As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

It's fair if there is no greed, which communism assumes.

I'm an advocate of Communism, but not the purest form in the Marxian sense. More like the workings of the Soviet Union. The basics, I think, are the same; classless, equal society, but there are major differences; state control, actual state existance. So your Wikipedia quote I feel is good; Stalinism as a form of Communism based upon Marxism, but not strictly adhering to it.

 

 

 

How are you going to realise that and protect human rights at the same time?

 

Simple: I don't.

 

Then what's the point of the government?

 

Let me ask you the question: do you think it would be fair for a bagger and doctor to earn the relative amounts of money you suggested? What about if they earned the same amount of money?

 

Yes.

 

 

How is that fair? The amount of effort a doctor provides and the need for doctors is incomparable to the need for baggers. Face it, most people won't go through the trouble of going through years of extra learning when they could learn to put things in a bag in 15 minutes. They won't bother.

As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

It's fair if there is no greed, which communism assumes.

 

I'd say communism is more "greedy" than capitalism, to be honest.

I suppose that I would have to admit that I have some Socialist leanings. I love the idea of an egalitarian society; it would really help solve some major crap that goes on in the world today.

 

 

 

It's sad that America is so afraid of any other ideas. They demonize other philosophies and nations, and the citizens fail to educate themselves on the very subject that they were taught to hate without question. So it's bad when a corrupt government controls its citizens' every action, but it's perfectly okay for students to be forced to salute the American flag?

 

Agreed.

 

I'm not a socialist extremist or whatever, but I do have some socialist ideals. I realize that pure socialism will most likely never work, but neither will pure capitalism, so I'm kind of in the middle. Capitalism provides motivation for most people (I know several people who thoroughly enjoy what they do, and would do it even for a low wage), which in turn causes advancement, which is usually good. Socialism would cause people to be lazy and greedy, and it can be extremely unfair, but if properly executed (So blended with some capitalism, if that makes any sense...) it could work.

 

 

 

And many Americans really do treat communism/socialism as if if it was implemented, it would be the Apocalypse. Hey, maybe the winner of the 2012 election will be a communist...

 

(At school, I've only heard one or two good arguments against socialism. Yet if I claim I'm socialist, which I've come close to doing, I'll end up as one of the most unpopular kids, after the republicans)

 

Let me ask you the question: do you think it would be fair for a bagger and doctor to earn the relative amounts of money you suggested? What about if they earned the same amount of money?

 

Yes.

 

 

How is that fair? The amount of effort a doctor provides and the need for doctors is incomparable to the need for baggers. Face it, most people won't go through the trouble of going through years of extra learning when they could learn to put things in a bag in 15 minutes. They won't bother.

 

I dislike analogies like this. It's the same flawed logic that accompanies the justification of the bail outs to prevent CEOs from losing out. It places the shop worker as being in a lower level on the social hierarchy as a doctor, and hence, wrongly assumes the doctor deserves a higher wage. The whole point of leftist thinking is this: The doctor is no more necessary to the maintenance of society than the person working at the till in Asda.

 

 

 

I agree with that statement, and for three reasons:

 

 

 

1) The bagger is still a human, and thus, has the same basic social security needs as a doctor. Five years at uni does not change this;

 

2) If the bagger does not earn a decent wage, or does not have access to universal healthcare, the doctor has nobody to treat since the bagger cannot afford the luxury (and yes, it is a luxury) of personal health insurance.

 

3) How many people can perform a task is wholly irrelevant in an economy which deplores the "supply vs demand" mechanism. Anyone who uses that argument is an idiot - they're analysing Communism by looking at its functioning in a Capitalist economy. At the end of the day, someone still needs to work a till in Asda, or Asda can't sell anything. No one needs a doctor.

 

 

 

While I don't support Communism, its underlying reasoning is completely justified to me. Wage should not be relative to how much time one has spent at university.

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

 

They don't. The error in your reasoning is misunderstanding the word 'necessity'. Much like how most people will claim having a car is a necessity these days.

 

As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

Don't forget that in communism, the doctor would get a free education, and provided with necessities while studying. Now it's the bagger who is doing all the hard work, while the doctor is going to school.

Why is there a thread about communism every week anyway? I suppose it is funny to watch wannabe tinpot dictators argue with eachother though.

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

 

They don't. The error in your reasoning is misunderstanding the word 'necessity'. Much like how most people will claim having a car is a necessity these days.

 

If you're going to think like that, the bagger isn't a necessity either.

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

 

 

 

Nobody does need a doctor. There is 3 needs in life to survive, Food, Water and Shelter. Electricity, clothes, transports aren't necessities, they are luxuries. Nobody needs a doctor to survive, they want to a doctor to prolong life.

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

 

 

 

Nobody does need a doctor. There is 3 needs in life to survive, Food, Water and Shelter. Electricity, clothes, transports aren't necessities, they are luxuries. Nobody needs a doctor to survive, they want to a doctor to prolong life.

 

You also need organs...

 

OMG I HAVE NO HEART BUT IM A OK

 

 

 

also what about the homeless people?

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

 

 

 

Nobody does need a doctor. There is 3 needs in life to survive, Food, Water and Shelter. Electricity, clothes, transports aren't necessities, they are luxuries. Nobody needs a doctor to survive, they want to a doctor to prolong life.

 

You also need organs...

 

OMG I HAVE NO HEART BUT IM A OK

 

 

 

also what about the homeless people?

 

Homeless people don't have shelter? And often very little food/water.

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, did you mean "If homeless people don't have shelter, how do they survive?"

 

Well, they don't survive for long.

...No one needs a doctor.

 

 

This is the error in your reasoning.

 

 

 

Nobody does need a doctor. There is 3 needs in life to survive, Food, Water and Shelter. Electricity, clothes, transports aren't necessities, they are luxuries. Nobody needs a doctor to survive, they want to a doctor to prolong life.

 

You also need organs...

 

OMG I HAVE NO HEART BUT IM A OK

 

 

 

also what about the homeless people?

 

Homeless people don't have shelter? And often very little food/water.

 

Also if you eat alot of fruit you don't need water.

 

Also if you eat alot of fruit you don't need water.

 

Yes, you do. You just specified the source of the water. Could we please get back on track?

Why is there a thread about communism every week anyway? I suppose it is funny to watch wannabe tinpot dictators argue with eachother though.

 

 

 

Link me to another "communism thread", and don't spam. And discussion of a type of politics doesn't make anyone here a wanna-be dictator, or even communist at all. :thumbdown:

 

 

 

Anyways, at the whole baggers vs. doctors debate-

 

People want to be happy, they want to be content and without bore the most possible. Does becoming a bagger, and bagging for the rest of your life really sound fun to you? In a communistic government money is irrelevant when it comes to careers, its only about interest, enjoyment and servitude. Who do you think would be more respected? Who, generally speaking, would be more content with his or her job?

 

 

 

There would be an obvious social hierarchy, but instead of the main variable being earnings, it would most likely be based upon skill, servitude and the impact in which the job has on society more so than in a capitalist economy.

in theory its a good idea, but in reality there is always at least one [bleep] who takes advantage of the flaws in the system, as the USSR proved.

Its more than one sick guy that can ruin a country.

As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

It's fair if there is no greed, which communism assumes.

 

 

 

What's greedy about wanting a salary proportional to how hard your job is and the qualifications and training needed to do it?

 

 

 

 

As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

Don't forget that in communism, the doctor would get a free education, and provided with necessities while studying. Now it's the bagger who is doing all the hard work, while the doctor is going to school.

 

 

 

You make becoming a doctor sound so easy. I'm not concerned about the money involved to get there, it's the effort. If you don't apply yourself and study a significant amount (assuming you're not gifted) then you wont get the good results necessary, and it takes years to become a doctor, not a few weeks. Hell, you could even drop out of school early and start bagging groceries if it were allowed. No chance of that with more professional jobs. I'd hardly call learning how to bag groceries or bagging groceries "hard work", either. You're yet to convince me I'm afraid. How is each person earning the same fair?

Let me ask you the question: do you think it would be fair for a bagger and doctor to earn the relative amounts of money you suggested? What about if they earned the same amount of money?

 

 

 

No, it's not. The doctor obviously went through much more work to get to where he is today and the bagger had to go through a dinky interview at the most.

 

 

 

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, I don't think it's fair for someone to live like a queen just because everyone loves her phenomenal voice while there are thousands of starving children dying on the other side of the world because they are incapable of getting any income.

 

 

 

I guess the world just can't be fair.

 

 

 

You make becoming a doctor sound so easy. I'm not concerned about the money involved to get there, it's the effort. If you don't apply yourself and study a significant amount (assuming you're not gifted) then you wont get the good results necessary, and it takes years to become a doctor, not a few weeks. Hell, you could even drop out of school early and start bagging groceries if it were allowed. No chance of that with the more professional jobs. I'd hardly call learning how to bag groceries or bagging groceries "hard work", either. You're yet to convince me I'm afraid. How is each person earning the same fair?

 

 

 

Not all high-paying jobs require as much work though. There are some jobs that require tons of work and dedication and don't pay nearly as much as something like that of a supermodel. We can't make the claim that everyone who has money earned all of it "fair and square" through hard work.

I agree with everything there, Zierro. Capitalism isn't going to be perfectly fair, either, though on balance I consider it better than Communism.

As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

It's fair if there is no greed, which communism assumes.

 

 

 

What's greedy about wanting a salary proportional to how hard your job is and the qualifications and training needed to do it?

 

But why do you need more, if you don't want more? (assuming no greed or a desire to have more)

As for your answer of yes to my question, what to you is fair about a doctor doing years of hard study to earn $X a week if a grocery bagger can earn the same on a little bit of relatively easy training? You can see what I'm saying here, can't you?

 

It's fair if there is no greed, which communism assumes.

 

 

 

What's greedy about wanting a salary proportional to how hard your job is and the qualifications and training needed to do it?

 

But why do you need more, if you don't want more? (assuming no greed or a desire to have more)

 

 

 

You don't, but that all depends on whether you want more. As has been said, people from capitalist societies are likely to want more money proportional to the training needed/effort put into a job, while I suppose those from communist societies wont. It doesn't exactly answer why wanting a salary proportional to how hard your job is and the qualifications and training needed to do it would be greedy.

 

 

 

To me, that's not greedy. That's as fair as fair can get, because you get out what you put in. Unfair to me would be dedicating a significant amount of time and effort to get a job which earns the same amount of money as a job which takes relatively little training and effort to get.

Unfair to me would be dedicating a significant amount of time and effort to get a job which earns the same amount of money as a job which takes relatively little training and effort to get.

 

 

 

That's still very present in capitalism too.