Announcement

**Flubber** · February 14, 2007, 13:02

Originally posted by Kidicious

What if you couldn't make any money?

Unrealistic-- It would be a highly desired product

**Flubber** · February 14, 2007, 13:04

Originally posted by Kidicious

In order for communism to work the people in the system have to be better off than they were in the capitalist system.

Why? How did this come about? Are we talking all of the people or are you just meaning that the poorest or the majority or some defined group will be better off

**Kidlicious** · February 14, 2007, 13:09

Originally posted by Flubber

Fine -- its all irrelevant. leaving aside whether they want to woek for me

But the plumbing is screwed up in the house/apartment/ commune where I live and I do not have either the necessary skills or tools to fix it.

So who fixes it?

My bottom line is that there must be SOMEONE who has as their role to fix plumbing, however you allocate resources.

Yes, you will have to pay a plumber, buy that's not the same as starting your own business.

edit: for example you would not be able to hire the plumber to work on other peoples pipes and earn a profit, because you would not be able to pay him enough.

**Flubber** · February 14, 2007, 13:14

Originally posted by Kidicious

Yes, you will have to pay a plumber, buy that's not the same as starting your own business.

huh-- who said I wanted to start a plumbing business. I just wanted to know who fixed the plumbing and who paid?

Now

1. if one plumber works more than others can he make more money than others.?

2. Some plumbers find that to do bigger jobs they need an apprentice. The jobs require two people but he doesn't need someone else with all his skills. Does the plumber pay his apprentice? Now the plumber owns the truck and the tools so would this not be allowed-- Would the plumber have to give half his truck and tools and half his income to the apprentice?

**Flubber** · February 14, 2007, 13:18

Originally posted by Kidicious

If you're disabled I think someone in your family can mow your lawn, or maybe you don't need one. Otherwise, mow your own lawn. In a functioning communist society, no one will need to mow your lawn for a wage that would make it worth your while.

There are people without family nearby and who do not have the ability to mow their own lawn.

What about hiring the neighbor kid to mow my lawn offends you so? I am a man of simple means that cannot possibly use all the resources that I earn or are allocated to me. So I trade them for a service I need and cannot do myself. The kid has lots of timer and energy and love the idea of earning money/candy bars/ the use of my car.

Why does it bug you so much? Why MUST everyone mow their own lawns?

**Patroklos** · February 14, 2007, 13:20

We know about safety nets, especially the poorest among us. We want something better.

Why do you deserve it? I don't think our current safety net is good enough (US) in many ways, but I don't think you are talking about a safety net. You are talking about support you can stand on forever if you feel like it whether you will admit it or not.

**Kidlicious** · February 14, 2007, 13:22

Originally posted by Flubber
Now

1. if one plumber works more than others can he make more money than others.?

2. Some plumbers find that to do bigger jobs they need an apprentice. The jobs require two people but he doesn't need someone else with all his skills. Does the plumber pay his apprentice? Now the plumber owns the truck and the tools so would this not be allowed-- Would the plumber have to give half his truck and tools and half his income to the apprentice?

There is no set way of allocation. Those types of things have to be worked out. Whatever way works best will be used.

My personal idea is that there are quotas and after quotas are met workers get time off. The better they work the more vacation they get.

In your example the apprentice would have the means to aquire his own tools. It's really not a big deal if the master owns the truck, he would be compensated for the expenses related to the truck, besides that both would be compensated the same.

**Kidlicious** · February 14, 2007, 13:24

Originally posted by Patroklos

Why do you deserve it? I don't think our current safety net is good enough (US) in many ways, but I don't think you are talking about a safety net. You are talking about support you can stand on forever if you feel like it whether you will admit it or not.

No, I'm not talking about support at all. I'm talking about working and getting more for it. And I don't care about deserving it. I just want it.

**Patroklos** · February 14, 2007, 13:35

And I don't care about deserving it. I just want it.

I am glad you agree those who own the means have no obligation to give anything to you, and that you are basically just trying to flip the current system so your on top (since we have seen what happens when your lot actually gets their way).

**Patroklos** · February 14, 2007, 13:35

dp

**Kidlicious** · February 14, 2007, 13:39

Originally posted by Patroklos

I am glad you agree those who own the means have no obligation to give anything to you, and that you are basically just trying to flip the current system so your on top (since we have seen what happens when your lot actually gets their way).

We've never gotten our way.

**Flubber** · February 14, 2007, 13:42

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's really not a big deal if the master owns the truck, he would be compensated for the expenses related to the truck, besides that both would be compensated the same.

Does this mean that an apprentice and an xperienced master get the same compensation per hour worked?

I think that I recall that you answer is yes and that the I ask if everyone gets the same compensation for an hour of labour.

If yes, you would then have jobs that are far more desirable than they are now and some that would be far less.

In NO, congratulations, you just embraced inequality of income which will inevitably lead to inequalities of wealth.

**Patroklos** · February 14, 2007, 13:43

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.

**Flubber** · February 14, 2007, 13:44

quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious

In order for communism to work the people in the system have to be better off than they were in the capitalist system.

---------------------------------

Why? How did this come about? Are we talking all of the people or are you just meaning that the poorest or the majority or some defined group will be better off

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

**Kidlicious** · February 14, 2007, 13:45

Originally posted by Flubber

Does this mean that an apprentice and an xperienced master get the same compensation per hour worked?

I think that I recall that you answer is yes and that the I ask if everyone gets the same compensation for an hour of labour.

If yes, you would then have jobs that are far more desirable than they are now and some that would be far less.

In NO, congratulations, you just embraced inequality of income which will inevitably lead to inequalities of wealth.

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.

Announcement

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

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment