Quote:
|
Well, I did ask you for your definition, so I must accept it for what it is. And believe me, I am trying to understand your logic here. So... as an example, everyone in this communist society might be impoverished, but no one would be poor... because there would be no rich people = the opposite removed, by your definitional standard.
|
Well, yes, that is true. However, the communist way of living would produce just as much wealth as is produced in a capitalist society, but this wealth would be created through collectivist intiatives rather than individualistic rewards.
Quote:
|
This is where the theory begins to run into realistic problems for me. Many of the shareholders/owners of publicly traded (and non-public) companies are the employees. At the "richest of the rich" (the Fortune 500), that opportunity is extended to the overwhelming majority of employees. I don't just mean the executive level managers. I mean floor level people, right through middle management. Lady Lazarus was quite close as she described the hiring and wage functions of corporations. Part of this is employee retention. And part of that is to make the employees more closely tied to the organization. Will they become rich? Well, since some will take a matching option and wind up with a million dollars or more in share wealth over 25 years (as an example), and someone else will not take the option and wind up with no shares, I guess one can become rich. Taking this option may not be practical for the impoverished, but it's certainly practical (and wise) for the poor (again, using your definition here) - so they can become rich.
|
A valid point. However, the floor-workers that own these shares still do proper, hard work and even if, when they retire, the amount of money they get from these shares will be much less than the CEO might 'earn' in year doing sweet F.A. in his office.
Quote:
|
So why would they want to go with communism? By your definition, they don't have to golf with Trump to be rich now.. just drive a nicer car than the guy down the block. Communism would take away their rich moniker and replace it with average. I don't think that sounds very appealing. Will this apply to everyone? Well, nothing applies to everyone, except death. But I believe you're saying the object should not be on rich, or rich vs. poor or poor, but on all being equal in economic terms. Is that roughly correct? While I might be less well off than some (poor), better off than some (rich)... I believe I'd still rather take my chances. I mean, you're going to have to sell this idea. And so far, it doesn't sound very attractive. Sounds like all communism can promise me is an average life. Average? I'd just as soon be dead.
|
Why must you use the guy down the road as an object of your comparison? Where does this idea of averageness come from? At a national level, the whole populous would be a lot better off than the country next to you because of the equal distribution of wealth and superior methods of production. So, in global terms, you would not be 'average' you would be 'rich'.
Quote:
|
Er... speaking of which, what's going to happen to troublemakers like me anyway?
|
How does 25 years in a salt mine sound?
Point 4 of the Communist manifesto is 'Confiscation of the property of all ... rebels.' Whether or not this idea of property extends to the ownership of your own body is a matter of semantics, but, if you were trying to revert the country back to capitalism, you would be suppressed.
Quote:
|
I can't speak about Britain, but in the U.S., I believe there are far too many people who do not see themselves as "poor" - so they would not see the benefit. And I'm using your definitions as I present that... not the bourgeoisie or the media. Like myself, they'd rather give it their best shot, on their own and let the cards fall where they may at the end of the game. To be honest, my desire was never to be equal. And I don't think I am alone. So uh, what does happen to me and my ilk anyway?
|
This individualistic mindset is a result of conditioning by the bourgeoise controlled media. In a communist society, it would be obvious that helping others through sharing work equates to helping yourself. So, even though the mindset would be much more collectivist, it can be argued that an element of individualism would persist.
Quote:
|
Since this is an ideology that I wouldn't (peacefully) go with, I will ask this. So humor me, please. Yes, I'm familiar with the from each according to his ability bit. But who would know my true abilities... except me? What I'm getting at... my workmate gives it 100% and makes 50 widgets for the state each day. My way of getting back at being forced into this deal might be to (appear to) try my lil heart out and also make 50 widgets a day. At the end of the day, I haven't stressed myself (though I certainly do look tired)and I'm actually in a good mood (cause I got mine the easy way). My time with my state allowed 1.75 children and my state supplied mate is more enjoyable than my tired workmate's. Am I not richer?
|
Let me ask you; did you have a job when you were a teenager working at McDonalds or some other god-forsaken shop for a pitence of a wage? Did that not bore you to the limits of your own sanity? Surely that is the same as making 50 'widgets' a day when you know you can do a hell of a lot better. Furthermore, if you want to make 50 widgets a day, go ahead, nobody's going to force you to do something else; after all, in a communist society you are free to do what you want.
'Human nature' is a philosophy dreamt up by the ruling class of every society. In feudal times, 'human nature' would be that you are born into a caste and you must abide by that; i.e. no social mobility. Nobody argued with that for 100s of years. Nowadays, 'human nature' is a yearning for democracy, equality before the law and personal freedom, and most people wouldn't argue with that. I have no doubt that the established idea of 'human nature' will change repeatedly before we all kill ourselves/we kill the planet/the sun explodes. Also, you may argue that Darwin provides irrefutable evidence that capitalism (survival of the fittest etc) is a 'natural' way for humans to exist. However, there are a number of problems with this. Firstly, it is completely irrefutable; how can you argue that his theory is true when you would need to observe several thousand generations to prove it. Then there are the oddities of nature; why do we sleep? Surely this period of time in which we are completely defenceless against predators should have been selected out. Why is the male urinary tract so long and twisted up; this makes men suscpetible to infection; why haven't long urinary tracts been selected out? Darwinism is an almost perfect reflection of capitalism. As Darwinism has its flaws which suggest it is not a perfect explanation of evolution, so capitalism has its flaws which suggest it is not a perfect or 'natural' way for humans to live.