Thread: Re-writing Communism

I just explained how people could still be payed money, while their dayly basic nececities are free. I explained how and why, yet you totally ignore that and simply reply with"No. Can't be. I read books and you clearly didn't" That's no reasonable way to participate in a discussion. Tell me what those books made you believe? Otherwise don't discredit my arguements for no obvious reason.

Actually I don't see the point in following through this discussion with you Blueline.
Everything you say makes entirely no sense and frankly comes down to " You are wrong. and a moron"
Well that's not my idea of an intelligent, constructive discussion. Haven't seen much "re-writing communism" in this topic at all.

I guess you'd see my point when you lose your job, can't find a new job fast enough, get kicked out of your house and are left to roam the streets hungry. Or when for some reason you need an organ-transplantation without which you couldn't survive, but are unable to afford it.

Originally Posted by SKA

I just explained how people could still be payed money, while their dayly basic nececities are free. I explained how and why, yet you totally ignore that and simply reply with"No. Can't be. I read books and you clearly didn't" That's no reasonable way to participate in a discussion. Tell me what those books made you believe? Otherwise don't discredit my arguements for no obvious reason.

Actually I don't see the point in following through this discussion with you Blueline.
Everything you say makes entirely no sense and frankly comes down to " You are wrong. and a moron"
Well that's not my idea of an intelligent, constructive discussion. Haven't seen much "re-writing communism" in this topic at all.

I guess you'd see my point when you lose your job, can't find a new job fast enough, get kicked out of your house and are left to roam the streets hungry. Or when for some reason you need an organ-transplantation without which you couldn't survive, but are unable to afford it.

SKA, how do you propose retaining an incentive to produce such things as food, shelter, clothes etc if there is no profit?

Well I said their WOULD still be profit. It would just shift to other businesses.
PEOPLE WORKING AT GOVERNMENT RUN POWERPLANTS COULD BE PAYED MONEY WAGES.

Tax collected from big time business and from the general population could pay for that.
I think in such a system businesses like national and international Passenger transport companies, Hotels, Restaurants, luxurious foods, Arts, Music industry...etc etc would flourish cuz ALOT more people would then be able to afford it.


But I allready said this in my previous post.

Originally Posted by SKA

Well I said their WOULD still be profit. It would just shift to other businesses.
PEOPLE WORKING AT GOVERNMENT RUN POWERPLANTS COULD BE PAYED MONEY WAGES.

Tax collected from big time business and from the general population could pay for that.
I think in such a system businesses like national and international Passenger transport companies, Hotels, Restaurants, luxurious foods, Arts, Music industry...etc etc would flourish cuz ALOT more people would then be able to afford it.


But I already said this in my previous post.

No, I understand you said there would still be profit in other industries but my question was about things like food. You seemed to implicitly answer my question though, people would pay taxes that would contribute to food production. I have several questions.

1. Is it immoral to steal from individuals?
2. Are monopolies efficient in producing a good that is high in quality and low in cost?
3. Is government capable of knowing the desires of every consumer in the food market?
4. How can the government calculate how much to produce and what to produce given that there isn't a price system in these markets?

Hi laughing man. I'll try to answer your questions.

1) That depends on what is "stolen" . I think some businesses are very irresponsibly and egoisticly run; housing market, healthcare and retirement funds. This while the population depend on it for their basic survival needs. This is inacceptable and I don't see it as immoral if these businesses were "stolen" from them by the government. They could invest and settle in other businesses.

2) if those monopolies aren't profit bent and it's employees are payed money wages I don't see why not. Right now we see corporations put cardicinogenic(cancer-generating) and toxic substances in our foods and drinks as coloring and flavouring agents so they sell better; That's not my idea of quality products at all

3) It is not about tending to every little desire of a nation's populace; it's about the basic needs. So Free housing, Free electricity, Free Healthcare and free education. However tending to EXTRA, less basic needs would remain in private company's hands. So only a basic amount of food should be free. The rest would have to be considered luxurious and should NOT be free of charge. Like cars, Caviar, Cigars, Swimming pools, Motorcycles etc... I think that should provide enough incentive as well.

I think a government could provide all of it's people with a monthly amount of bread, milk, eggs, meat, and vedgetables. Just enough to survive and stay healthy. The rest of their food, technology and amusement-needs they should simply pay for.

4) The government can measure the amount people inhabiting their country. And they allready do that frequently.We can assume that all people at least need their monthly bread, milk, eggs, fruits and vedgetables. Based uppon scientific knowledge of human nutritional needs, every person could receive a monthly portion of these basic foods.

If they desire more they should work for it to buy it.

This is much like a Father that wants to motivate his sons to work and do their best on school, yet also tries not to be tyranical and cruel; "If you don't do your homework you will still have dinner and be able to sleep indoors, but you won't get dessert!"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The average percentage.

If you think the typical worker does his or her work because of a love for work, you are in for a big surprise when you get into the work world.

What is the significance of the saying "Thank God it's Friday."? Why is it a common saying?

I thought we were talking about school? At least this is what we were addressing before.

But anyway, I'm not sure where you picked out that I think the typical worker works for the love of their job. I think some people love their job because I'm going to school to learn out of love for learning and I'd love to employ my knowledge after I'm finished school. If all my needs for survival were covered I'd have no problem working with no pay. I'm sure there is other people that feel this way.

Besides, a capitalistic society creates all sorts of useless, uncreative, repetitive jobs. Of course people hate going to work when they aren't inspired creatively and are making other people rich at the expense of their own time, life, and labour. And then watch the inequality between the rich and poor keep widening and widening.

What about jobs that inspire you creatively, and increase the standard of living for all human beings (not just the CEO's and executives of the corporation), in a society where there is no money? Would you do nothing at all? Or be inspired to help everybody else because everyone else is helping you?

What would give the government incentive to do it well? Why would they get the stuff to people quickly, without people having to wait in line for three hours? What would be the incentive for giving people products they really like?

SKA, I think you missed my second to last post, which was addressed to you.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I thought we were talking about school? At least this is what we were addressing before.

It is an analogy that illustrates how jobs should work.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I But anyway, I'm not sure where you picked out that I think the typical worker works for the love of their job. I think some people love their job because I'm going to school to learn out of love for learning and I'd love to employ my knowledge after I'm finished school. If all my needs for survival were covered I'd have no problem working with no pay. I'm sure there is other people that feel this way.

Besides, a capitalistic society creates all sorts of useless, uncreative, repetitive jobs. Of course people hate going to work when they aren't inspired creatively and are making other people rich at the expense of their own time, life, and labour. And then watch the inequality between the rich and poor keep widening and widening.

All societies create jobs like that. Most jobs aren't too fun.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

What about jobs that inspire you creatively, and increase the standard of living for all human beings, in a society where there is no money? Would you do nothing at all? Or be inspired to help everybody else because everyone else is helping you?

Jobs that inspire people creatively on a major level are not that common. Think about the common jobs that need to be performed in a society. Not everybody can be a rock star or an architect.

With lack of at least upper level incentive to make money, most people will not work too hard. It is the business owners who create jobs, and those are the people who especially need financial incentive.

We "Thank God it's Friday" because no one enjoys repeatative, boring jobs UM. We all know now people won't work unless they're payed or in some way compensated. But in my view of social democracy I described how money could STILL be used as the incentive for people to work and deliver quality goods and services.

People working for these goverment businesses would be payed and therefor have plenty incentive to work.
We have supermarkets now. About every neighborhood has one. Sometimes we have to wait in line, but it works.

If we turned those supermarkets into food distribution centers? People could receive coupons for food every month that they could use to pick up a food-pack in such distribution centers.
They could partially remain to exist as supermarkets; a seperate section could be used to sell luxurious foods and drinks for money. Here they could buy beer, champaign, cigars, caviar...etc

Off course those monthly distributed basic survival kits should not contain caviar, chocolat, wine and cigars.

SKA, what I am not understanding is where the incentive for the people in the government grocery system to work hard comes from. That is why I keep asking you about the university situation. When people running things get the same reward no matter what, they don't put out much effort. Also, when people see nowhere to climb to, they don't put out much effort. How do you get around that? I keep picturing something like this...



Why not run things like that?

Now please tell me about that university situation. How would it affect incentives? Would there be more overall/average learning, or less?

Originally Posted by SKA

I just explained how people could still be payed money, while their dayly basic nececities are free.

How would you rationally distribute goods if it was free?

I explained how and why

Where?

"I read books and you clearly didn't"

It's beginning to look that way.

Tell me what those books made you believe?

They didn't make me "believe" anything, just as no one made you believe "food keeps you alive."

Otherwise don't discredit my arguements for no obvious reason.

I'm discrediting your arguments under the reason that they're based on a staggering lack of understand on how the economy works.

Actually I don't see the point in following through this discussion with you Blueline.

Then don't.

Everything you say makes entirely no sense and frankly comes down to " You are wrong. and a moron"

Right, decades of analysis from the greatest minds "makes no sense."

Well that's not my idea of an intelligent, constructive discussion. Haven't seen much "re-writing communism" in this topic at all.

Re-writing communism is trying to breathe life into a decomposed body.

I guess you'd see my point when you lose your job, can't find a new job fast enough, get kicked out of your house and are left to roam the streets hungry. Or when for some reason you need an organ-transplantation without which you couldn't survive, but are unable to afford it.

So now I won't understand anything you're saying until I become poor or something?

I noticed you didn't address my responses to your statements of:

"How do you think we ended up in this global economical depression in the first place?"

"The problem is that in our free-market systems the public services and goods are privatised; Hospitals, Schools,Senior Residence, Psychological healthcare/Pharmacuitic industry, Public transport, Supermarkets, Energy companies; all privatised."

"And the bigger corporations that run these businesses, in their blind, obsession for profit and profit alone, drive the prices of their goods and services through the ceiling, totally disregarding the fact that many people can not keep up with the prices of these dayly, basic needs and can no longer afford them."

Originally Posted by SKA

Hi laughing man. I'll try to answer your questions.

1) That depends on what is "stolen" . I think some businesses are very irresponsibly and egoisticly run; housing market, healthcare and retirement funds. This while the population depend on it for their basic survival needs. This is inacceptable and I don't see it as immoral if these businesses were "stolen" from them by the government. They could invest and settle in other businesses.

That has nothing to do with my question. Is it wrong to steal? Should stealing be illegal?

Originally Posted by SKA

2) if those monopolies aren't profit bent and it's employees are payed money wages I don't see why not. Right now we see corporations put cardicinogenic(cancer-generating) and toxic substances in our foods and drinks as coloring and flavouring agents so they sell better; That's not my idea of quality products at all

So you don't think that monopolies have a natural incentive to produce items that have less quality and charge absorbent prices due to the fact they are the only ones producing it?

Originally Posted by SKA

3) It is not about tending to every little desire of a nation's populace; it's about the basic needs. So Free housing, Free electricity, Free Healthcare and free education. However tending to EXTRA, less basic needs would remain in private company's hands. So only a basic amount of food should be free. The rest would have to be considered luxurious and should NOT be free of charge. Like cars, Caviar, Cigars, Swimming pools, Motorcycles etc... I think that should provide enough incentive as well.

I'm not talking about luxury goods. Is it possible for the government to know what soup every individual wants? What kind of bread?

Originally Posted by SKA

I think a government could provide all of it's people with a monthly amount of bread, milk, eggs, meat, and vedgetables. Just enough to survive and stay healthy. The rest of their food, technology and amusement-needs they should simply pay for.

What kind of bread? How much bread? What percentage of milk? What about those who are lactose intolerant?

Originally Posted by SKA

4) The government can measure the amount people inhabiting their country. And they allready do that frequently.We can assume that all people at least need their monthly bread, milk, eggs, fruits and vedgetables. Based uppon scientific knowledge of human nutritional needs, every person could receive a monthly portion of these basic foods.

So you think you can economically calculate based on how many people inhabit a country?

Originally Posted by SKA

We "Thank God it's Friday" because no one enjoys repeatative, boring jobs UM. We all know now people won't work unless they're payed or in some way compensated. But in my view of social democracy I described how money could STILL be used as the incentive for people to work and deliver quality goods and services.

Labor is a means to an end. It doesn't have to an end in itself. If your job is uncreative then why not seek non-labor activities to increase your flourishing. It's the difference between a career and a calling.

UM if people working at a government grocery system were payed money wages, they could climb.
And laughing man you do exactly the same. I explained that the government would tend to the BASIC needs. So a brown bread, some milk, some vedgetables and some fruit; If they desire special, more luxurious foods then they'd have to pay for it. The basic monthly food-kit is just to make sure no one will ever have to be hunrgy. This is the last time I'm repeating myself; If you come again saying"The government couldn't know what soup everyone wants" then you're just totally not at all considering what I've meant to explain.

So this discussion seems pointless. I showed you ways to deprivatise certain businesses and yet continue to use money wages as the incentive.

You simply shut it out allthough I explained repeatedly how it is possible. I don't feel like repeating myself any longer.
Your fear of socialism is completely irrational. I explained to you the possibilities, but you seem to ignore that and repeat your arguments of how it's impossible.


I know better, more usefull things to do with my time.

Originally Posted by SKA

UM if people working at a government grocery system were payed money wages, they could climb.
And laughing man you do exactly the same. I explained that the government would tend to the BASIC needs. So a brown bread, some milk, some vedgetables and some fruit; If they desire special, more luxurious foods then they'd have to pay for it. The basic monthly food-kit is just to make sure no one will ever have to be hunrgy. This is the last time I'm repeating myself; If you come again saying"The government couldn't know what soup everyone wants" then you're just totally not at all considering what I've meant to explain.

What do you mean to explain, then? Don't just repeat yourself over and over. Clarify.

So this discussion seems pointless. I showed you ways to deprivatise certain businesses and yet continue to use money wages as the incentive.

And we challenge your ways yet you just repeat yourself and get mad.

You simply shut it out allthough I explained repeatedly how it is possible. I don't feel like repeating myself any longer.
Your fear of socialism is completely irrational. I explained to you the possibilities, but you seem to ignore that and repeat your arguments of how it's impossible.

"The government will tend to basic needs" is not an explanation.

I know better, more usefull things to do with my time.

You're just using repeating yourself as your reasoning even though both Laughing Man and I have disproved you multiple times.

When will you reply to my post? When will you answer Laughing Man's questions?

Originally Posted by SKA

UM if people working at a government grocery system were payed money wages, they could climb.

I was asking about the people at the top. They need profits, not just good wages. It is the possibilities of profits make people work hard and run businesses well. If the people who run a business are apathetic, their apathy goes all the way down. If they don't give a shit, why would they be cautious about who they hire and who they promote? Have you ever seen how an American Department of Motor Vehicles operates? If you ever become a citizen here, have fun standing in line for three hours to renew your driver's license. Also have fun dealing with not give a shit attitudes from public school officials and the people who provide water and electricity. It is a disgraceful joke. Private companies tend to make things work a whole lot better than that.

UM people work for wages. They don't care for having the highest possible profits. They care about their personal wealth only. Capitalism promotes and exploits Self-centeredness. This how incentive is made and maintained.

If you can't see how paying people at government run powerplants, bakeries, foodfarms..etc could be provided with enough incentive to do their jobs good, then your rational thinking is severly compromised by clinging on to the false, indoctrinated ideals of capitalism.

You may think you have solid arguments to counter mine, UM(but also laughing man), but to be honoust your argumentation is the absolute top of irrationality.

I said this discussion has become pointless since it is my belief it is a discussion's purpose to let people enrich and alter eachother's beliefs with different view points.

You told me about the classical incentive-problems of the Sovjet model of communism. I reply with possible ways to get around those problems. This means I actually take your arguments into serious consideration rather than simply dismiss them. Too bad you don't enter discussion with the same open mindedness.

You(UM and Laughing man) already made up your mind about communism/socialism BEFORE you entered this discussion. You entered this discussion with a closed, made up mind intending to discredit and dismiss anything that pleas for a possible socialistic/communist system. Such additudes make for very poor discussions. It turns them into Ego struggles.


And therefor I just lost interrest in this "Discussion". I'll be glad to continue participating in this discussion once I see some people posting something relevant to "Re-Writing Communism".

Maybe you guys should start a new topic named "Writing off communism" and leave this topic unspoiiled and unhindered to the discussion of re-writing communism.



PS:BlueLine, I wasn't even mentioning you. Your purpose is nothing but to stir up the shit and troll in every topic I've seen you post in. I'll simply be ignoring you from now on, for the sake of unhindered, intelligent discussion.

SKA, help UM, Laughing Man, and I understand socialism/communism then. As far as I see it, this is a fairly intelligent conversation with two sides arguing two sides, as it should be.

The problem is that you are saying "I explained X, Y, and Z" except you never explained X, Y, or Z.

Can you at least answer Laughing Man's questions?

Originally Posted by SKA

UM people work for wages. They don't care for having the highest possible profits. They care about their personal wealth only. Capitalism promotes and exploits Self-centeredness. This how incentive is made and maintained.

Pay attention this time...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was asking about the people at the top. They need profits, not just good wages. It is the possibilities of profits make people work hard and run businesses well. If the people who run a business are apathetic, their apathy goes all the way down. If they don't give a shit, why would they be cautious about who they hire and who they promote? Have you ever seen how an American Department of Motor Vehicles operates? If you ever become a citizen here, have fun standing in line for three hours to renew your driver's license. Also have fun dealing with not give a shit attitudes from public school officials and the people who provide water and electricity. It is a disgraceful joke. Private companies tend to make things work a whole lot better than that.

This time, try to give me something better than insulting babble about my supposed approach. I posed a very relevant question. Open your mind and answer it.

It is not the case that everybody who works for a business makes wages or salary. You forgot about commissions and profits. Owners are all about profits. It is the quest for profits that has them setting up the businesses and going through years of doubt and strife while they build the businesses as well as they know how to. Then they keep very close eyes on the businesses and make sure the businesses are run well and in many cases run it themselves. The ones who really understand how things work give their managers commissions. You want to kill all of that, so I am asking how your system can handle the absence of all of it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Pay attention this time...



This time, try to give me something better than insulting babble about my supposed approach. I posed a very relevant question. Open your mind and answer it.

It is not the case that everybody who works for a business makes wages or salary. You forgot about commissions and profits. Owners are all about profits. It is the quest for profits that has them setting up the businesses and going through years of doubt and strife while they build the businesses as well as they know how to. Then they keep very close eyes on the businesses and make sure the businesses are run well and in many cases run it themselves. The ones who really understand how things work give their managers commissions. You want to kill all of that, so I am asking how your system can handle the absence of all of it.

Very valid point. I will add that Karl Marx wrote reams on his criticism of capitalism, and very little on the intricacies of his proposed replacement.

Originally Posted by drew

Very valid point. I will add that Karl Marx wrote reams on his criticism of capitalism, and very little on the intricacies of his proposed replacement.

This doesn't in anyway affect his criticisms of capitalism. If they are valid, they remain valid, with or without a valid solution. I'm not saying that you disagreed with this piece of logic, I'm just trying to establish what your point is.

I can sympathize with you even though I'm not a Communist, just because everybody associates the word with evil and flawed societies and doesn't even really know what Communism means. But the hard workers need to be rewarded while the lazy ones should not. I believe in a better regulated form of Capitalism, or a mixed economy. I think that both Capitalism and Communism have flaws, and good parts. Pure Capitalism can encourage greed and hard working people can receive very little money in factories while baseball players can receive hundreds of dollars every time that they swing a bat (even if they miss!). But in pure Communism, not everyone realizes that by benefiting the whole they benefit themselves, and they can see little reason to work. But I do hate the word "Communism" because people associate it with Stalinism or Maoism, which really weren't even Communist systems! (They weren't Democracies, etc.) Here in the US if you say "Socialism" people will think that you're evil... Oh no! Free health care! Pure evil! I think that the idea of people working for the greater good is beautiful, but in today's society, it's not very realistic.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I what we want it to be, and idea's to make it that way..

First of all, it is an asses journey that has no idea of why it would want to go anywhere at all. Before you can say what is or is not good or bad or indifferent for anything, you havev to know what a thing is.

I am going to use some scriptural metaphor, not because I am the least bit religious, I am not, but because the metaphors have meaning. I am the kind of guy that don't give a damn if a rock says something, if it is true, or the devil himself.

The body of man has been likened to a menorah (seven lights) or one might even see the xmass tree metaphor. However, seven eys, seven horns, a lot of play on the number seven.

An environmental acquisition system of a living organism must acquire something from the environment and process what it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.

1) The ocular system for environmental mapping.
2) The vestibular system for gravitational positioning.
3) The digestive system for food.
4) The respiratory system for oxygen.
5) Manipulative system, motion and craft.
6) Procreative system for mate.
7) Judgmental system for judgment.

Now every environmental acquisition system functions for the individual. Judgmental system for individual human will.

Now, if one learned anything at all in simple arithmetic, one cannot possibly add will in order to make a social structure until the unit that one was adding was in fact a unit. So, individual human freedom, is by example, and by logic, the starting point for any hazy dreams of what we think things ought to be.

Anyone who as a desire to rule over others, just another insane and dangerous fool.

A wise man said that the first thing one needed to consider in the fixing of any government was the fixing first of language--because will is a product of reason.

Originally Posted by SwingMan

I can sympathize with you even though I'm not a Communist, just because everybody associates the word with evil and flawed societies and doesn't even really know what Communism means. But the hard workers need to be rewarded while the lazy ones should not. I believe in a better regulated form of Capitalism, or a mixed economy. I think that both Capitalism and Communism have flaws, and good parts. Pure Capitalism can encourage greed and hard working people can receive very little money in factories while baseball players can receive hundreds of dollars every time that they swing a bat (even if they miss!). But in pure Communism, not everyone realizes that by benefiting the whole they benefit themselves, and they can see little reason to work. But I do hate the word "Communism" because people associate it with Stalinism or Maoism, which really weren't even Communist systems! (They weren't Democracies, etc.) Here in the US if you say "Socialism" people will think that you're evil... Oh no! Free health care! Pure evil! I think that the idea of people working for the greater good is beautiful, but in today's society, it's not very realistic.

Fortunately, the stigma against socialism is starting to change. I mean, we live in a nation with a socialized health care system that about half of the country, (give or take,) supports. Most of our major allies incorporate socialism, are socialist, or use heavy socialistic principles. Canada, Britain, Germany, the list continues. So while people may have a deep seated hatred against communism or anything similar to it, (socialism,) that is changing. The Cold War has been over for about twenty years now- people are no longer as brainwashed. Now we are just trained to hate Islam instead! Yay for progress...

Communism is the most extreme form of socialism, and because oppression and threats are the only things that get people working at all in such a system, ALL of the communist governments that have ever existed have been totalitarian. It is not a coincidence.

Lighter socialism is ineffective and unfair also. A high percentage of the U.S. still despises socialism, as I think they should. Socialism is one of the major and repeated failures of history, like prohibition.

Even socialized medicine alone is oppressive and unfair. When a system involves keeping certain life saving medications illegal because the government thinks they are too expensive, and keeps dying people waiting way too long for life saving operations because the system is taken advantage of and run by unmotivated people who have no profit incentive, the system is in direct opposition to freedom as well as sensical economics. Socialism is a disease on this planet. History has shown that repeatedly.