 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This is the most important critique. The head of the Communist Party in Chicago once mentioned to me that it wasn't the dictatorship in the USSR that most workers in the US though was a problem. Most people live under a dictator known as the boss. |
With the clear difference that people change jobs much much more frequently than in the past so people don't feel as stuck with a particular boss
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was the lack of productivity. I would argue it was the alienating nature of the Soviet system coupled with the lack of any useful motivating facot that lead to such low productivity in the 60s, 70s and 80s. If you aren't going to threaten people with starvation and homelessness to get them to work hard, then they need to have a say and some rewards. The Soviets had neither the stick nor the carrot.
|
I agree this was a huge problem. Any discussion with Kid on incentives always breaks down since I can see no reward for innovation and hard work in what he proposes-- To be fair, rewards might mean that someone has more than someone else -- a concept to which kid is allergic
che -- your brand of communism seems more open to the idea that not everyone might BE equal in condition
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We have both. What history tells us is that communism cannot work if it is not open, pluralistic, and democratic. It still might not work then. Don't know. We haven't tried it. |
I suspect
1. it would fail if tried..
2. being open and democratic would mean that you will never get the chance since you will not convince the majority in a western democracy that communist ideas will work
3. your best approach may be to allow prorams to evolve and strengthen such that the social safety net gets stronger and has fewer holes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Gone as in totally eradicated? No. Gone as in, largely a non-issue for the industrialized west? Marx wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the place! |
I agree. That doesn't mean his description of how capitalism works is inaccurate nor mired in the 19th Century and needs to be relagated to the dustbin. Obviously, as capitalism ha evolved, so have our analyses of it, but saying Marx is obsolete is like saying Newtonian mechanics is obsolete. It's not. It just doesn't describe everything, and how could it. To say something is limited is not to say that it is worthless.
quote:
It makes one wonder though....given the stark conditions in the third world, why are they not rushing to the big red banner? |
Look what we did to them when they did.
quote:
I would contend it is because one of these economic systems has proved itself "in the field" and one has not.
-=Vel=- |
Well yes, in that they no longer have another superpower to play us off of. It used to be they could bounce back and forth, getting what they wanted from one or the other, until the pushed the U.S. to far and we invaded or paid their military to overthrown them, etc. Now, to quote Maggie Thatcher, "There is no alternative." They don't necessarily seek to emulate usbecause they want to (though they may) but because they have to. Failure to do so can result in dismemberment, coups, economic ruin, or invasion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Gone as in totally eradicated? No. Gone as in, largely a non-issue for the industrialized west? Marx wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the place!
|
No he wouldn't. The world is completely different and you really couldn't expect anyone to be able to forsee the future back then anymore than you should expect anyone to forsee the futre today. The thing is that the poor still suffer even though there life is very different.
quote:
It makes one wonder though....given the stark conditions in the third world, why are they not rushing to the big red banner? Why are they, instead, tending to seek to emulate capitalist states?
|
Are you actually claiming that poor people in the third world would not like to see a world united and working together for each and every human being on the planet. It is they who suffer the most from self-interest and capitalism.
quote:
I would contend it is because one of these economic systems has proved itself "in the field" and one has not.
-=Vel=- |
Has capitalism proven itself? Even every country in the world every person recognizes serious problems, crime, proverty, war, racism, sexism, classism, environmental concerns etc... How can you say that capitalism has been a success. Oh, I guess you just measure it by your own financial success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
With the clear difference that people change jobs much much more frequently than in the past so people don't feel as stuck with a particular boss |
Yes, but the choice of masters isn't the same as the choice to have no master, or rather, to be your own master. It's the dream of the entrepreneur. We think it should be universal, and not merely for the lucky few.
quote:
I can see no reward for innovation and hard work.
che -- your brand of communism seems more open to the idea that not everyone might BE equal in condition |
There are different kinds of reward systems. Being thought of by your community as a swell guy is really good reward. It is amazing the amount of positive emotion that social recognition generates. Having friends is great, Having a group of friends all hanging out together is a wonderful feeling. I would argue it's instinctual, as it reinforces the social bonds necessary to ensure good group harmony which increases the group's, and thus the individual's, chances for survival. As well, social ostracism is a powerful punishment.
As for equality, Marxism is less concerned with equality of result than with genuine equality of opportunity. This doesn't mean hampering the best able. It does mean giving a leg up to those who need it, and not a paltry leg (poultry leg . . . mmmmm) up, like modern affirmative action, but something like the original GI bill, which really created the middle class in this country.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2004 00:05
|