society does not mean that it is an intrinsic component of capitalism. I am not aware of any theorists advocating this.

Such charities had been in existence long before capitalism.

You can't disconnect what is inherent to being human from the economic systems devised by humans, unless of course people don't have the wealth to be charitable (communism) or they are punished for being charitable. Capitalism allows for charity by allowing people to accumulate wealth and allowing them to give it away.

Agathon -

This doesn't matter, since "work or starve" is a form of punishment - a communist system could use that as its form of worker motivation and be no different from capitalism in that respect.

Aside from the fact the largest man-made, mass starvations occured under Stalin and Mao trying to "motivate" farmers to "join" the new system, the capitalist doesn't pass a law forbidding me from growing or buying food. If I don't want their food, they walk away. The communist kills me and takes my food...

It most certainly is not, since there is no such thing as a "natural punishment".

It would be illogical to say the nature that gave us life "punishes" us, but if I refuse to work and starve because nature makes demands upon me, that isn't your fault unless you restrain me from eating. But according to you, it is your fault if you don't feed me with your own food. And the communist solution? Force me to work. What happens if I refuse? The gulag? Execution? The capitalist may be "guilty" of allowing me to starve (if in fact he does allow me to starve), but at least he doesn't kill me for not working.

Ozzy -

work or starve is a natural "punishment", work or be sent to the gulag is not.

The communists aren't getting that.

chegitz -

Oh, and all those millions of people starvnig to death every year in the capitalist 3rd world are really not starving to death?

Capitalist 3rd world? Can you document this?

Templar -

More likely -

Captialist solution: threaten to fire non-unionized workers who do not meet quota.

Just a different sort of whip.

So you go find a new job and boycott your former employer and tell others. What happens under communism if you raise a fuss? A real whip? My God, how you guys can even compare the two is ridiculous.

Odin -

Reagan not allowing airline employees to strike is an example of the evils of capitalism.

Yeah, it's so evil for people to be fired for walking off the job. Nope, businesses should just go bankrupt instead so even more people lose their jobs.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yeah, it's so evil for people to be fired for walking off the job. Nope, businesses should just go bankrupt instead so even more people lose their jobs.

Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power.

If the airlines couldn't hire enough scabs, and if they couldn't reach a speedy and satisfactory agreement with their workers then they should suffer the economic consequences. The free market will handle it. If companies go under then everyone looses, and I would hope both the executives and the workers realize that. It is not in the best interests of the workers to destroy their company cause then they are out of a job. Its also not in their best interest to create public antagonism toward unions cause that'll weaken the future of their organization.

The military should not be running commercial airline companies. Its unconstitutional and amounts to corporate welfare.

Unions are the perfect, non-government and non-coercive regulation on the excesses of big business. The horrors of capitalism that communists always talk about simply won't happen in a unionized world. I think all industries should be unionized.

As long as the strikers aren't violent toward the scabs and the companies aren't violent toward the strikers, its a perfect system. Same with consumer boycotts. This is how capitalism regulates itself.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Ugh, I know where you are going, and I think its dumb, so I'll take a stroll down irrational commie lane.

If I choose not to put food in my mouth I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to go to the cupboard and get that food I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If i choose not to go shopping for groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself. If I choose not to get a job to afford groceries I starve and have no one to blame but myself.

Though of course the response is groceries should be given to everyone by a guy in a kakki jumpsuit with a handlebar mustasche. Kinda like an evil Santa Claus. And of course I can't be blamed for not bringing the food to my mouth, obviously some oppressive capitalist is (through some vague and indirect means) preventing me from doing so, so evil Santa Claus must create a feeder corps. Effective to stop extremely lazy people from starving and a jobs program all rolled into one! Brilliant!

Point? Oh hell, don't bother me about a point, I'm wandering down Commie road at 1:30 in the morning when I'm too groggy to make any decent arguments besides witty, directionless rants. I was warned not to walk down this road, but I underestimated my sleepiness and ignored the warning.

So I'll quit while I'm ahead...or behind...or totally sleepy and confused. Let me end with these final words of groggy wisdom... Die Commie Scum!

Though of course I don't want anyone to die, just uh.. take a nap or something. Ah.. a nap. I'm going to sleep now. Night all.

You misunderstood me. Identifying responsibility with causality leaves out all sorts of cases of negligence. People have this dream that if they didn't do anything they aren't responsible. I mean that's dumb - my forgetting to put on the parking brake is me failing to do something, but my failure can result in death or injury.

Trying to say that "work or starve" is somehow different from "work or be flogged" commits the same fallacy.

[SKILORD]

Brilliant post Ozzy.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Brilliant post Ozzy.

My witty but slightly incoherant post from last night or my discussion of unions from today?

[OzzyKP]

Agathon, I don't discount negligence, but it has to be more than an indirect connection. If I am trusted with the care of someone who is incapable or has diminished capacity to take care of themselves then I have a positive responsibility to act. For example if I'm taking care of a young child or crippled adult.

In this case however the relation is very direct. I am understood by all parties to be sustaining someone in need. The question becomes how this responsibility is handled when that understanding is lacking. If I see an injured person on the side of the road am I obligated to help? Morally, most deffinately. Legally...I dunno.

This idea also becomes muddy when we try to decide who has the capacity to take care of themselves. No doubt I'd put many more people in that category than you would.

[Ned]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power.

If the airlines couldn't hire enough scabs, and if they couldn't reach a speedy and satisfactory agreement with their workers then they should suffer the economic consequences.

Ozzie, this post seems to suggest that you believe air traffic controllers were somehow working for the airlines. In fact they were working for the US government. I also believe that they were prohibited by law from striking against the US government.

Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States? This is not a private matter between two private entities negotiating fair wages or fair working conditions. What the union was proposing to do was an assault on America itself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Now think about this. Should any union have a right to strike against the people of the United States?

When the government broke the contract, what recourse did the union have? If the people of the US make a contract with you and they break, why should you still be exected to uphold your end of the contract?

[Az]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


When the government broke the contract, what recourse did the union have? If the people of the US make a contract with you and they break, why should you still be exected to uphold your end of the contract?

Actually, Che, this is NOT an easy question.

What about union strikes to get higher wages?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Agathon, I don't discount negligence, but it has to be more than an indirect connection. If I am trusted with the care of someone who is incapable or has diminished capacity to take care of themselves then I have a positive responsibility to act. For example if I'm taking care of a young child or crippled adult.

In this case however the relation is very direct. I am understood by all parties to be sustaining someone in need. The question becomes how this responsibility is handled when that understanding is lacking. If I see an injured person on the side of the road am I obligated to help? Morally, most deffinately. Legally...I dunno.

But it isn't a legal question. If we are talking about which is the just system to institute then questions of morality will be prior to questions of law. Otherwise, we have no way of comparing the situations since each system will have its own laws.

All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation.

[David Floyd]

Well I dunno Berz. We shouldn't be supporting what Reagan did, and it isn't part of capitalism. I support unions, and I think they are totally compatible and necessary for capitalism. Using the power of the state to break unions is an abuse of government power.

Now wait a second. You are right - the government shouldn't be the arbiter of who is hired and fired, unless they are the actual employer. Now, you can argue that the government was the employer of the air traffic controllers, but I think most Libertarians would agree that government shouldn't be involved in that kind of thing.

But in general? There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing workers who walk off the job.

[David Floyd]

All I am claiming so far is that offering someone the choice to work or starve is just as coercive as actively threatening harm to get them to work. In each case the demander has the power over the situation.

Sorry, this isn't a proper example. An employer doesn't offer someone the choice of working or starving. Nature offers us the choice of eating or starving. If one can grow enough food on his own to avoid starving, he doesn't need a job (this ignores the fact that he already has one - farming).

Now, let's say a potential employer enters the picture. He tells the farmer that if he comes to work at "the company" (wherever), then the farmer will be paid a certain wage, with which he can buy food to avoid starving. The employer isn't telling the farmer that if he doesn't take the job his only option is to starve - he'll only starve if he doesn't eat. But his food supply is no one's problem but his own - the employer is just offering him an alternative to farming.

I suppose you could argue that the fact that one must work in order to produce his own food means that the choice is between working and starving. That's correct, but this is a natural example of "work or starve" and it has nothing to do with your implied example of working a 9-5 job at the office. No one is imposing that choice, that choice just IS, and calling the choice "eat or starve" makes a whole lot more sense in terms of semantics. In fact, if we called it that on a regular basis, we wouldn't even have this argument - I would bring it up, and you would say, very sarcastically, "Oh really?".