Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[chequita guevara]

Your entire scenario.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, my scenario starts with a group of professionals who get angry that they are being paid as much or nearly as much as an unskilled worker. That's not unrealistic.

As regarding the two options the State can take, do you think there is a third? If so, please tell us.

[chequita guevara]

As I said before, socialism and communism do not equal leveling. Pilots will be paid more than unskilled workers. In State and Revolution, Lenin proposes pay differentals as high as five times what the least paid worker is paid. In other words, if minimum wage is $5/hour, maximum wage is $25/hour.

Each society, however, will have to determine its own rules. At best, all I could do is tell you how I would do it.

[Velociryx]

Yes, but does that not invite....exploitation, or the potential for same? After all, if I'm making more than you, then I'm in a better position to do some good ol' fashioned capitalistic exploitation, non?

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Ok. What if the pilots decide that they aren't being paid enough? They'd strike, just like they do in any society. Unless of course you are going to pay them the amount of money necessary to keep them from striking in the first place. In this case, how is it any different from capitalism? Market forces are STILL at work.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ok. What if the pilots decide that they aren't being paid enough? They'd strike, just like they do in any society.

There are other ways to reward people besides money.

Market forces are STILL at work.

For a while, probably yes. But instead of, as in capitalist society, for the benefit of the capitalists, it will be heavily regulated for the benefit of the workers.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, but does that not invite....exploitation, or the potential for same? After all, if I'm making more than you, then I'm in a better position to do some good ol' fashioned capitalistic exploitation, non?

-=Vel=-

In order to exploit, you must own some means of production If all means of production are socially owned (with the exception of very small businesses which would employ the owner and his/her immediate family), then the fact that you make more doesn't necessitate exploitation.

[Kuciwalker]

There are other ways to reward people besides money.

Not really. Whatever you give them will COST money, so it has the same effect.

For a while, probably yes. But instead of, as in capitalist society, for the benefit of the capitalists, it will be heavily regulated for the benefit of the workers.

The market forces will ALWAYS be at work, and they don't work any differently under communism than under capitalism. Except now, there is ONE employer, who has a monopoly on EVERYTHING. THAT often leads to exploitation.

[axi]

You make the point against your own argument.

I know I do. However my gut feeling is leaning towards the opposite. Coexistance with capitalism is a dead-end for socialism. It either has to corrupt and die, or grow and prevail.

Market forces will not be absent from the first stages of socialism. The pilots will strike if they have to and the political system at that stage will provide a solution, any solution to the problem. The key is that, as socialism progresses, the pilots will have no reason to strike, as the materialistic motives will slowly be abolished.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

There are other ways to reward people besides money.

Not really. Whatever you give them will COST money, so it has the same effect.

Social recognition, preferential treatment, etc. Doesn't cost money.

For a while, probably yes. But instead of, as in capitalist society, for the benefit of the capitalists, it will be heavily regulated for the benefit of the workers.

The market forces will ALWAYS be at work, and they don't work any differently under communism than under capitalism. Except now, there is ONE employer, who has a monopoly on EVERYTHING. THAT often leads to exploitation.

Market forces will only be at work as long as there is a market. The point of socialism is to abolish the market altogether, to reach a level of production where it is silly even to think about charging for things.

As for there only being one employer, you're stuck on thinking about the USSR. It's true, perhaps, that some societies may choose to have a large democratic centralized government which owns everything. On the other hand, it's possible that everything is owned by worker collectives, who make their own decisions about how to run things on an micro level while they get requests from a macro bureaucracy. You don't want to limit possibilities by creating a blue print ahead of time. The people who have the revolution will know better what they need than we do in the past.

[Kuciwalker]

Market forces will not be absent from the first stages of socialism. The pilots will strike if they have to and the political system at that stage will provide a solution, any solution to the problem. The key is that, as socialism progresses, the pilots will have no reason to strike, as the materialistic motives will slowly be abolished.

You mean fundament human nature will change?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You mean fundament human nature will change?

Fundimental human nature is change. Humans are not fundimentally materialistic. We merely happen to live in a society which encourages it and brings it out in people. Many previous human societies have been somewhat anti-materialistic, if not entirely then to a large extent.

[Velociryx]

Vel, Cuba lost out to Puerto Rico on GDP, number of televisions per household, and things lke that. Cuba, however, wins on employment, health care, and education. It's kinda like comparing Canadian taxes to American taxes. Sure, we pay less taxes, but we get so much less for it.

Che, Cuba also lost out in # of miles of paved roads, # of airstrips, internet providers, # of radios, etc. In short, EVERYTHING essential for the thriving of a modern economy. You shoot your own argument in the foot here.

Further, because of the scarcity of resources on this planet and the ballooning population, there will NEVER be, barring some magical replicator machine a la Star Trek, a time when the level of production reaches such a vast point that it becomes silly to charge for goods. By stating that as a pre-requiste for your communist utopia, you relegate the whole theory to science fiction in the world as we know it today. IF we ever have Star Trek-style replicators, then yes, you're quite right, no fundamental shift in basic human instinct will be required, but unless you know of such a technology on the drawing board, the only alternative is to change the nature of the human animal. Barring those two, Communism IS a pipe dream.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Fundimental human nature is change. Humans are not fundimentally materialistic. We merely happen to live in a society which encourages it and brings it out in people. Many previous human societies have been somewhat anti-materialistic, if not entirely then to a large extent.

Fundamental human nature is ADAPTATION. It, however, does not change. Anything else is wishful thinking.

[Kuciwalker]

Market forces will only be at work as long as there is a market. The point of socialism is to abolish the market altogether, to reach a level of production where it is silly even to think about charging for things.

As for there only being one employer, you're stuck on thinking about the USSR. It's true, perhaps, that some societies may choose to have a large democratic centralized government which owns everything. On the other hand, it's possible that everything is owned by worker collectives, who make their own decisions about how to run things on an micro level while they get requests from a macro bureaucracy. You don't want to limit possibilities by creating a blue print ahead of time. The people who have the revolution will know better what they need than we do in the past.

If there is going to be competition, then how is this different from capitalism?

Capitalism is inevitable, because it is the ONLY system that GUARANTEES you will be paid a "fair wage".