Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How so?

My parents couldn't afford to buy me a car. And being the youngest, my older siblings had more rights to the family car. I always knew that any car in my life would be paid out of my own pocket. Catch 22. How do I go to work without a vehicle? How do I afford a car without work? The public transportation here sucks real balls, and mostly only takes you to min. wage jobs anyways. Good luck affording any car with that kind of job...

My parents paid the bills and were already chaperoning as much as they could without sacrificing work. My mom made a choice. Take my sister to school, or take me to work? She deemed school was more important. I focused on school as well.

Finally I got a lucky break. My moms friend gave us a car for pennies. Having access to a car for the first time in my life, I can now get my license. I was 23 years old. Getting my license was perfect timing, because my new job requires one. It paid about $9 an hour, and lo and behold, it was not on the bus route.

Only six months later the car taking me to work breaks down. Mom sat and spoke with me and told me that night, I would have to quit my job because she can't afford to take me to work. She told me she would save up the money as much as she can so she can buy me a car in the future. My whole life fell apart in that moment. I knew that my mom, who's never been able to buy a car for herself, would never be able to buy a car for me. No car. No job. I would be stuck living with my parents indefinitely. I COULDN'T ACCEPT THIS!!

I told my mom that night that tomorrow I was going to buy a NEW car. She told me to grow up because not even my sister could afford a new car and her income was higher than mine. That night I research cars, I choose my car. And I swore to God it was bloody fucking mine because my life fucking depended on it. SERIOUSLY IT DOES!

The next day mom takes me to the dealership, just to muse me. Mom and the salesman both agree that because of my income level I should try looking at some of their used cars. But living with my parents for the past 23 years, I knew that USED CARS COST MORE and are unreliable. I wanted the ten year warranty. I told the salesman I wanted a NEW car.

By the end of the day everyone knew me by name because I was the little fish that got away . Not only was the salesman stunned that a bank qualified me, the banks actually started fighting over me so I got the best deal as possible.

When I drove home with my new car, no one in the family congratulated me. Dad had never been able to buy a new car, so it took almost a week for him to register that the car was mine, and brand spanking new.

I'm happy to have an awesome car, with awesome mileage, ten year warranty and other perks. I KNOW WHAT A LUXURY IT IS. She's my little golden chariot. More importantly I'm happy that I'm ABLE to go to work. What's the point of my story? The point is this liberty came into my life at the age of 23!! Other people knew this liberty at the age of 16.

Now imagine a 16 year old who was given a car, even a hand me down. Fast forward into the future. They are now 23 years old. Who has more job experience? Whose resume looks better because they have more job experience? Who has more disposable income because their car is virtually free?

Is it too hard to imagine how that 23 year old is better off than I was at 23??

I'm the only one at my job currently making a car payment. With the exception of my old boss, everyone else has a vehicle that mom or dad gave them. Having the extra income allows them to put the extra money into other things, like apartment bills. I think being able to pay the apartment bills is a luxury. I luxury I very much look forward to doing soon.

congrats on your hard work and acheivement...thats not really an example of the poor getting poorer though seeing as you became better off. You have a nice new car that will last a long time, long enough to pass down to your kids, then they will be on par with the others in their generation.

my story

My parents pulled themselves up from lower to middle class as well. When they got married, they had both just gotten out of high school. My dad worked while going to school and my mom got her associates as well as took care of the kids. (they had 3 during this). After getting out of college they were very careful how they spent and how they saved. They kept an emergency fund, and simply paid bills. My mom was a dentist nurse (not a rich dentist office by any means) and my dad was an accountant for a small company and did taxes in the winter as well. Now they are in their 60s, house paid off, cars paid off, my dad is about to retire, my mom did when I was born. They are solid middle class and are proud of it. My siblings are on the upper side of middle class thanks to being able to go to college because of my parents (as will I after college) and, following the same method, I plan to further climb the ladder. Hard work is still rewarded in our society, you just have to plan ahead.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It is true that the great minds of Antiquity were often well-off and had no need to live off their inventions or philosophical teachings, but this is only because no average man back then could spend time on any pursuit of knowledge. They were uneducated and too busy plowing the fields to feed their families. However, great scientists like Archimedes and Da Vinci were engineers by trade (among other things), and they didn't sell their creations to the highest bidder. I'm simply trying to establish that innovation can exist outside of the pursuit for profit.

Da Vinci was a painter and perhaps a sculptor by trade, but everything else he pursued was actually just mere fancy, to sate his thirst for knowledge.

But, i reiterate, without the economic incentive, people would not pursure careers such as medecine and what not. With all the time that is invested, people deserve and need to have a decent income and security. It is not enough that you love the field, it also has to be practicle to support you and your family given the fact that you invested so much time educating yourself.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Technically speaking, in pure communism there is no exchange of money, no wages or bills (as there is nothing to own). The state provides everything you could need in exchange for work. Of course getting to that point would take a long, long, long time... I don't see however how in the interim, the state couldn't compensate a person in accordance with the complexity of their work. This is fairer even than ours, where teachers make half the wages of garbage men.

The system you speak of, where teachers are paid a very low sum is because of the socialisation of the public education system.

If there was a system in place where teachers competed for jobs that pay well based on their performance as teachers, not only would it be fairer to the teachers but it would also give students a world class education system.

Alas, teachers all make the same amount of money no matter what their competency which is a shame. If there was competition within that field we would have better payed and competent teachers and well educated pupils.

You raise a good point against pure communism though. Although I don't believe there would be a shortage of people willing to spend the long years in university to become qualified in a very specialized field (as most people studying for these positions do so out of interest), I could see how nobody would be interested in less desirable but currently highly paid jobs (e.g. garbage man) that require little skill. I suppose there could be a system where every citizen must "help out" with these jobs for short periods of time, kind of like jury duty.

You make it seem like they choose their fields of study merely for the aspect of interest. This is not so.

Let me give you a personal example. I am intersted in a career in Medecine. I am actually very intersted in the subjects of Chemistry, Biology, Pychics etc. These all feed into a M.D. However, if it were not for the fact that doctors are paid a respectable sum I would not consider it as a career avenue. Because as intersted as I am in the field, I would not pursue a field which requirs that amount of time and dedication just so that I could be paid what a day labourer makes. Even though I am very passionate about medecine, I have to take into account the return my investment will make.

The problem I have with the "Government Compensation" thing is it is effectively a form of welfare. No longer can a person earn for themselves, buy for themselves, own their own car or house or what have you. They are forever a ward of the state, forever reliant on it like a child on a parent. This is very unappealing to most people I dare say.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The fact that many nations that have declared themselves "communist" were actually dictatorships has little to do with communism, which was rarely ever implemented in its proper sense. The truth is that all these "communist" countries are the result of revolutions against previous dictators (not the most stable of political atmospheres here), and the revolutionary party used the notion of communism to gain the backing of the impoverished populace which was eager for a change and a spread of the wealth. Just because these parties branded themselves as communist doesn't make it so, they were never communist from the start. There has yet to be a politically stable, advanced society that has attempted to make a proper peaceful transition through socialism and into communism.

This reminds me of Christian apologism, whenever a Christian has a radical belief or does something hainous in the name of the faith, they respond by saying that person wasn't a real Christian. Same thing here.

The fact is these countries, while being represive and opressive towards the citizenry, were communist. The fact that almost every communist nation in history has been opressive or totalarian in some way or another is a testament to the fact that this ideology looks good on paper, but rarely works out in practice.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

As for the notion of human greediness, it is a difficult concept for most people, but a group can achieve things an individual could never on his on. There are simply more resources and ideas available to the "team". I don't see people embracing that concept unless they experience a successful example of it themselves, chicken and egg thing...

People already achieve remarkable things in our capitalist society as part of a team/group. While in the past centuries, scientific and medical breakthroughs were pioneered by individuals most often, nowadays Scientific and medical breakthroughs are often conducted by highly trained people working as a team.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Once again, past examples of "communist" nations are deceiving. All the perceived corruptions and human rights abuses are not a result of the implementation of communism, but rather the great confusion and social turmoil that was easily exploited by a few men following a massive national revolution.

I'll cover the USSR right now since it's the most obvious example. After centuries of drifting between the monarchy and the working class, Lenin and the Soviets revolted against the monarchy and created the Soviet Union. So what do we have here: a leader inspired by communism who, after a long and bloody civil war, abolished a millennium-long form of government overnight with the backing of impoverished, uneducated farmers and factory workers. This isn't really the most stable environment to successfully introduce such a radical political and economical concept as communism for the first time in history is it? Well within a few years, Lenin died, and Stalin, seeing an opportunity in all this mess, took over the country (against Lenin's final wishes). He turned out to be a brutal dictator and a pretty bad leader and the Soviet Union's pursuit of communism died at that point (until Gorbachev unsuccessfully tried to bring it back in the 80s). This is a pattern that repeats itself throughout the history of so-called communist nations, but really the concept that a communist regime should be totalitarian or centered around a single figure is a total contradiction...

I'm confident that if communism was to be progressively, properly established in a stable, peaceful country, the results would be much better than anything we've seen in the 20th century.

I believe that communism looks good on paper but in practice it is privy to human corruption and greed. This is merely a demonstration of that fact that it does not take into account human nature. Without a system of checks and balances, the whole endeavour would be flawed from the onset.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You dodged all of my questions, some of which were points about new issues you brought up in order to dodge the previous questions, and you accuse me of dodging? Kromoh, I am not going to follow you on subject change after subject change. I made initial points and then asked you stump questions on your dodges. Now answer what I brought up, or we are through here. I guess you are stumped.

More dodging.

You should be a politician. I mean, look at post #16. Six lines of text and no answer at all. You take more time not-answering than it would take to answer me. You remind me of this local politician named Paulo Maluf. He was involved in a billionaire corruption scheme, just for the record.

Or perhaps you just don't have an answer.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

are you sure? How did the middle class get there in the first place then? many of the kids here who go to college are from the middle class. I wouldnt call the jobs they get afterwords poorer jobs. And yes, many of them get scholarships which are from the state or school, but that only further supports my point...a combination of the two works.

It's not me being sure. It's statistical data. I mean, heck, just go to wikipedia and type in "social inequality". Saves me the trouble.

Also, there is such a thing named "qualified working power". Long ago, the middle class used to be the consuming class. Now it's only consisted of highly-qualified workers. Aka doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc.

(sorry for double post, I only saw this later)

Originally Posted by juroara

My parents couldn't afford to buy me a car. And being the youngest, my older siblings had more rights to the family car. I always knew that any car in my life would be paid out of my own pocket. Catch 22. How do I go to work without a vehicle? How do I afford a car without work? The public transportation here sucks real balls, and mostly only takes you to min. wage jobs anyways. Good luck affording any car with that kind of job...

My parents paid the bills and were already chaperoning as much as they could without sacrificing work. My mom made a choice. Take my sister to school, or take me to work? She deemed school was more important. I focused on school as well.

Finally I got a lucky break. My moms friend gave us a car for pennies. Having access to a car for the first time in my life, I can now get my license. I was 23 years old. Getting my license was perfect timing, because my new job requires one. It paid about $9 an hour, and lo and behold, it was not on the bus route.

Only six months later the car taking me to work breaks down. Mom sat and spoke with me and told me that night, I would have to quit my job because she can't afford to take me to work. She told me she would save up the money as much as she can so she can buy me a car in the future. My whole life fell apart in that moment. I knew that my mom, who's never been able to buy a car for herself, would never be able to buy a car for me. No car. No job. I would be stuck living with my parents indefinitely. I COULDN'T ACCEPT THIS!!

I told my mom that night that tomorrow I was going to buy a NEW car. She told me to grow up because not even my sister could afford a new car and her income was higher than mine. That night I research cars, I choose my car. And I swore to God it was bloody fucking mine because my life fucking depended on it. SERIOUSLY IT DOES!

The next day mom takes me to the dealership, just to muse me. Mom and the salesman both agree that because of my income level I should try looking at some of their used cars. But living with my parents for the past 23 years, I knew that USED CARS COST MORE and are unreliable. I wanted the ten year warranty. I told the salesman I wanted a NEW car.

By the end of the day everyone knew me by name because I was the little fish that got away . Not only was the salesman stunned that a bank qualified me, the banks actually started fighting over me so I got the best deal as possible.

When I drove home with my new car, no one in the family congratulated me. Dad had never been able to buy a new car, so it took almost a week for him to register that the car was mine, and brand spanking new.

I'm happy to have an awesome car, with awesome mileage, ten year warranty and other perks. I KNOW WHAT A LUXURY IT IS. She's my little golden chariot. More importantly I'm happy that I'm ABLE to go to work. What's the point of my story? The point is this liberty came into my life at the age of 23!! Other people knew this liberty at the age of 16.

Now imagine a 16 year old who was given a car, even a hand me down. Fast forward into the future. They are now 23 years old. Who has more job experience? Whose resume looks better because they have more job experience? Who has more disposable income because their car is virtually free?

Is it too hard to imagine how that 23 year old is better off than I was at 23??

I'm the only one at my job currently making a car payment. With the exception of my old boss, everyone else has a vehicle that mom or dad gave them. Having the extra income allows them to put the extra money into other things, like apartment bills. I think being able to pay the apartment bills is a luxury. I luxury I very much look forward to doing soon.

Blueline, see how capitalism isn't about effort, but about opportunity? This is how the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Rich people are born with more opportunity. It's a vicious cycle. An hereditary chain.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

More dodging.

You should be a politician. I mean, look at post #16. Six lines of text and no answer at all. You take more time not-answering than it would take to answer me. You remind me of this local politician named Paulo Maluf. He was involved in a billionaire corruption scheme, just for the record.

Or perhaps you just don't have an answer.

Are you going for the hypocrisy award? The record right now is that I have directly answered several of your questions/points and you have directly answered exactly ZERO of mine. I was in this thread asking questions and making points before you were, and you have been dodging them and my additional ones since you came in here. Right? Do you honestly deny that? Go ahead and deny it so everybody can further see how dishonest you are.

So, why have you been doing that?

But I'll tell you what. We can make a deal. For every question I ask and you answer, you can ask a question and I will answer it. Deal?

Kromoh are you ever going to say anything of substance? I only see you posting emotionally appealing stories with no evidence to back up your claims that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Most of the "poor" today have access to television, electricity, or some form of shelter.

How do you explain the explosion of real wages and the increase in the standard of living over the past century?

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

Da Vinci was a painter and perhaps a sculptor by trade, but everything else he pursued was actually just mere fancy, to sate his thirst for knowledge.

Beside the point, but...

But, i reiterate, without the economic incentive, people would not pursure careers such as medecine and what not. With all the time that is invested, people deserve and need to have a decent income and security. It is not enough that you love the field, it also has to be practicle to support you and your family given the fact that you invested so much time educating yourself.

Most of the people aiming for doctorates that I have met through high school and college were doing so out of interest, not compensation, but that may be just me... In a system like ours, going into medicine is a terrible economic strategy. Years and years of above average tuition and then more years as an unpaid intern don't exactly set you up with a great financial situation. This is the kind of guy who's stuck in debt and has trouble paying the bills, and if he's lucky after another few years his salary will finally start making a dent in his debt. This also means that doctoral candidates here come from a disproportionate amount of upper class families. There is a bottleneck on education in capitalism where the poor are less likely to be well educated due to costs, vicious cycle.

Anyways, in a communist world, the hypothetical doctoral candidate wouldn't have to worry about supporting his family, that's the state's job. He wouldn't have to worry about paying for tuition or debts, the state pays for his education in exchange for his later employment, and all the while he leads a comfortable life.

The system you speak of, where teachers are paid a very low sum is because of the socialisation of the public education system.

If there was a system in place where teachers competed for jobs that pay well based on their performance as teachers, not only would it be fairer to the teachers but it would also give students a world class education system.

Alas, teachers all make the same amount of money no matter what their competency which is a shame. If there was competition within that field we would have better payed and competent teachers and well educated pupils.

We're talking socialism here, not communism. In socialism the government is just actively involved in the economy. It is the government that decides what its employees are worth, if the American government places a very low value on its education system, that's hardly socialism's fault.

This is a problem with establishing small portions of socialism in a capitalist economy, the government minimizes expenses to stay lean and spends on industry-driving corporations instead of accomplishing the purpose of socialism: creating equal quality opportunities for all. A capitalist government is looking after its industries, not its people.

If public education were to be privatized (with competition), then the schools with the best teachers would cost more, so the richer would get better education than the poorer, etc. Some may not even be able to afford schooling at all. Sure teachers get paid better for a while, but it's an overall loss for society when large portions remain badly educated, and when society degenerates EVERYBODY is impacted. Just like when society gains, everybody is impacted...

You make it seem like they choose their fields of study merely for the aspect of interest. This is not so.

Let me give you a personal example. I am intersted in a career in Medecine. I am actually very intersted in the subjects of Chemistry, Biology, Pychics etc. These all feed into a M.D. However, if it were not for the fact that doctors are paid a respectable sum I would not consider it as a career avenue. Because as intersted as I am in the field, I would not pursue a field which requirs that amount of time and dedication just so that I could be paid what a day labourer makes. Even though I am very passionate about medecine, I have to take into account the return my investment will make.

The problem I have with the "Government Compensation" thing is it is effectively a form of welfare. No longer can a person earn for themselves, buy for themselves, own their own car or house or what have you. They are forever a ward of the state, forever reliant on it like a child on a parent. This is very unappealing to most people I dare say.

In communism, the return on your investment is working in the field you want, which is fair considering the only sacrifice you made was your time and the government supported your living all the while (and I'm not talking a studio apartment and ramen noodles here, just because the government supports you doesn't mean you live in poverty).

In socialism you would be compensated whatever the government deems you are worth (note that a socialist government should be looking after its people). Obviously a doctor is esteemed very highly in society and would be justly compensated. You say you don't like the idea of relying on the government to support you, but at the moment, are you not relying on your company to support you? What is the difference between working, then receiving a car or working, then buying a car. You are forever dependent on your employer for sustenance, and if I had the choice, I would rather work for the state that exists to benefit its people rather than a corporate enterprise that exists to exploit them.

This reminds me of Christian apologism, whenever a Christian has a radical belief or does something hainous in the name of the faith, they respond by saying that person wasn't a real Christian. Same thing here.

The fact is these countries, while being represive and opressive towards the citizenry, were communist. The fact that almost every communist nation in history has been opressive or totalarian in some way or another is a testament to the fact that this ideology looks good on paper, but rarely works out in practice.

But what did all these countries have in common, a terribly unstable political atmosphere, like in my example of the USSR. I can think of no country that has ever entirely abolished property (closest being the USSR), which is the definition of communism. The truth is communism is a very appealing label to gain the support of the lower classes in revolutionary times, and it also gives a good excuse to centralize power, but this is NOT communism...

If ever I see a well developed, stable Western country make the transition towards communism and become rampant with human rights abuses, then I will reconsider my views.

People already achieve remarkable things in our capitalist society as part of a team/group. While in the past centuries, scientific and medical breakthroughs were pioneered by individuals most often, nowadays Scientific and medical breakthroughs are often conducted by highly trained people working as a team.

Many of which are researchers working directly for the government or in universities that receive grants. Generally speaking, new discoveries are made by individuals or groups that don't profit from them. It's the companies that take these innovations and transform them into marketable products. Innovation is alive anywhere, and the state could just as easily transform them into consumer goods.

My point was that if you have two companies competing over similar products, the quality of these products could not possibly be better than if both companies had combined resources to engineer the same product.

I believe that communism looks good on paper but in practice it is privy to human corruption and greed. This is merely a demonstration of that fact that it does not take into account human nature. Without a system of checks and balances, the whole endeavour would be flawed from the onset.

I've been trying hard not to derail the thread by posting my negative views on capitalism, but the whole reason I am for communism is because of these. Capitalism is self-destructive, sure companies grow fast at first and the money flows, but the whole system is based on a few people exploiting the majority. It doesn't take into account human greed, it promotes it, because there is gain to be had through greed. This inevitably leads to social stratification, where the majority of the populace can't afford top class health care, education, etc. This leads to large portions of uneducated people in poor living conditions, which society must still support. These people would have been of great value to society, rather than a handicap, if they were offered the same opportunities from the start. Would there be so many criminals if everybody was university educated? Not only would there be less crime, but these potential drains on society are now suddenly skilled workers in our communist industries. When society improves, everyone is affected.

And as for human greed, I believe that it's a throwback survival instinct that was necessary in tribal days, where survival was an issue. But in our modern society, not only is survival not an issue, but comfortable living is rarely an issue. There is no scientific need for greed, it isn't going to make us live longer or bare more children. Therefore I believe that greed can be "unlearned", easier said than done in a society of excess that promotes it...



Just to contribute on topic a bit lol, one issue with a purely communist country is that, having abolished property and money, it would be unable to trade with other countries. I don't think there are any countries that are capable of supporting themselves in terms of resources, so unless a group of states form a Soviet Union-sized coalition or the communist state trades in gold or some other stable resource, the furthest a country could progress to is advanced socialism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Beside the point, but...

Still, he was commisioned and was paid by his patrons. He did not work for free or for rations or just out of the kindness of his heart...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Most of the people aiming for doctorates that I have met through high school and college were doing so out of interest, not compensation, but that may be just me... In a system like ours, going into medicine is a terrible economic strategy. Years and years of above average tuition and then more years as an unpaid intern don't exactly set you up with a great financial situation. This is the kind of guy who's stuck in debt and has trouble paying the bills, and if he's lucky after another few years his salary will finally start making a dent in his debt. This also means that doctoral candidates here come from a disproportionate amount of upper class families. There is a bottleneck on education in capitalism where the poor are less likely to be well educated due to costs, vicious cycle.

Well, working as an "intern" is a bit misleading. While one is working in a residency one is working for a period of time (usually 3 years sometimes more depending on your speciality) under the tutelage of another pysician, before you can start your practice. During this time you receive a decent income and after you start your own practice your income increases dramatically.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Anyways, in a communist world, the hypothetical doctoral candidate wouldn't have to worry about supporting his family, that's the state's job. He wouldn't have to worry about paying for tuition or debts, the state pays for his education in exchange for his later employment, and all the while he leads a comfortable life.

Well, once a doctor you receive very little pay for your work which is unfair considering the fact that a doctor spends a ridiculous amount of time in University and after that under the tutelage of another physician.

Also, my mother lived in the Soviet Union for 7 years where she received her Masters in the Russian language. I asked her about the situation for Doctors there and she said that their salary was far less than that of a Janitor. She also said pysical (sp) labour was more profitable then any type of intellectual "labour" such as in the fields of Medecine, Engineering and Teaching.

This is a huge short coming in communism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

We're talking socialism here, not communism. In socialism the government is just actively involved in the economy. It is the government that decides what its employees are worth, if the American government places a very low value on its education system, that's hardly socialism's fault.

This is a problem with establishing small portions of socialism in a capitalist economy, the government minimizes expenses to stay lean and spends on industry-driving corporations instead of accomplishing the purpose of socialism: creating equal quality opportunities for all. A capitalist government is looking after its industries, not its people

.

In a capitalist environment there would be competition between teachers and companies and so on which would produce a better quality of education. Because a socialist system is funded by the government it has no need to constantly adapt and reshape its business practices to better itself as in a capitalist system.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If public education were to be privatized (with competition), then the schools with the best teachers would cost more, so the richer would get better education than the poorer, etc. Some may not even be able to afford schooling at all. Sure teachers get paid better for a while, but it's an overall loss for society when large portions remain badly educated, and when society degenerates EVERYBODY is impacted. Just like when society gains, everybody is impacted...

That's why pure capitalism (just like pure communism) is not really viable. Of course I am not suggesting that this take place, but the message that I have been trying to convey is that one extreme, Pure Capitalism V Pure Communism does not work. But at the same time, Socialism and Capitalism cohabitating within the same nation can accomplish things neither one could do previously. I believe that the two systems have a lot to offer, and that their short comings can be negated by implimenting elements of the other. The issue with the schools is a perfect example of this.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In communism, the return on your investment is working in the field you want, which is fair considering the only sacrifice you made was your time and the government supported your living all the while (and I'm not talking a studio apartment and ramen noodles here, just because the government supports you doesn't mean you live in poverty).

In a field like Engineering and Medecine, it takes exceptionally dedicated and hard working people who have a lot of time and energy invested in their careers regardless. In a communist system, a person occupying such a highly intellectually challenging occupation would make only a meagre sum of money while they bring much more to the table than a labourer. This only becomes more evident when you get into the more highly technical fields of medecine and medical research. These people who are the ones coming up with the latest vaccines, treatments and innovations in the field of health deserve the amounts of money they make.


Furthermore, under the Soviet system the element of choice, of selecting your prefered practioner became obsolete; instead the hospitals became factory like and Doctors and Nurses were given quotas of people to treat like a human conveyor belt. At the same time the amount they earned and their working environment deteriorated.

On medical research

Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

http://fee.org/nff/socialized-health...oviet-reality/

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In socialism you would be compensated whatever the government deems you are worth (note that a socialist government should be looking after its people). Obviously a doctor is esteemed very highly in society and would be justly compensated.

See above

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You say you don't like the idea of relying on the government to support you, but at the moment, are you not relying on your company to support you? What is the difference between working, then receiving a car or working, then buying a car. You are forever dependent on your employer for sustenance, and if I had the choice, I would rather work for the state that exists to benefit its people rather than a corporate enterprise that exists to exploit them.

At least in a employer oriented system you have a variety of employers to choose from, there is competition for the best and hardest working employees and reward for those employees. In a communist system the salaries become fixed, the conditions become worse and you are all paid the same regardless of what you contribute or how well you do your given profession. There is more variety and choice in the former. In the latter innovation is stifled.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

But what did all these countries have in common, a terribly unstable political atmosphere, like in my example of the USSR. I can think of no country that has ever entirely abolished property (closest being the USSR), which is the definition of communism. The truth is communism is a very appealing label to gain the support of the lower classes in revolutionary times, and it also gives a good excuse to centralize power, but this is NOT communism...

If by abolish property you mean give it all the to government which is not accountable to anyone but itself than yeah. How is it not communism? In just about all the nations that estabilished communism they were not just capitalistic dictatorships under a different label. They actually implented the communist system;although, I am sure you will say they did not do it the "right way" or you will say real communism is (insert ideal). The truth is a theory on paper does not translate 100% on paper and is not as good as you may like it to sound. In practice, things work out differently and different varaibles come into play. That is not to say that it is not communism just because it does not match the impossible ideal that you believe in. Like i have said, some things don't work out well in practice even though they may seem appealing on paper.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If ever I see a well developed, stable Western country make the transition towards communism and become rampant with human rights abuses, then I will reconsider my views.

I don't think a well developed and democratic nation would let its government take over ownership of everything (property wise ) and of every institution. The fact is this is not something people want to happen to their nation. Pure Communism is not something people want or that would work (as the past precedents demonstrate).

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Many of which are researchers working directly for the government or in universities that receive grants. Generally speaking, new discoveries are made by individuals or groups that don't profit from them. It's the companies that take these innovations and transform them into marketable products. Innovation is alive anywhere, and the state could just as easily transform them into consumer goods.

Well, the government has a means of promoting competition and for those parties that receive grants to earn it. I know that Nasa and other branches of the US government have offered multi million dollar awards to third parties to come up with a solution to a problem that they could not themselves solve. But, the companies that design and update them make them better at any rate. They improve them.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My point was that if you have two companies competing over similar products, the quality of these products could not possibly be better than if both companies had combined resources to engineer the same product.

If both companies are working in competition to each other they can find unique and novel avenus towards to the same end goal that the other probably couldn't have possibly come up with. When you have no competition there is no longer any need to constantly change and improve because you have a captive customer base. If there is no competition there is no real incentive to innovate and produce a better product or what have you.


I apologize in advance for any grammar and spelling mistakes that you may encounter. I spotted quite a few and edited this post with the intention of correcting them, but I found that it was too unwieldly using this format and a reply of this size to do so. Again, I apologise in advance, I hope this doesn't take away from the discussion

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Kromoh are you ever going to say anything of substance? I only see you posting emotionally appealing stories with no evidence to back up your claims that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Most of the "poor" today have access to television, electricity, or some form of shelter.

The television always reminds me of the roman 'bread and games'.

Anyway, to provide you with a few sources on this issue:

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20060823/

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm20...iewswolff.html

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html

I'm studying engineering, not for the money I'll be making, but because I love school and I love learning. If I could, I would study my entire life.If you think money is the only incentive to learn and better yourself then all I can do is shake my head with sadness. You've been seevrely warped by this society if you think this.

What happened to being human? Why do you think we have this beatiful, magnificent brain? What happened to being passionate about something you love? I don't need money to be thrown at me to try and make life better on this planet. That's just stupid.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I'm studying engineering, not for the money I'll be making, but because I love school and I love learning. If I could, I would study my entire life.If you think money is the only incentive to learn and better yourself then all I can do is shake my head with sadness. You've been seevrely warped by this society if you think this.

What happened to being human? Why do you think we have this beatiful, magnificent brain? What happened to being passionate about something you love? I don't need money to be thrown at me to try and make life better on this planet. That's just stupid.

You obviously never read my post because I never said that making money was the only incentive to learn. I specifically said that it was a variable that people often considered which is true. Just because you take salary into account doesn't mean you are a cold heart less beast who is only in it for the money. Especially for me, I have a parent who will have nothing to live on beyound a meagre government pension when she retires. I have to have enough income to help support her when she retires and to live comfortably myself when she will have nothing but maybe a $600/month pension.

Does this mean that I hate the career path that I am aiming for and am only thinking about the money? Of course not. The fact is I love medecine with a passion, but the salary aspect was an important parameter for me to consider and it is just a logical part of planning ahead.

Is it not possible to love what you do and want to earn a lot of money at it at the same time? What's wrong with that?

Please actually read my post next time.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

But, i reiterate, without the economic incentive, people would not pursure careers such as medecine and what not. With all the time that is invested, people deserve and need to have a decent income and security. It is not enough that you love the field, it also has to be practicle to support you and your family given the fact that you invested so much time educating yourself.

You explicitly stated that people wouldn't pursue careers in medicine and "what not" without economic incentive.


I laughed out loud when I read "It is not enough that you love the field". How the hell do you think science got started in the first place? CURIOSITY and a PASSION for learning. Economic incentive was not part of the deal.

Please read your own post before telling me that I did not read it.

I never said that it was an absolute, just that it made things difficult and not worth it in the long run considering the investment and minimal pay off.

People who pursue such careers deserve much more than the wage of a day labourer.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I'm studying engineering, not for the money I'll be making, but because I love school and I love learning. If I could, I would study my entire life.If you think money is the only incentive to learn and better yourself then all I can do is shake my head with sadness. You've been seevrely warped by this society if you think this.

Nobody is saying it is the only reason. I am saying it is the only widespread reason. The masses cannot be depended on to work based on passion and curiosity alone, and practically no big business owners or executives can. That is the problem. The people who are obsessed with money drive the economy, no matter how shallow you and I can say they are. Let's not kill their value. Also, even the most passionate doctors and engineers in most cases would not work 40+ hours a week without being paid good money for it. They would work a few hours and want to go play golf or something. People long for weekends for a reason.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

What happened to being human? Why do you think we have this beatiful, magnificent brain? What happened to being passionate about something you love? I don't need money to be thrown at me to try and make life better on this planet. That's just stupid.

It exists, but it is not a big enough factor in society to be counted on. So what do we do now?

If you want my honest blunt opinion of communism its this:

It looks like a wonderful idea, but in practical use it has almost ALWAYS lead to a dictatorship or some kind of oligarchy or monarchy...etc.
I am not in favor of rule of the few or one.

I do not believe this system can work currently in society, I also do not think you can alter communism to such an extent that it works without changing the original idea/ideology. You need to alter it in such a delicate manner that you do not destroy the original vision.

The only way I see this system working is if human beings did not have 'wants' or 'desires', you would have to drug the population so that they do not have any greedy emotions, which that in itself is a very controversial idea/society.

Some one said earlier that if they knew that they would only make as much as a fry cook (or something of the like) that they wouldn't pursue a more specalized career because it would require to much of an investment. This seems backwards to me. If I knew that no matter what job I chose I would be given the same amount of money as others (or barring that be supported by the government at the same level as others) then if my true desire was a specalized field then that is what I would go into. If your making the same amount either way, why would you choose the lesser career?

I think we need an entirely new thinking outside the box sort of society instead of the ism's of today whatever ism it may be, communism , socialism, capitalism, fascism....and so on....

What kind of society would that be, well one where nobody starves to death, NOT ONE PERSON.

And not one person without shelter and basic comforts of life (shower, toilet, entertainment, food, drink, water...medicine...drug...etc...etc)


How would such a society be 'designed'

How would it be run? Could it be run by a small group of people? or perhaps the whole world self governs without a hierarchy of smaller controllers such as todays society.

Would a monetary system have to be abolished in this new society?

(Sorry if this is considered hijacking a thread but i think it is similar to communism in the idea of providing for every person under the system, just without a governmental system)

Also, obviously this new society would have to be brought in incrementally and slowly not to disturb the current societies structure and so its a peaceful transition from the old world to the new world without controllers and banksters and money greedy corporations.

(oddly this almost sounds like a new world order but not a shitty totalitarian shithole one)

No,no, Guerilla, your suggestion is exactly what I ORIGINALLY WANTED THIS THREAD TO BE but it devolved into fighting after the first post!

Well, clearly this new system would have to be a democracy; this is clearly the most acceptable form of government and also argueably the most productive. I am thinking a government in which all officals are elected by direct vote and serve for a maximum of one year unless the citizenry says otherwise. In this government officals could be impeached at anytime by a majority vote of the citizens. The problem we have now (at least in the u.s.) is that once elected, politicans are pretty much gaurenteed office for 3/4ths of there term unless they commit a crime, so they don't have to listen to the people.

Now each politican would have to pass a rigorous exam, showing that they have the qualities of leadership that the people desire. The contents of this exam could be voted upon and changed by the people. Once the contender has passed this exam they will be given a standard amount of money (or if money is not used, resources) and a certian amount of air time and be declared a Legal canidate. Once they are given these things, they will not be aloud to have anymore resources donated to them. Periodically canidates will be dropped based upon the percentage of voters supporting them. Everyone has the right to vote. Once elected, the offical will be put on the comittee he was elected to and get to work. No one comittee will have more power than another but if they refuse to work together then if a majority of citizens vote for it, they can force the comittee's to co-operate. The comittee's would handle the day to day running of the government, if they pass a regulation the people don't like, then a majority vote rescinds it.

I will venture into economy type later.

Originally Posted by guerilla

I think we need an entirely new thinking outside the box sort of society instead of the ism's of today whatever ism it may be, communism , socialism, capitalism, fascism....and so on....

What kind of society would that be, well one where nobody starves to death, NOT ONE PERSON.

And not one person without shelter and basic comforts of life (shower, toilet, entertainment, food, drink, water...medicine...drug...etc...etc)


How would such a society be 'designed'

How would it be run? Could it be run by a small group of people? or perhaps the whole world self governs without a hierarchy of smaller controllers such as todays society.

Would a monetary system have to be abolished in this new society?

(Sorry if this is considered hijacking a thread but i think it is similar to communism in the idea of providing for every person under the system, just without a governmental system)

Also, obviously this new society would have to be brought in incrementally and slowly not to disturb the current societies structure and so its a peaceful transition from the old world to the new world without controllers and banksters and money greedy corporations.

(oddly this almost sounds like a new world order but not a shitty totalitarian shithole one)

CULTURE!


America lacks the proper culture to create the kind of society that you would like to see. Laws can not enforce people to care about each other, that is up to culture.

While teaching an old dog a new trick might be hard, children are very programmable. The children of the baby boomers are easily more concerned about the environment than their parents. And who was lectured since a small age that we were polluting the earth? And at the same time, this generation was also told that the end of the world was coming in some form of another since a young age. I was only seven years old when I saw my first end of the world documentary, making me feel I wouldn't live past ten =b

Which made my generation, not only more aware about the environment than our own parents, but also simultaneously apathetic because the end was coming and there was nothing we could do about it.

Culture is powerful.

Now let's imagine we have an entire generation of children, who were taught as soon as they can understand language - that everyone deserves a home. That everyone deserves food and water. And when they're old enough to go to school, that everyone deserves an education. That everyone deserves health care. And that society (not government) should uphold these fundamental values. That society is a group of people who work together to benefit the whole. And they should learn from a young age - I'm talking six years old - the benefits of a society that works together. And you use examples that young children can understand.

Can't think of any examples?? Streets, the construction of homes, hospitals, even malls all require society.

And there is no point in lying to our children, they are capable of understanding suffering. We should show them examples of a failed society - not a failed government - but a failed society. We shouldn't lie to them, they should know that other children their own age are suffering because of failed society. Or how society has failed to care about the environment. While we need to be honest, we can't make them lost hope and create another apathetic generation. They should also be taught how people are making a difference.

From a young age my generation was taught about racism. We were shown the evils of racism. And I remember we had a special class about the holocaust. And, I was living at the time in a city with a high Jewish population - all the parents gave consent. I was only about 7. And it left a lasting impression on me.

No, the class didn't teach me racism was wrong. My mom did that before I could even read or write the word racism.

What the class did teach me was the horrors of humanity. That humanity is capable of evil. And now, I don't even know if kids that young are even allowed to see half of what I saw. Or if they are just limited to an impersonal text book.

Besides racism, the only other cultural thing I learned about at a young age - because it was the early 90s - was AIDs. And I remember watching programs that showed how people with AIDs were bullied and mistreated - the classic not being allowed to drink out of the same water. However, because I had a gay uncle suffering from AIDs - I took this to mean that gays were being mistreated. So I had two things instilled in me at a young age.

Racism was wrong, and so is the hatred of gays.

Culture is strong. The programmable ages are something like 3 to 6. Get them young. Be honest. Teach them the values you think they should have as adults. Everyone deserves home. No one should be homeless. No one should be starving.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

Still, he was commisioned and was paid by his patrons. He did not work for free or for rations or just out of the kindness of his heart...

For some works yes, but many of his inventions and his work into human anatomy was purely for personal satisfaction.

The rest...

I'm gonna try and cut down on the wall of text a bit, if there's any specific point you really wanted me to address than please ask again.


One of your issues with communism seems to be that highly skilled workers receive little pay after such a long education process. I have already explained how in communism, there is no such thing as "pay". You receive no monetary compensation whatsoever for your work. Your incentive to work hard is to keep the system healthy, or else everything falls apart. In exchange, the state provides you with a home, food, clothes, transportation, utilities, you name it... And in an advanced country, this means a very comfortable lifestyle. Now the question is, as a doctor, do you feel more important to society than a factory worker, or a teacher, or a police man? Are their places in society not just as necessary as yours? If everybody enjoys a comfortable lifestyle, does it really matter that they can live as you can, or must you enjoy a higher standard of living still?

On the shortcomings of the Soviet Union in this respect, like I said, in a socialist country (the USSR was a socialist country working towards communism), it is up to the government to place a value on its workers. I know that the Soviet Union highly valued its factories and farms (hammer and sickle, eh), as most of the original Soviet base were peasants and factory workers while the intellectuals of the Russian Empire sided with the monarchy. In any case, that's what this thread is about, improving the system. A future socialist nation would simply have to revise its employment compensation in accordance with modern needs.

In the case of communist-like dictatorships, sure these nations had some economic policies that were inspired by communism, but communism is also a political theory. These dictatorships, often based on a sole leader (Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, etc.) bare no political resemblance to the communist ideal. Communism preaches power to the masses, not a single leader, and that is why I do not consider these countries to be communist.

On the idea that lack of competition stifles innovation or motivation to work, I say that it is necessity that drives these. Competition is only one form of necessity, in the past we have seen very innovative results from survival, warfare, etc. In communism, innovation and motivation would come from the necessity to keep the system healthy, as every person forms a cog in a very complex machine.

The problem with mixing capitalism with communism, is that whenever a society is predominately capitalist, the government will pay more attention to its industry-driving corporations instead of its social programs (since the corporations drive the economy and social programs exist for the "less fortunate"). For a socialized institution to truly thrive, it must have a monopoly. With a monopoly, the government is forced to provide the best quality services (assuming it wishes to take care of its people). It is a shame that many people have developed an "us vs them" approach to the government, seeing anything stemming from the state as untrustworthy and against the greater good. We could make a whole thread on how it got to that point...

I live in the province of Quebec in Canada, probably the most heavily socialized area in North America. It is a thriving example of successful socialism, especially considering our proximity to extremely capitalist neighbors. Throughout our history, we have been culturally isolated from our English surroundings, and the people of Quebec have developed the notion of "Solidarity" to look after each other. Here healthcare is free, college is free and university is heavily subsidized, most city services are ran by the municipal government, television and radio stations are ran by the state, daycares are virtually free, the list goes on and on... One of the most successful examples of Quebec nationalization has been our electricity provider, a highly profitable state corporation responsible for some of the most complex civil engineering projects in North America. Frankly, we have come to expect a lot from our government and we wouldn't have it any other way.

I believe that socialism is a viable institution in today's society, and that from socialism, with the right mindset, we could progress to communism. Communism just seems so far away when most of us haven't even gotten to the "socialism" stage yet, but it is more than just a fantasy that can only exist on paper.

I apologize in advance for any grammar and spelling mistakes that you may encounter. I spotted quite a few and edited this post with the intention of correcting them, but I found that it was too unwieldly using this format and a reply of this size to do so. Again, I apologise in advance, I hope this doesn't take away from the discussion

Don't worry, English isn't my first language ...

This is quite possibly the worst debate I've ever read. People, especially in America, have very set ideas on economic philosophies that are almost indoctrinated into them. Marxism is a very unique subject in the fact that people do not hesitate to debate its pros and cons at the same time as knowing fuck all about the theory itself. Having never read the manifesto or das capital, having never studied Marxist history they decide they are an expert. People don't do this with physics, or any other subject matter that relies on incredible amounts of theoretical understanding, so it perplexes me why they choose to do this with Marxism.

Are you responding to people arguing for and against it?

Anyway. I don't know if it is that unique in this way. Don't people
argue about stuff they don't really understand all the time?

And I don't know, economic philosophies seem to get pretty
indoctrinated into people in Europe as well, I think.

For me the major incentive to move towards a more communal and less capitalistic economic system would be the cultural effects. Capitalism in its current form is so far removed from the original principles that surrounded its conception. capitalism is now a cultural issue. The system has come to a point that in order to further itself the capitalist system creates culture, as it were through the mass media. This is a backwards, degenerate empty culture. Capitalism has successfully created a culture of I want more, I don't no why, I just want more, and I'll stand on whoever the fuck I have to, to get there. Some view that as healthy because it "creates competition and therefore high levels of competency." For me there has to be an alternative. Regardless of whether communism would work, for the international community capitalism as the dominant global system, isn't working. The majority of people on the planet live in absolute poverty, shit simply isn't good. Obviously we aren't meant to worry about that because we've got detached suburban houses and new cars. Capitalism has succeeded in creating a very horrible culture.