Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not true, you just don't follow your model when you get the oportunity.

As shocking as this may be to some, I used to think of things along your line when I was 15-16. Even now I don't see the problem with providing somewhat for those who are supporting the system. The problem is that communism has no mechanism for not providing for those not supporting the system, which is why so many don't support it when they are in it.

Yes-- In a counntry like Canada, you often see systemic use and abuse of the social safety nets-- people that know every intricacy of the unemployment insurance and job training programs and who work just enough to qualify for the next program.

My fear is that any communist system would be an expansion of these entitlements

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not true, you just don't follow your model when you get the oportunity.

As shocking as this may be to some, I used to think of things along your line when I was 15-16. Even now I don't see the problem with providing somewhat for those who are supporting the system. The problem is that communism has no mechanism for not providing for those not supporting the system, which is why so many don't support it when they are in it.

I don't know why so many people think that this has been the problem with past experiences. There have been so many other problems that have made things difficult. I really think that people being lazy has not been a significant problem at all.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Small inequalities in wealth do not result in large inequalities in income in a communist system, because you can not make profit, interest and rent from it.

True-- so the only option is more and more ostentateous consumerism-- or longer and longer vacations. So you are advocating either that your most prized workers ( ie the ones with the highest incomes)

1. buy lots of things for their own use-- ie frivolous consumerism

OR

2. Work less and less-- good system there where your best workers will choose to work say half a year

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I'm still wondering how people magically become better off??

They aren't exploited anymore.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They aren't exploited anymore.

Thats not an answer. If in constant dollars I make 100K now and 50K after the revolution are you suggesting that my feelings of satisfaction are worth the 50 K I am missing?

[Patroklos]

Yes-- In a counntry like Canada, you often see systemic use and abuse of the social safety nets-- people that know every intricacy of the unemployment insurance and job training programs and who work just enough to qualify for the next program.

My fear is that any communist system would be an expansion of these entitlements

But that is in a capitalist state, where it is a safety net not designed to hold you up perpetually but give you second chance which so many waste. Thats why they have to be so savy in abusing the system.

In comunism (true) there is no need to abuse the system, the state provides you with a decent standard of living (supposedly, we have actually seen what this means) even if you are doing jack ****, perpetually.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber




Yes-- In a counntry like Canada, you often see systemic use and abuse of the social safety nets-- people that know every intricacy of the unemployment insurance and job training programs and who work just enough to qualify for the next program.

My fear is that any communist system would be an expansion of these entitlements

That's got a lot to do with the fact that working really doesn't pay well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
1. buy lots of things for their own use-- ie frivolous consumerism

OR

2. Work less and less-- good system there where your best workers will choose to work say half a year

Communism is for the people. People like time off and more things.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Thats not an answer. If in constant dollars I make 100K now and 50K after the revolution are you suggesting that my feelings of satisfaction are worth the 50 K I am missing?

I don't know about 100k. That's not most people. Perhaps you will not make more money, or maybe about the same. But most people will make more money through higher pay for work or they will get a lot more time off.

[DinoDoc]

che and Spiffor are the only commies worth talking to in this thread, Need I remind you people of the "Profit is unfair tax" nonsense.

[Patroklos]

People like time off and more things.

How do you get more things than you would have gotten if you had worked harder? I work one hour or a year, I have the same number or value of things as the next guy

Time off to do what? Not read a book that was burned years ago, not work in the garden I am not allowed to have, not go on vacation to countries I am not allowed to visit?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
che and Spiffor are the only commies worth talking to in this thread, Need I remind you people of the "Profit is unfair tax" nonsense.

Just as clever as ever DD.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


How do you get more things that you would have gotten if you had worked harder?

Time off to do what? Not read a book that was burned years ago, not work in the garden I am not allowed to have, not go on vacation to countries I am not allowed to visit?

I don't know why I'm talking to you. I never said I believed in burning books. That's ridiculous.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Patroklos

But that is in a capitalist state, where it is a safety net not designed to hold you up perpetually but give you second chance which so many waste. Thats why they have to be so savy in abusing the system.

In comunism (true) there is no need to abuse the system, the state provides you with a decent standard of living (supposedly, we have actually seen what this means) even if you are doing jack ****, perpetually.

Exactly my fear. IN a country like Canada, I support two initiatives

1. better funding for the truly disabled, more and better low-income housing for the WORKING poor . . . essentially moe cash for those that are truly trying or who truly are unable to better themselves.

2. more stringent criteria to get into these better funded programs. The able-bodied should not be able to collect employment insurance in times where there is a shortage of pretty much any type of worker you care to name. Chronic recidivism on the unemployment rolls should result in higher premiums and reduced benefits. Certain programs for training or housing could require drug testing etc etc


In a sense its a two-tier social net . More and better is focussed on the people that it can actually help. The addicted get subsistence level support since according to everything I have seen extra money just goes for more drugs. If they ever want to quit there should be ample treatment programs and they can then get the more and better support

I actually would be in favour

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's got a lot to do with the fact that working really doesn't pay well.

that might be your experience but it isn't mine. You can make 12-14 an hour in retail right now and anyone with the initiative here can go to the Oilsands . 3 square meals a day plus a comfortable but small room, lots of recreation amenities and a free ride back to your home after each week/ 2 week / longer stint. All that and an unskilled guy working as a scaffolder can make 90 K.


Oh and they are so short of workers that companies are applying to import them from other countries in l;arge numbers

Does your theory not work if people are getting paid well