Communism - Yea or Nay?

[warri0r45]

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.

 

 

 

I could respond in a similar way I did before, but there's not much use to that. What I do want to hear is what you think would be better in terms of fairness - Capitalism or Communism.

[Zierro]

When I think in terms of "fair" I see families being happy because everyone is healthy and has a full belly (the universal right to live) - not a mechanic earning approximately 50% less than a builder even though they both make more than enough (the universal "right" to leisurely excess).

[l0l0lpur32]

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.

 

Other "communism threads":

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774938&hilit=communism (I haven't bothered to read it all but judging from the posts which I have read, it turned into one)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=773343&hilit=communism (see above)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=771419&p=6275679&hilit=communism#p6275679 (and again)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=communism (same as above, but specifically about socialism/communism rather than turning into one)

 

I can find more if you'd like

 

 

 

Communism benefits no-one except the central planners who run it.

[Zierro]

^^ While those threads may have discussions about communism in them, they are not for the sole purpose of discussing communism like this thread is.

[Adam007]

Obviously communism is ideal. I think it's near impossible to implement in an ideal way, though. If the citizens were directly involved and a government ceased to exist - the citizens were the government, I may be interested. But because a small minority of people would likely take advantage of this kind of a situation, it just couldn't work. What I describe sounds more like a deregulated form of communism where it almost comes full circle to the opposite end, lawlessness, but I think a in a pure, ideal (unattainable) communist state, laws wouldn't be needed.

[l0rd]

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.

 

Other "communism threads":

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774938&hilit=communism (I haven't bothered to read it all but judging from the posts which I have read, it turned into one)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=773343&hilit=communism (see above)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=771419&p=6275679&hilit=communism#p6275679 (and again)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=communism (same as above, but specifically about socialism/communism rather than turning into one)

 

I can find more if you'd like

 

 

 

Communism benefits no-one except the central planners who run it.

 

 

 

Yeah, that really made me lul at the sheer lack of logic. If you were to make a thread about something like....."The vows of marriage", but then I said that there are too many threads about marriage and or vows and linked you to a thread about Gay marriage, The Definition of Love, and the laws regarding marriages. Its pretty idiotic.

[pureprayer]

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.

 

Other "communism threads":

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774938&hilit=communism (I haven't bothered to read it all but judging from the posts which I have read, it turned into one)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=773343&hilit=communism (see above)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=771419&p=6275679&hilit=communism#p6275679 (and again)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=communism (same as above, but specifically about socialism/communism rather than turning into one)

 

I can find more if you'd like

 

 

 

Communism benefits no-one except the central planners who run it.

 

 

 

Yeah, that really made me lul at the sheer lack of logic. If you were to make a thread about something like....."The vows of marriage", but then I said that there are too many threads about marriage and or vows and linked you to a thread about Gay marriage, The Definition of Love, and the laws regarding marriages. Its pretty idiotic.

 

I can only find one thread on communism

 

 

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=776163

[assassin_696]

The principles of communism disincentivise people doing certain jobs (traditionally ones with high wages and high training) and working harder than the next man. As such productivity would be be slashed and people would have to accept much lower living standards. I also think that the state does a terrible job of allocating resources. Whether or not this is the price to pay for equality, I don't know.

 

 

 

That said, I find Marxist thinking fascinating and very thought provoking. I just think communism is a deeply flawed ideology, but with a noble purpose. I think it woefully misjudges human nature to its downfall and has mostly arisen in the world out of times of great social unrest and so perhaps hasn't started on the best foot. I can't see it ever being implemented on a scale like that of Russia anymore though. Free markets work too well, although not perfectly.

[folmer_veeman]

The principles of communism disincentivise people doing certain jobs (traditionally ones with high wages and high training) and working harder than the next man. As such productivity would be be slashed and people would have to accept much lower living standards. I also think that the state does a terrible job of allocating resources. Whether or not this is the price to pay for equality, I don't know.

 

 

 

That said, I find Marxist thinking fascinating and very thought provoking. I just think communism is a deeply flawed ideology, but with a noble purpose. I think it woefully misjudges human nature to its downfall and has mostly arisen in the world out of times of great social unrest and so perhaps hasn't started on the best foot. I can't see it ever being implemented on a scale like that of Russia anymore though. Free markets work too well, although not perfectly.

 

 

 

I've often wondered whether like a closely bount amount of smaller communist states/provinces would work, as it would allow for more adaptation and a very close society. (I have no knowledge of these sorts of things so if I sound like a dummy, I am.)

[l0l0lpur32]

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.

 

Other "communism threads":

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=774938&hilit=communism (I haven't bothered to read it all but judging from the posts which I have read, it turned into one)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=773343&hilit=communism (see above)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=771419&p=6275679&hilit=communism#p6275679 (and again)

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=communism (same as above, but specifically about socialism/communism rather than turning into one)

 

I can find more if you'd like

 

 

 

Communism benefits no-one except the central planners who run it.

 

 

 

Yeah, that really made me lul at the sheer lack of logic. If you were to make a thread about something like....."The vows of marriage", but then I said that there are too many threads about marriage and or vows and linked you to a thread about Gay marriage, The Definition of Love, and the laws regarding marriages. Its pretty idiotic.

 

All the threads I linked to are VERY similar in content to this one.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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.

 

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Why should the amount of time one has spent at university have any bearing whatsoever on the amount of money you earn later on in life? As far as I'm aware, people receive wages so they can afford to live. No amount of time spent at university changes the basic social security needs of that person in any way, thus, why it should even be brought up in this debate is beyond me.

 

 

 

Secondly, universities are not vocational training centres. Students go to university to expand their area of specialty, and to learn how to study other specialties for themselves. Not so they can land themselves on £30K+ jobs later.

 

 

 

If we're using the analogy of a doctor, I'd go as far to argue only going to university to study Medicine in order to earn more than a 'lowly' bagger later on in life is exactly the sort of attitude a doctor should not have, given they'll be forced to treat that bagger in exactly the same way they'd treat a noble in their occupation. If a doctor is only motivated by money, and this is his/her only incentive for putting themselves through ten years of training, and they also look down on others for 'not working as hard as them', they'd make a [bleep] poor doctor anyway.

 

 

 

In essence, what this debate between me and you boils down to this: Should people choose your Utopian society where only the few who go to university earn the majority amount of wealth; or my Utopian society where everyone, in theory at least, receives their fair share from society, regardless of how much time they've spent pruning themselves in the ivory towers of university?

[Legosimx]

Well. Communism worked quite well for the Native Americans. The thing is, imo it worked b/c the society of the NA, was relatively small. In the matters of a country with 100 million + people, it just doesn't seem like the system to work really. It just doesn't account for all of the natural human elements. In a country of 100 million. There is bound to be SOMEONE corrupt, that doesn't care about the people working in office somewhere. The closest I ever see Communism EVER working on a large scale, is low level socialism. Socialized health care for instance. BUT, I think the US has bigger problems atm than health care issues. Social security for instance. Honestly, America is so big and so populous, that in my opinion there is no way we have enough money to pay people's salaries (SS) and for their health care (SHC). Plus whatever else. It just seems like the money would run out. Imo SS will be gone in less than 5-10 years anyway. We're just to big. And growing.

[l0l0lpur32]

Well. Communism worked quite well for the Native Americans.

 

Funniest comment I've read on one of these ridiculous threads

[warri0r45]

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.

 

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Why should the amount of time one has spent at university have any bearing whatsoever on the amount of money you earn later on in life? As far as I'm aware, people receive wages so they can afford to live. No amount of time spent at university changes the basic social security needs of that person in any way, thus, why it should even be brought up in this debate is beyond me.

 

 

 

Secondly, universities are not vocational training centres. Students go to university to expand their area of specialty, and to learn how to study other specialties for themselves. Not so they can land themselves on £30K+ jobs later.

 

 

 

If we're using the analogy of a doctor, I'd go as far to argue only going to university to study Medicine in order to earn more than a 'lowly' bagger later on in life is exactly the sort of attitude a doctor should not have, given they'll be forced to treat that bagger in exactly the same way they'd treat a noble in their occupation. If a doctor is only motivated by money, and this is his/her only incentive for putting themselves through ten years of training, and they also look down on others for 'not working as hard as them', they'd make a [bleep] poor doctor anyway.

 

 

 

In essence, what this debate between me and you boils down to this: Should people choose your Utopian society where only the few who go to university earn the majority amount of wealth; or my Utopian society where everyone, in theory at least, receives their fair share from society, regardless of how much time they've spent pruning themselves in the ivory towers of university?

 

 

 

The amount of training required should have some bearing on salary because effort should be proportional to reward for that effort. Sorry, I can't boil it down any more than that. We've been using the analogy of the doctor and the grocery bagger so far. The ideal situation in respect to this scenario is that the doctor earns more because he put in more of an effort to get their job than the bagger did. Wages aren't only for needs or necessities, either - they are for a little bit of fun, too.

 

 

 

Obviously money shouldn't be your only motivation to do become a doctor because as you rightly say that's not exactly equitable to being a good doctor. I'm training to be a scientist, and if I were motivated by money I would have trained to be a tradesman like my brother. He has his own company and will more than likely earn more money than I will. Still, I love what I do and I'm really motivated to try and help society with my skills when I graduate and get a job. I think it would be nice to earn a decent living for myself while doing it, though.

 

 

 

Edit: Seeing as you brought up the so-called ivory towers of university, I suppose I should say that I don't mind in the slightest that my brother will potentially be earning more than me. He did a 3 year apprenticeship and worked hard to get where he is, so he deserves what he gets.

[Legosimx]

Well. Communism worked quite well for the Native Americans.

 

Funniest comment I've read on one of these ridiculous threads

 

It's not funny smartstuff.

 

 

 

The Native Americans (or at least the Mohawk) operated on a primitive form of Matriarchal Communism.

 

 

 

 

 

No Gulags as far as I can tell though.

 

 

 

Learned it at the Iroquois museum last summer. :thumbsup:

[l0l0lpur32]

The Americas were colonised before Marx was even born... I don't know much about the native Americans but if they did have some form of system where the tribes shared out all their resources equally it's nothing to do with communism.

[Omar]

Just because Marx hadn't put his ideas out there, doesn't mean the NA couldn't have followed the same base idea.

[Quoi_Tu]

[hide=]

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)

[/hide]

 

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.

 

 

 

Well, Ginger said pretty much what I was going to say (in a better way) and that is what I think the problem is with communism. People need a motivating factor. They want a reward for what they do; otherwise, what's the point?

[Shinjula]

Hi guys, if I may join in your very interesting conversation...

 

 

 

I'm very much into the communist ideal myself, its just seems a fairer system overall, theres a few obvious points (which dont seem to have appeared so far) I'd like to see if people are willing to look at...

 

 

 

Almost always when the subject of communism comes up the first thing out of peoples mouths is "Good idea in practice but it just doesnt work", and I can quite understand why that a conclusion which is easy to jump to. But lets suppose for a moment that what we are talking about in communism is creating a free and equal society (OK thats debatable, but I'm taking it as read for the purposes of answering those thinking its a great idea which doesnt work, rather than those who dont think its a good idea at all). Creating a free and equal society has been one of the goals of humanity since we first started to conceptualise about societies, but no one ever said it was going to be easy. All we know so far is that we havent managed to do it so far on a large scale. It should however be noted that communisms have worked many times in the past on the small scale, in tribal situations and also in lower level organisations (consider, for example, that a lot of modern marriages are communistic in how they work). There have even been times when medium sized communisms have worked.

 

 

 

Large scale communism tends to fail for an obvious reason, communication, the ability to get consensus from a large population has until very recently been completely impossible, and only now are we approaching the point where not only technology but also software is catching up - think voting machines - you not only have to get the tech up and running but have the ability to distinguish between one individual and another reliably (a complex problem in information tech). Without the ability to get consensus its completely impossible to even start to shift toward a society without a state governing body, and without that we cant have a proper pure stateless communism. But that tech is coming and with it it can become possible to work a proper communism into society.

 

 

 

One other point I'd like to put forward to discussion in my first post is the phrase "Communism doesnt work" and its nonsensicality, it gets repeated so often people seem not to notice its incomprehensibility. It obviously works in the sense that there are communist countries who continue their day to day business without exploding randomly in the night, so I'll assume thats not really what people mean, but instead I'm guessing they mean it doesnt produce a result they are happy with. Yet Capitalism (which I am assuming is the preferred alternate to communisim which most of the people opposing it are suggesting - for once I'd love to have a debate between socialists and communists) is designed to be unfair. Capitalism must by defacto have a poor majority of the populace, most of which, it should be pointed out will not have the money or the education to come on sites like this and may lack the tools to describe fully to you what its like to be part of that unfair portion of the populace. I'm in an unusual position myself, since whilst I have a high level of education have found myself unavoidably positioned within that part of the populace. I'm poor and not for anything other than one bad thing happening to me and one decision of mine which I chose wrongly (I followed everyones advice, including my parents - I shouldnt have).

 

I have noticed a lot of discussion about the wages of Doctors versus Baggers, it seems obvious to me that a Doctor did not get to choose his/her high IQ which gave him the potential to become a Doctor. Capitalism (in its best case scenario) rewards people based on ability. Yet none of us choose what abilities we get, I did not sit in line for my own high IQ and neither did any bagger ever chose a low IQ, yet the rewards given by capitalism are based on this random variable. And thats in a best case scenario. In the real world a bagger will probably work far harder than higher paying jobs, Doctor is an exception to this, I would tend not to use Doctor as an argument as they do work very hard, however in comparison to the work a bagger puts in in a week, how much work do you think a Lawyer does? or a Manager? Or an Architect? Do they deserve it because they went to university and studied hard? Given that while they were at University studying hard the bagger was out working hard, I dont see that argument standing up.

 

Dont forget for every lazy bagger there is an equally lazy Architect (reduced by the proportions of Baggers to Architects).

 

 

 

Hope that I've engaged some interest, look forward to any replies.

[Shinjula]

Well, Ginger said pretty much what I was going to say (in a better way) and that is what I think the problem is with communism. People need a motivating factor. They want a reward for what they do; otherwise, what's the point?

 

Absolutely, which is why we need to start educating people to strive for higher ideals than we are currently, the motivating factor would be to improve life for the whole of society, not just for yourself.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Funniest comment I've read on one of these ridiculous threads

 

Almost as funny as the pointless nature of half your posts.

 

 

 

The amount of training required should have some bearing on salary because effort should be proportional to reward for that effort. Sorry, I can't boil it down any more than that. We've been using the analogy of the doctor and the grocery bagger so far. The ideal situation in respect to this scenario is that the doctor earns more because he put in more of an effort to get their job than the bagger did.

 

To get their job, maybe. That's why the state effectively pays the bills for those students while they're in training.

 

 

 

Actually performing the job itself though? I'll confess, being a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other professional job can be incredibly stressful, but does that really justify those people earning up to $150,000+ a year more than the bagger we've been talking about?

 

 

 

That bagger still has to undergo training, and can be fired just as easily as anyone else. He still has to follow instructions, and do laborious menial work day-in, day-out. He still has to get up at 7 in the morning to start work at 9, and work 42 hours a week full time. I really cannot see much difference in the actual effort required between the two jobs there.

 

 

 

Hence we come to a very sinister conclusion - the only reason they earn that much is because of how reliant we are on them, and thus how much power they hold over us. A problem which recurs everytime contracts are renewed in the NHS.

 

 

 

Wages aren't only for needs or necessities, either - they are for a little bit of fun, too.

 

A "little bit"? $150Ks worth of fun? That's some damn expansive whiskey.

 

 

 

You also avoid one major flaw in the system of self-perpetuating worth in individuals through universities. Only those with refined ability can access universities, or else the whole system becomes a joke and university becomes nothing more than an extension to basic eduction. Under your system, the rich continue to go to the best universities since they can afford the best tuition, the poor go to worse universities and thus, the gap between rich and poor becomes wider because social mobility stops.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with rewarding more difficult jobs with higher wages, since they require more responsibility (and that's what wages should be in correlation with), but at least accept that the rich by their very nature already have an advantage in the education system, so giving them yet more advantage with excessively high wages later on in life is unfair.

[assassin_696]

Ginger, can't you see though that if a bagger and doctor are paid the same wage then there is no particular incentive for anyone to become a doctor? They could do it for ethical reasons, but many wouldn't when there is a far less stressful and comfortable job offering the same wage. Another example is haulage truckers in the US. There's a route called the ice road, which heads up to somewhere in Alaska or something, I can't remember. The truckers are driving over inches of ice and many die each year. The only incentive for them to do it is extra money to feed their families. Do you think they shouldn't be able to command that higher premium?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ginger, can't you see though that if a bagger and doctor are paid the same wage then there is no particular incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

 

You missed the point where I said I don't support communism. Reread my last post about responsibility.

 

 

 

Besides, I want to be a doctor. Whether I'm payed £18K or £80K, I really couldn't care less. That's not why I want to be one.

[assassin_696]

Ginger, can't you see though that if a bagger and doctor are paid the same wage then there is no particular incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

 

You missed the point where I said I don't support communism. Reread my last post about responsibility.

 

 

 

Besides, I want to be a doctor. Whether I'm payed £18K or £80K, I really couldn't care less. That's not why I want to be one.

 

 

 

My apologies, I missed that bit.

[Shinjula]

Ginger, can't you see though that if a bagger and doctor are paid the same wage then there is no particular incentive for anyone to become a doctor?

 

There are so many reasons beyond wage to take up a profession, the kudos, the mental challenge, the desire to help people, the desire to do something with ones life, the desire to put ones skills and talents to use. Do you really think that someone who had the drive and intelligence to become a Doctor in a capitalist society would be satisfied with a job as a bagger in a communist one?

 

 

 

What I find really saddening is how low people have been taught to conceptualise things in the capitalist societies, as though the only possible gain in life is serving oneself, the only meaning one can find is the most base and any higher drive to succeed for reasons beyond yourself is suspect?. Is this really how you want your society to work?