Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[Velociryx]

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Kid

My problem with your society was summed up in my experience with a union environment. After about 30 minutes working in a store, the manager called me in and told me to slow down. The central planners at head office had given him a certain staff allocation and if the work was done too quickly, he might lose his staffing quota (his fear is that someone from head office might come by and see all the shelves stocked with hours to go).

Better that than the opposite, being forced to work so fast you burn out and have to quit (such as happens in meat packing plants or UPS). Obviously, we'd prefer a happy medium.

Interestingly, the fact that you are disgusted by it shows the lie to an oft repeated mistruth, that people are inherently lazy. Yes, we are, but we also like to work. Nothing is worse than having nothing to do and having all day to do it (okay, maybe being staked to a red ant mound is worse).

We are creative and laboring creatures. We made ourselves this way, because it was a superior method of procuring food. Those humans that were more creative and worked harder were more likely to increase their numbers, and we evolved over millions of years through this process.

That doesn't mean there aren't those that seek to minimze the amount of work they do, but there are ways to deal with that. A large part of the problem is laziness, but not all of it. I would say an equally large part of the problem is that people feel alienated from their work, don't have any input, don't get any reward, and thus don't have any stake in success.

This, of course, is the criticism leveled against socialism. No carrot and no stick, but this is as far as I'm going in this post. I need to finish sending out resumes and I want to play a little Civ. Later.

[GePap]

And all these threads are a lark, cause eventually, we will end up in a society closer to what Marx envisioned than what anyone in this thread thinks we will look like.

He who laughs last....

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Better that than the opposite, being forced to work so fast you burn out and have to quit (such as happens in meat packing plants or UPS). Obviously, we'd prefer a happy medium.

Yes

Originally posted by chegitz guevara



That doesn't mean there aren't those that seek to minimze the amount of work they do, but there are ways to deal with that. A large part of the problem is laziness, but not all of it. I would say an equally large part of the problem is that people feel alienated from their work, don't have any input, don't get any reward, and thus don't have any stake in success.

This, of course, is the criticism leveled against socialism. No carrot and no stick, but this is as far as I'm going in this post. I need to finish sending out resumes and I want to play a little Civ. Later.

Yes yes yes

I don't tend to think people are inherently lazy. Take my native area of Newfoundland-- If you asked friends over to lay sod or build a fence or jackhamer some old concrete, they would bust a gut. hard working folks all.

Give those folks a system ( in this case unemployment insurance) that rewarded working for a certain number of weeks and colecting benefits for the rest and they were doing it in a second. There were whole communities where the entire economy was directed at earning benefits. If anyone wanted to work beyond the required benefits qualification period . . . well that was unthinkable.

So hardworking folks when working for nothing-- would work a system imposed by the government to get maximum benefit at minimum effort-- thats what I grew up seeing-- the contradiction was always striking to me.

Its fine for those folks if thats what they want--I just wanted more income and more stuff for myself so I worked harder and got out. I've worked hard for the last 10 years (and lets not forget the 7 years of education where I spent money instead of earning it) . . . most of those folks have worked 12-14 weeks a year-- so about 1/4 as much as me. Is it fair to take my stuff and give it to them?? remember we grew up in the same small town, went to the same school and were not appreciably wealthier than anyone else.

[Velociryx]

GePap....I wouldn't hold my breath, but in the end, we shall all find out together.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Well Flubber, you already know what my answer to that question would be...

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GePap
And all these threads are a lark, cause eventually, we will end up in a society closer to what Marx envisioned than what anyone in this thread thinks we will look like.

He who laughs last....

How so??

If you mean that standards for workers in western democracies are already higher than he imagined, I would guess you would be right.

I don't see any problem with it. I don't want any part of the early growing pains of capitalism and am perfectly happy in the current model where workers are free to vote or unionize, change jobs etc etc. That stuff is all good.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
LC - that would ONLY be possible *if* you could even gain access to the Dictator.

If we're still talking about the thief example, then realistically speaking, unless you're just the best cat burglar of all time (in which case, how'd you get caught?!), you'll likely never get within a hundred miles of the person you need to talk to.

Well, perhaps I'm the dictator's favourite advisor, whereas I under a democracy would be in prison for my unusual sexual tastes.

The question remains: How is one system I cannot realistically control forcing me to obey its rules different from another system I cannot realistically control forcing me obey its rules?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well Flubber, you already know what my answer to that question would be...

-=Vel=-

Actually I been thinking I can come out ahead on the deal. If they

1. pay me back for the tuition and books I paid since it should all have been free

2. Give me the state mandated wage for the 7 years of study plus my year of apprenticeship--

Then they could take what I have-- I don't really own much anyway.

Just one question, Do I still get to live in my house or do I have to move into a smaller one? Its probably not "fair" that I have a bigger one but there are many 3 person and less families in even larger homes. Besides moving people around is innefficient and unless you propose to tear down a LOT of houses there will be some existing larger ones and some existing smaller ones. Its unlikley things will match up. If you do do the wholescale moving, do I get a bigger house again when we have another child?


So I have it now-- I get 8 years back wages and then get to keep my house debt free. I give up my stressful job and 60 hour weeks and begin to teach chess as my occupation. I spend all my dough on blatant and useless consumption so I don't cross some threshold for losing stuff through later redistribution.


All this and I don't think I have to exploit anybody.

[Velociryx]

Hey, maybe it can't, LC...and if that works for you, *fantastic* You'll prolly be right at home in Kidatopia.

Good luck, and if you need Flubber and me, we'll be on that aforementioned island...

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Flubber, my friend, you and me....we would fall into what would be called the "Capitalist-Pig-Dog Group." and in truth, we'd be lucky to survive the Revolution/Counter-Revolution festivities.

If we did, I'm sure our enlightened masters would consider it quite "fair enough" that we were allowed to continue to draw a breath (if they were even that charitable...which would be very much up in the air).

Assuming we did get to live tho....we'd be second class citizens, almost certainly. (Maybe fourth class citizens....Planners (elite party members), Party Members, Non-Party Members, Surviving Capitalist-Pig-Dogs?) And subject to greater-than-the-normal invasions of privacy so that the Great Fathers could check up on us and ensure that we weren't trying to reinvent the banned system and/or willingly exploit each other to begin to get ahead, and thus, style ourselves as the new elite.

All that to say...I wouldn't bet on getting a tuition refund or keeping your house.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Vel

read my post before yours-- if they give me whats fair retroactively , by their Kid's own definitions, I could have too sweet a life to leave.

Well at least I would wait until I had completed my stint of blatant and useless consumption

vel you do understand that Mrs. Flubber and little Flubber are coming on this trip too. To be "fair" please feel free to bring along the companion of your choice

Now Vel-- are we agreed our island will be a democracy? the first order should be a name . . . you're the writer so I would defer to you if you wish etc etc.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Flubber, my friend, you and me....we would fall into what would be called the "Capitalist-Pig-Dog Group." and in truth, we'd be lucky to survive the Revolution/Counter-Revolution festivities.

-=Vel=-

Now now, we were told they would be "fair"

[David Floyd]

Vel,

Well, while I generally agree with you on most points, we're far apart on the question of democracy.

I agree with nearly everything in your last post, save for (of course) the last bit re: dictatorship, because for the life of me, I CANNOT get my brain to accept that a dictator knows better than a representative of my choosing what is best for me, and that's really what it comes down to.

Why should a dictator OR a representative be able to decide "what is best for you"? Isn't that what you've been arguing against for the past 800 posts? You're the only one who should decide what is best for you.

My view of government is that it's powers should be strongly limited, to the degree where the government simply acts to protect the individual from coercion (yes, a couple of other things, but all stemming from that main concern). In that context, it's irrelevant whether the head of state calls himself "Comrade" or "President", and whether he is elected or rules by the Divine Right of Kings, because his power to impose his will on you is non-existent.

Now, the natural objection is that a dictator could simply order the army to enforce his will. Ignoring the point that it would impossible, in my system, to afford a standing army large enough to do so, the system is also governed by checks and balances. What's to stop President Bush from ordering the army to crush the Democrats? Well, theoretically he could, I suppose, but the American system was, and is, designed to prevent that. I doubt the military would even obey such an order.

Now, I'm not going to flesh out my preferred system much more than that, but the point I'm making is simply that if you find a way to limit the power of the government, then the method of selection for the head of state and the people in the government is irrelevant. Naturally, finding a way to limit the government's power is the hard part, but assuming that power can be limited enough, then the "democracy vs. dictator" argument becomes sorta irrelevant, in my opinion.

[Velociryx]

Is it little Flubber, or little Flubette?

Democracy it shall be! I nominate Master Flubber to be the Island's first President, and hereby table a motion that we adopt the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as our founding documents, to give us a firm footing (Bring a copy of Robert's Rules of Order too...or I will, if they don't get confiscated on the way out).

Seems to me that if we are to survive in the long term, we must find others...our numbers are too thin, at present, to permit us to last much beyond a generation. I've got the Gypsy Harem girls I can easily enough persuade tho, to join us on a little island adventure....

As to a name....I give you a menu of pertinant choices....select whichever one you feel would best define us, Mr. President:

Liberty

Hope

Defiant

and last but not least....

'Tater Knob



-=Vel=-