Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ell_man
As long as we're talking utopia, here's mine:

That's utopia?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you think making capitalists richer is good for the economy why do you call yourself a communist?

I'm a socialist, not a communist. The only reason why I use the word "Communist" is only because I'm a member of the Communist party.

I consider that the main cause for the blatant income inequality in today's societies is because the capitalists control the means of production. If control was in the hands of the workers, the workers would definitely not agree with the huge income disparities decided by their self-serving owners.

The main reason why I'm socialist instead of a social-democrat (I was a social democrat earlier in my political background) is because in a social democracy, the great equalizer is the State. As soon as the social-democratic State weakens, income disparity resumes. This is what we're witnessing in the European countries.

A commune system would be a system where income unequality is directly dealt with the first concerned (the workers), instead of being managed by the State.

I actually fancy thinking of a realistic economic system, where the people would be better off. This involves a dose of pragmatism. Since wealth doesn't grow on trees, you have to find a way so that wealth goes from its owners to those who need it to invest it.

There are two ways to do so: 1. tax the hell out of people, so that they can't have their life savings, but instead, all the savings are in the hands of the State. I see it as a terrible, punitive idea. It would fit Kidicious prime, but it wouldn't fit a humane society. At least not durng my lifetime. Or 2. Allow the people to save money, and make these savings available as a source of capital for other people willing to invest in something productive.

My main aim with my platform is a better wealth distribution, while keeping enough incentive to create wealth in the first place (the wealth creation bout is something many Commies don't think about enough). The secondary aim is empowerment (empowerment is a primary means tho).

As for the comment "I'm a socialist, not a commie", it's simple. Let's look at Lenin's policies when he tolerated some dose of capitalism for Russia's economic reconstruction. He thought it as a transitional state, in order to reach communism. I OTOH, don't believe in communism, I don't want to reach it. I'm perfectly OK with such a "transitional" economy. If a functional socialist economy means that there is a little niche for capitalists, then so be it. In my society, the capitalist plunder of wealth produced by others will be marginal. Much better than in today's world, where it's the universal law.

[Spiffor]

Vel:
Very quickly: I don't think that a seasonal employee must necessarily have the rights an associate (read: a long term co-worker) will enjoy. I can't say where to draw the line precisely, but my gut feeling would be that 3-6 months would be sufficient. This idea would certainly need tweaking, with regard to how coops work: in short, I'll have a right answer when I'll know precisely what I'm talking about

However, the rights of associates vs. seasonal employees should be stated by the law, and not by contract.

[Lancer]

Obviously I should have named this thread..'define communism in 10 words or less'.

Three pages of this...don't you commies have jobs?

[Spiffor]

No we don't

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There are two ways to do so: 1. tax the hell out of people, so that they can't have their life savings, but instead, all the savings are in the hands of the State. I see it as a terrible, punitive idea. It would fit Kidicious prime, but it wouldn't fit a humane society. At least not durng my lifetime. Or 2. Allow the people to save money, and make these savings available as a source of capital for other people willing to invest in something productive.

You got it wrong. I'm not like that. Why not just give them an income when they retire? They don't need to save their money.

[Lancer]

Spif, I made $25 in tips driving the casino bus today. Maybe you should be a driver...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Further, it begs the question, "What IS productive property, exactly?" Oh yes, we know all about factories and mines and such, but most anything can be considered "productive property" when you think about it.

I'm a writer. My "production" can be generated with: paper, pens, pencils, crayons, magic markers, sharpies, computers, word processors, printers, ink cartridges, cd burners, cd's, paperclips, the back of envelopes, notebooks, paper grocery bags....the list is nearly endless! All of these things are to be considered the property of the state? That'll be quite an undertaking to keep track of, I must say!

You're taking Che's and others' proposals to an unreasonable extreme. I'm sure that what they mean by "productive property" that cannot be legally privately owned, only concerns types of productive property where massive amount of capital is required for investment and a certain level of workers.



I hardly think that envelopes, crayons, and such would fall under this, if I'm correct on what Che and others mean by "productive property."

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, or clarify something that I muddied up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lancer
Obviously I should have named this thread..'define communism in 10 words or less'.

Three pages of this...don't you commies have jobs?

No, but I have one more final tomorrow. I probably will study a bit soon.

[Lancer]

'Final exams' There's always another exam.

[chequita guevara]

MrFun is correct.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun



You're taking Che's and others' proposals to an unreasonable extreme. I'm sure that what they mean by "productive property" that cannot be legally privately owned, only concerns types of productive property where massive amount of capital is required for investment and a certain level of workers.



I hardly think that envelopes, crayons, and such would fall under this, if I'm correct on what Che and others mean by "productive property."

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, or clarify something that I muddied up.

You should be able to own anything for personal use, like pencils and such. You just can't use it for exploiting people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
MrFun is correct.

Good -- now if I missed where Vel replied already to someone else who posted something similar to what I posted, I will look for it.





But if he hasn't he has yet to reply!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You got it wrong. I'm not like that. Why not just give them an income when they retire? They don't need to save their money.

I agree with a state-funded retirement system (I actually think that a private system taxes the economy just as much, but that it only gives a decent old age to the rich and the middle class)

Well, people save all the time when they make more cash than they immediately need. It can be because they want to buy their house, because they want to buy a car, because they want to travel once they retire, whatever. Or they can save in order to continue living in the same satandards of living after they retire (if they're living large, it's unlikely that the public retirement system pays them with as much money as they're used to spend)

In any case, these savings, on a scale as large as a State, can be a serious source of capital for investment. The question is how it is transmitted to those who need capital (i.e to the companies that invest). Today's capitalism uses the stock market to do that. Yestrday's capitalism used banks. I suggest a State bank.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I agree with a state-funded retirement system (I actually think that a private system taxes the economy just as much, but that it only gives a decent old age to the rich and the middle class)

Well, people save all the time when they make more cash than they immediately need. It can be because they want to buy their house, because they want to buy a car, because they want to travel once they retire, whatever. Or they can save in order to continue living in the same satandards of living after they retire (if they're living large, it's unlikely that the public retirement system pays them with as much money as they're used to spend)

In any case, these savings, on a scale as large as a State, can be a serious source of capital for investment. The question is how it is transmitted to those who need capital (i.e to the companies that invest). Today's capitalism uses the stock market to do that. Yestrday's capitalism used banks. I suggest a State bank.

You're going to need capital for capitalism, but you don't need it for communism. All you need to do is prepare for people retiring. Identify changes in demographics and plan accordingly.