Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

What does that have to do with paying people for putting money in the bank even if its not needed. In the capitalist system savings is required for investment. In a planned economy you just have to plan investment and command the resources.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
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.

I'd say being a doctor or a teacher is more important than being an orange picker (though in actuality, oranges aren't picked, they're shaken loose and fall into the trucks--I'm required to know this because I live in Florida).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What does that have to do with paying people for putting money in the bank even if its not needed. In the capitalist system savings is required for investment. In a planned economy you just have to plan investment and command the resources.

Because it's not going to be a completely command economy right away. The market will still exist for some time. The working class needs expereince managing the economy before it can start changing it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'd say being a doctor or a teacher is more important than being an orange picker (though in actuality, oranges aren't picked, they're shaken loose and fall into the trucks--I'm required to know this because I live in Florida).

Not if you already have enough doctors and teachers. Then orange picker is more necessary. The only way to measure necessity is based on supply. There's no other way to say whether one profession is more necessary than the other, and I don't think they are. Doctors need to eat just like the orange picker needs to go to the doctor.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because it's not going to be a completely command economy right away. The market will still exist for some time. The working class needs expereince managing the economy before it can start changing it.

Eh phooey. The market is going to colapse and command will be necessary. The biggest mistake we could ever make is going back to a free market. You aren't going to be able to make the command economy work unless you get in there and do it.

[chequita guevara]

I'm not a maximalist. Lenin was correct, gradual is the way to go.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

so what do you do with workers, such as myself, who refuse to give up my stuff to the commune/state?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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".

Hmmm....let's see if I'm understanding now:

Implicit in the ability to decide to reinvest profits is the ability to decide not to, or some mix of the two. So, a successful company/commune can indeed make it's workers quite wealthy. Which is what I said in the first place.

Your banking system is interesting - is it just a half-way step like Che proposes? Because otherwise it seems like capitalism personified - making money solely off of lending (investing) capital.

And are all companies required to be partnerships? I can't see why anyone would be the only person to risk their savings when every other person working in the company has an equal say in how those savings are used.

[chequita guevara]

We'll give you choices. You can emigrate. You can be ostracized. You can go to prison. Whatever. What do you do now when the capitalist state takes your stuff? You give in, cuz you don't want to go to prison. Why should it be different with us? But if you refuse to help maintain society, society has every right to refuse to let you partake of its benefits.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
is it just a half-way step like Che proposes?

Remember that Spiffy and I don't agree on everything. I'd consider it a half-step.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Remember that Spiffy and I don't agree on everything. I'd consider it a half-step.

Which is probably why I asked him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Verres


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

Progression has been towards the rule of law. Merely electing your dictators who are not bound by law is primitive by any measure.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

What about the rule of law?

[Japher]

(Great, Lancer. You wound up the dynamic trio of Ned, Che, and Kid for yet another grudge match )

[Ned]

Japher, communists, socialists are trying to invent a form of society where economic outcomes are equal. That is the one common thing among them. But, as they try to invent their system, it becomes full of contradictions that are easily skewered by any half intelligent person.

But, what in my mind distinguishes communists from socialists is this issue of democracy. Communists are not democratic. A communist who says he is democratic either is a liar or a socialist in my book.