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

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep, an anarchist revolution is clearly much more likely.

I agree.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel

So this is wrong?

Yes, because then you can accumulate much more wealth than what you actually need to live even a luxurious life, wealth that could be spent on building roads, building optical cables, training teachers and scientists...

I don't buy your argument one bit.

Has it ever occurred to you the rich end up paying the most taxes even in a capitalist state?

And so, people should be punished if they succeed? Your argument is no good.

And keep your revolutionary B.S for some other country.. the people in the US won't buy it. Perhaps the DRC or Zimbabwe would be a place for you to start a little revolution?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


There is 2.6 billion people in the US now

Oops, looks like I discovered another Intel floating point error.

[Az]

DOUBLE POST.

[Az]

Skywalker:

Azazel (for that matter, any of the communists here) - do you agree that people have a right to property? I'm curious.

I thought we agreed that our goal isn't preserving libertarian "rights", but trying to better life for everyone.

a) The workers CAN own the means of production. The difference is that they're not the only ones who can. They do not have a monopoly on the possibility of ownership

I don't believe in "the workers" bull****. You can take it up with Ramo. I don't think that "workers" will be any less self-interesant than a single owner.

b) Who, exactly, should decide if he "deserves" the high salary? Would that not be the people who buy his product? (ie - if TONS of people buy from him, then it's prolly got a lot to do with the fact that he's either got a really good product, or a really good marketing staff that convinces people they just can't live without what he's selling) - in either of those cases, his salary is fully deserved, because the people buying his stuff have voted with their wallets. Note that robber barrons who take too much for themselves invariably lead their companies to ruin, and thus, cut off the source of further wealth for themselves. It's a short-sightedness that invariably leads to less than they could have otherwise attained, and the problem is ENTIRELY self-correcting in a market-driven economy.

If a person has a concept of a product, he can offer it to the management of various factories that produce products in the same field, and the company will launch it, if it will have demand from other manufacturers, service-providers, or consumers. In all cases there are procedures to test possibility for such demand, that have nothing to do with who owns the company. There is a CEO, and he will decide on that.

Wage earners ARE capitalists (or rather, they are if allowed to be, and in capitalist-oriented economies, EVERYONE is allowed to be) - much is made of the sweatshops in third world countries, and yes, that's a blight. It's also not the responsible of Nike or Westinghouse to set laws in their countries, and those sweatshops would disappear very quickly IF those nations where they currently are would pass appropriate laws governing worker treatment. Every capitalist nation went through the EXACT same process. We had sweatshops here in this country a hundred years ago. The sweatshops are not the fault of the companies doing business there, but rather the governments (elected or otherwise) of the nations they are established in! The ONLY people who can effect change in those countries are....guesses? If you said "the people who live there" you guessed right! Only by petitioning their governments to pass laws modelled after the ones in more developed capitalist countries can lasting change be effected. Companies will get away with what you let them. So will you or I, and that's true whether you live in commie land or a market-oriented society.

How is that relevant? Even in a properly functioning market economy, the wealth differences are staggering. The crap going on in 3rd world countries is another wrong. The development of "developing" countries, is another issue, that I haven't adressed yet. We're talking about countries that have some infrastructure.

The worker in the factory is a microcosm of capitalistic enterprise in and of himself. If you don't see that, then you lack a basic understanding of modern economics.

then why is he taxed differently? Seriously, there are parallels, but there are many differences.

c) Influence IS given by the people (again, who vote with their wallets) - and individual effort is what maintains it (or not, as is often the case of the 2nd generation rich, who squander daddy's fortune in a great many cases).

Except the "voting" with wallets part, I fully agree! I believe in personal responsibility.

d) Again, who defines "astronomical" You? A panel of randomly chosen people off the street? Who? The market makes those decisions with cunning efficiency....far, far better than any panel could, no matter how well informed or intentioned.

depends when. Is it an employee? A manager? a CEO?

"the market makes those decisions with cunning efficiency" is bull. There are plenty of examples in British finance, for example.

Moreover, do you trust a government to be efficient or benevolent? I don't. I do trust in people's greed, however. It's a lot easier to channel it into something effective than to try and get rid of it.

don't trust the fire dept. when they'll rescue you from your burning home. They want to send you to a secret concentration camp, and then draft you to the army.


JohnT:

So? Take the aggregate $955 billion that the top 400 richest Americans own and divide it amongst the American population and you have destroyed a social order thousands of years in the making... for a mere $357.14 per person. Good going!

some dodgy math here . However, if you drop the amount of wealth earned by the top 1 percentil by 50% overall, with a fluidly progressive tax, it won't make any people poor, or harm their lifestyle severely. You could with that cash, provide an honest wage for plenty of people, education for all that get through the educational cut, and free healthcare.

No, you answered it assuming that I was just going to accept your implicit assumption that your University is not a consumable resource that benefits you to the tens of thousands of dollars a year, despite how much you pay in tuition. You could sacrifice your college education to help a scholarship winner from Mozambique - why not?

The result being either of us getting an education. I don't think I am worth less as a person than he does. But by stopping some rich dude's girlfriend from buying another couple of pairs of shoes, or 5th Benz, we could've sent him to college.

I've adressed most of your other points by replying to Vel, except this:

.c. A fundamental misunderstanding of the use of power. Authority is taken and fought for... not given to. In my life, the very fact that I have told the world that I am in charge of my little part of it (by starting/taking over my companies) gives me the right to influence the economic future of the world in my own small way - it isn't something just granted somebody by some nebulous force, rather it is a responsibility assumed.

However, not very many people want that sort of authority and even of those who do, even fewer are good at it.

That's why people will RUN for offices, and take part in tenders and interviews. They will progress, and they will show their willpower. But they will contribute more to society during the process, though they'll still have more than enough to enjoy it themselves.

[JohnT]

some dodgy math here

See above re: "Intel Floating Point Error."

[Flubber]

If SOME wealth distribution is all you want to accomplish, this is possible by closing loopholes on most wealth transfer or inheritence taxes. The only problem is that these measures are little understood by the general population and the wealthy have the best lawyers and accountants to help them utilize these loopholes.

Personally I believe in " capitalism with a net". I don't mind that much that taxes are somewhat progressive but have often thought that a "flatter" tax system with less available deductions would be more efficient at taxing the super rich.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Skywalker:

Azazel (for that matter, any of the communists here) - do you agree that people have a right to property? I'm curious.

I thought we agreed that our goal isn't preserving libertarian "rights", but trying to better life for everyone.

I don't recall this... ironically, this is one of the quotes 'Poly gave me a few pages ago:

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom;
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it
will lose that, too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham

a) The workers CAN own the means of production. The difference is that they're not the only ones who can. They do not have a monopoly on the possibility of ownership

I don't believe in "the workers" bull****. You can take it up with Ramo. I don't think that "workers" will be any less self-interesant than a single owner.

What is wrong with self-interest? Moreover, don't the workers own the means of production under communism? Isn't communism the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

If a person has a concept of a product, he can offer it to the management of various factories that produce products in the same field, and the company will launch it, if it will have demand from other manufacturers, service-providers, or consumers. In all cases there are procedures to test possibility for such demand, that have nothing to do with who owns the company. There is a CEO, and he will decide on that.

Why should someone bother to think up ideas for things if they won't be rewarded for it?

How is that relevant? Even in a properly functioning market economy, the wealth differences are staggering. The crap going on in 3rd world countries is another wrong. The development of "developing" countries, is another issue, that I haven't adressed yet. We're talking about countries that have some infrastructure.

Again, how is an unequal distribution of wealth bad?

The worker in the factory is a microcosm of capitalistic enterprise in and of himself. If you don't see that, then you lack a basic understanding of modern economics.

then why is he taxed differently? Seriously, there are parallels, but there are many differences.

"Workers" aren't taxed differently from "capitalists". Level of taxation is solely determined by income (it goes UP ) (not talking about property tax here, which isn't relevant)

c) Influence IS given by the people (again, who vote with their wallets) - and individual effort is what maintains it (or not, as is often the case of the 2nd generation rich, who squander daddy's fortune in a great many cases).

Except the "voting" with wallets part, I fully agree! I believe in personal responsibility.

How do you disagree with "voting with your wallets"?

depends when. Is it an employee? A manager? a CEO?

Huh?

"the market makes those decisions with cunning efficiency" is bull. There are plenty of examples in British finance, for example.

The government has a MUCH worse track record. Plus, how can an inefficient and unprofitable company survive? It can't, unless it is subsidised.

Moreover, do you trust a government to be efficient or benevolent? I don't. I do trust in people's greed, however. It's a lot easier to channel it into something effective than to try and get rid of it.

don't trust the fire dept. when they'll rescue you from your burning home. They want to send you to a secret concentration camp, and then draft you to the army.

That came out of nowhere. No one BUT the government can provide certain services. However, the inefficiency of the American government is legendary

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


#1, If America goes communist, it'd be rather likely most of the world had already gone communist. We're the strong link in the chain, not the weak link.

I doubt it. It's when the middle class stands in the bread lines that we will have a revolution. It doesn't matter how many underdeveloped nations go communist. They will never be able to stand up to the capitalist developed nations.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The revolutionaries who lead the charge will, of course, NEED to establish a central planning authority to maintain control in the early days, and to round up all the capitalist pigdogs.

Yes!

Too bad I'm not looking for sig material right now.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The central flaw in supply-side economics is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that corporations are virtuous, that corporations having monopolized the wealth of the world, will let some trickle down to their employees and consumers.

Communism assumes that people are virtuous? Have you read Marx?

[Kidlicious]

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

The middle class will never revolt. As Spiffor has already said the middle class have more to lose than their chains. That is what prevents revolution, not propaganda or any of the other reasons stated.

Capitalism is significantly unstable though. It is certain that atleast one more crash will occur. The recovery from the last crash was the special case. The circumstances have changed. WW2 can never be repeated. If there is a WW3 it will not stimulate a recovery. It will be fought with expensive intelligent weapons instead of tanks and battleships.

[MOBIUS]

Why don't you commies get real and realise that communism is an idealistic anachronism way past it's sell by date?

Design me some non selfish, non greedy humans and get back to me - till then, please give it a rest!

[Kuciwalker]

I doubt it. It's when the middle class stands in the bread lines that we will have a revolution. It doesn't matter how many underdeveloped nations go communist. They will never be able to stand up to the capitalist developed nations.

By definition, the middle class wouldn't stand in bread lines.

Capitalism is significantly unstable though. It is certain that atleast one more crash will occur. The recovery from the last crash was the special case. The circumstances have changed. WW2 can never be repeated. If there is a WW3 it will not stimulate a recovery. It will be fought with expensive intelligent weapons instead of tanks and battleships.

Communism has had multiple crashes that EVEN war has not given it the ability to recover.