Quote:
If the wealthy are allowed to take their wealth, they should also be able to take the factories since that is their property.
I just don't think the communist labor system could work either since there are some jobs no one would take without compensation. The thing about the average WalMart employee is true, but that is because the person is not compensated.
The more local the unit, the more the person will take interest. Localities are more important to the person than cities or states, but not as important as the family or the individual.
So I can agree on decentralization of government, the more the better. But I don't see where removing all personal incentives will work to produce growth. If a person is stuck in a locality and the locality is the smallest unit, then the individual can be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. The individual must be free to seek fortune, destiny, whatever the driving force or personal goal, wherever it may be.
Capitalism is unfortunately the best we have to enable this individualism. But unfortunately we've become lazy capitalists, addicted to material more than freedom. Communism is not the answer. It's even more materialistic.
|
Sorry mis phrased it. The wealthy shouldn't be allowed to take their wealth, just their money. As no-one would own anything is a communist community, previously owning something isn't a viable reason to steal it back form the workers.
About communist labour. The jobs that people don't want do (removing sewage blockages etc.) would get done. How? If someone has a problem they take it straight to their soviet and the soviet opens up the job to anyone who wants it. So why would someone take it? Well it's just like you say Java, if there's something disturbing the local community then a person will stand up a fix the problem because they cab see the direct benefits this action has. So am i placing to much faith in human kindness? I don't think so. I just look at the actions of everyday people to see how they could easily be applied to the economy. Whenever there's a plank wood over a hole that looks particularly dodgy, there's always someone who steps up and tests it. If ever someone can't quite manage to lift there buggy onto the bus, someone nearby will always help them. If someones lost someelse will point them in the right direction. These actions are all things people don't have to or may not want to do. They do do them though.
Capitalism is not the best thing you have to enable individualism. I'm not going lie, communism isn't either. Capitalism may well let some people seek fortune etc. but some people don't get that chance. Some people have to be oppressed for others to aspire. I can't see how you can misshape capitalism to fit any other bill.
Quote:
|
Try it. You will never be dead enough.
|
Try to stop it. If more 50% of people in your local area want you part with you possessions then chances are it's you v. a mob.
Quote:
|
It's true that the wealthy couldn't take real property with them, but they could take anything movable (i.e. personal property). I can see how eliminating money might reduce the likelihood of a power-mad dictator seizing power (though it would still be a significant possibility) but it would also cause the economy to grind to a halt. The barter system just doesn't work. As for collective incentive, that wave of fear I wrote of would get in the way. If there is a scarcity of resources (as there would be regularly in anarcho-communism), each person wants to hoard their goods. If the scarcities became severe enough, I can see the utopia descending into looting and chaos. I don't see why people would cooperate in hard times unless forced to do so by a government, and then there would be another authoritarian socialist state.
|
There would be a scarcity of resources in beginning Force. Regularly? What makes you say that? There's enough food being produced to feed the world 3 times over. Distribute that equally and its more than enough (3x in fact
) People couldn't hoard their goods anyway, everything they made is made by a group not the individual. Can't hoard it if it's not yours. If you all got together and tried to hoard whatever it was you had in supply (say you made socks), then everyone else would refuse to give you what they made (like food). The majority would win out. You also have to remember that if someone does decide they want there goods for themselves all they need do is change there vote.
What made you lose faith in humanity? People do co-operate in times of hardship. Take hurricane Katrina. Remember all those stories about looting and violence? They were lies.
http://www.alternet.org/katrina/27442/
People banded together in a time of dire need. That's humanity Force.
Quote:
|
Putting aside the social problems that communism causes, the most basic economic problem with communism economically is that it would eliminate risk taking, which is what drives any economy. A person could only fare as well as their community. I understand that some communists want to eliminate money, so I'll refer to economic "units" for the sake of convenience. If, by my efforts, I can make 1 economic unit in communism while I could make 100 economic units in capitalism (let us say a commune had 100 people in it), I am likely to work much harder under capitalism. Of course, there is more potential for loss in the short-term, but most people think the risk is worthwhile. There are rare circumstances (e.g. the Great Depression), in which modestly increasing government control of the economy is justified, since most have abandoned such risk taking, but even those measures should be cautious and temporary.
|
Units don't come into play Force. In communism i will be fed, sheltered, clothed and pretty much everything else a human needs. Guaranteed. I can have extra is the situation allows. In capitalism i can have everything or i can have nothing.
More likely to work hard or capitalism? How is stacking a shelf faster going to make me a millionaire. Is answering a phone quicker and more politely going make me rich? Is packing peoples shopping more carefully going to give me the world? No. workers have no incentive. Entrepreneurs do. Entrepreneurs will work harder under capitalism force but under communism workers get back more of what there labour worth, so workers work harder.
You also don't take into account people's lives. Let's take your unit example. In communism everyone gets a unit right? In capitalism some could get 100 units. The amount of units being produced hasn't changed. the only difference is the distribution of the units. The only difference is 99 people not struggle to put food on table, make rent etc. while 1 person becomes a glutton. The impact on people lives is devastating. Have some empathy force, think what it's like to have a child feed but to be in a area with no jobs and having no money to move. Just try to imagine what's going to happen to that family.
The reason i want to tear down the capitalist system is because isee its failures everywhere. I see homeless selling the big issue. Willing workers who just can't find employment and have been forced into the streets because of it. I see the manager of cash converter's (a large of chain of pawn shops) showing off his gold bar on the tv. That gold bar was made by people's suffering, by people being forced to sell there what little they have to make it through another day. What the hell is he going to use is for? I see people getting evicted from there council flat and then i see the rich moving into a freshly built mansion. This is a list that won't end unless something is done.