Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kontiki]

The way I'm understanding Spiffor's view of communism is that you can become wealthy, especially in realtive terms, and have tons of material goods, just as long as none of your wealth is used to facilitate production (except, of course, that which your own consumption drives) or make any additional money for yourself. Am I correct?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
Some property I understand but is my pickup truck productive property?? Does you answer change if I only use it for personal use? How about if I use it to help people move things for a fee??

A commune system would allow you to do that without any problem, considering that you'd be the only worker in your productive venture. It would be fully in accordance to the system.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Ned
This is very, very primitive.

So called 'primitive' may be preferable if 'progression' has been in the wrong direction.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


While I personally see much value in non-monetary incentives, why would they necessarily be better for everyone. If you give someone an extra week off then in theory that's a weeks work that someone else needs to be paid to do. If the person wants the additional pay instead of the extra vacation, where is the harm in giving it to them, if thats what the person wants??

First, they would both be paid the same.

Second, there's something more corrupt about some people having more income than others. It violates that concept of equality. On the other hand if one person gets their work done faster, they should not have to continue working just because someone else isn't working as hard.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Some property I understand but is my pickup truck productive property??

Your pick-up truck is yours, though we'd try and encourage the use of public transportation. Larger pickups, such as those clearly used only for work might well be owned by the state or work collective.

Good but what if I use all my extra free time to work on something else. I mow people's lawns or in vent something of value

What's wrong with that? Most people like being productive. I think this should be encouraged.

. . this allows me to buy a better house and accumulate additional wealth. I assume taht my ability to own "non-productive" things would include the right to pass them on to my children??

Personal items, family heirlooms, etc., I believe should be able to be passed on to children. I'm even of the position that should include a family home, though most Americans don't really have a conception of a multigeneration home anymore. I don't think that a family that's been living in one home for over a hundred years should have to move, because of the death of a particular generation.

Ouch-- so make a necessary but unpopular decision and you are gone eh??

If it's necessary you should either be able to explain it's necessity or stand up for it.

I think that people should be permitted to do the job they were elected to do and absent some threshold of misconduct, a representative should be able to stay in their position

There's definately merit to that position. There is some insulation from "the masses" in that you are beholden only to those who put you in power. So if your state council doesn't like the job you are doing, they are the ones to remove you, not those below them. Presumably, they would be better able to recognize the necessity of some unpopular decisions.

On the other hand, the people need a better way to keep their politicans in check. Voting once every few years and nailing the occassional politician for corruption doesn't seem to do the job.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
3) the central problem with Che's government is that there is no legislature and no judiciary. The people elected decide everything. This is very, very primitive.

I'm not sure that that's what Che is saying, but for me checks and balances are the most important part of any government.

[Lancer]

Ok, I'm out the door. I expect complete agreement on the definition of comunism on my desktop by 6PM pacific time. That gives you almost 9 hours.

Good luck.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
The way I'm understanding Spiffor's view of communism is that you can become wealthy, especially in realtive terms, and have tons of material goods, just as long as none of your wealth is used to facilitate production (except, of course, that which your own consumption drives) or make any additional money for yourself. Am I correct?

You're wrong.

Your company/commune can very well decide to use a part of the profits for further investment, instead of redistributing all profit to the workers (similar to the way the company decides whether re-investing the profit or distributing it to the shareholders in current system).

I'm also favourable to a banking system where you can put your savings, and have a modest real interest out of it.

Finally, you can create your personal company with your savings, if you wish. However, once you have fellow workers in the company, you'll be equal to them in terms of power at the "board of directors".

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


First, they would both be paid the same.

Second, there's something more corrupt about some people having more income than others. It violates that concept of equality. On the other hand if one person gets their work done faster, they should not have to continue working just because someone else isn't working as hard.

Doesn't that assume that every single task that's performed in the entire economy is piece-meal? I mean, isn't there anything at all that might pop up in someone's absence that needs to be taken care of, thereby putting an additional burden on the remaining workers?

[Lancer]

I always enjoyed the fact that communism eliminates corruption.

Hey, does anyone know if Sid is a commie?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Doesn't that assume that every single task that's performed in the entire economy is piece-meal? I mean, isn't there anything at all that might pop up in someone's absence that needs to be taken care of, thereby putting an additional burden on the remaining workers?

I'm just saying that every attempt should be made to make the work load fair. I'm not saying that it's possible for it to be perfectly fair.

[chequita guevara]

Kid and I disagree on how work should be rewarded. I don't have an issue with those working harder, better, or in more necessary or dangersous jobs or jobs which require more training getting more money.

According to Marx, in the 1st stage of communism, aka socialism, much of the social relations of the older forms of society will still remain. Older reward systems will still exist, even as new ones are created. This means that for a period of time, inequality will still exist. It will, however, be mitigated, and as the new forms prove themselves, the old forms will die out. Once that has happened, we will have reached the 2nd stage of communism, where the state has withered away, where money is no longer used, where the level of production is so great that everything is free, where work is reduced. This presupposes a very high level of automation and technology.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'm also favourable to a banking system where you can put your savings, and have a modest real interest out of it.

Why? If the govt has control of resources savings isn't needed. There wouldn't even be a justification for paying interest.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why? If the govt has control of resources savings isn't needed. There wouldn't even be a justification for paying interest.

We aren't going to have communism overnight, comrade. In fact, I'd argue that even if the revolution occurred tomorrow, we wouldn't live to see communism, at least not unless they disover the immortality cure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kid and I disagree on how work should be rewarded. I don't have an issue with those working harder, better, or in more necessary or dangersous jobs or jobs which require more training getting more money.

That's because there are no more or less necessary jobs. If I pick the oranges and you put them on the truck, both of our jobs are just as necessary.

Dangerous jobs ought to be eliminated al together, or made safer, or else no one should have to do more than there share

According to Marx, in the 1st stage of communism, aka socialism, much of the social relations of the older forms of society will still remain. Older reward systems will still exist, even as new ones are created. This means that for a period of time, inequality will still exist. It will, however, be mitigated, and as the new forms prove themselves, the old forms will die out. Once that has happened, we will have reached the 2nd stage of communism, where the state has withered away, where money is no longer used, where the level of production is so great that everything is free, where work is reduced. This presupposes a very high level of automation and technology.

I don't think it has so much to do with social relations as it does economics and politics. I think you can have equal conditions and still have the lingering social relations of the old system. I don't see why not if you've got control of the resources and you can allocate them properly.