 |
| |
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
So, what it is?
My understanding of communism is:
1) a system in which all property belongs to 'the people', which means everything is under the control of the government and nothing belongs to the people.
2) a system where merit is not rewarded, only cronyism is. Since everyone is supposed to be equal, from each according to his ability to each according to their need, nobody gets anywhere no matter how hard they work. The needy pile up because they get tired of busting butt for naught, and just quit trying. Goodies are handed out to undeserving cronies that help top dogs to the next rung.
3) ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Ned, to me unionism has alot in common with communism. I'm for unionism these days. :shudder: The alternative is worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Communism=fuedalism, I like that, it really makes alot of sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
1) An economic system where all productive property, i.e., factories, farmland, mines, banks, are owned collectively. The specific mechanism of whether the ownership is held by those working the property or held in trust by the government.
2) Merit is rewarded through other means, such as public recognition, extra perks, longer vacation.
3) The government is democratically elected, with each level responsible to the level below it, with instant recall for all officials. Campaigns are publicly financed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
My understanding of communism is:
1) a system in which all property belongs to 'the people', which means everything is under the control of the government and nothing belongs to the people. |
This is not the definition. Communism allows for property, in its ideal marxist form as well as in the form it took in 20th century "communist" regimes. In East Germany, people owned their clothes, TV/radio sets, washing machines, and their car if they were lucky.
What communism bans, however, is the private property of the means of production, e.g. factories. It supports collective ownership on the means of production, and this idea can be interpreted in two ways:
1. The means of production are owned by everybody (which means that the political institution representing "everybody" -historically the State, but not ideally- will own every means of produciton)
2. The means of production are owned by its workers (which means independent companies run as communes)
Communism is also about much more than the commula property of the means of production. It has an agenda on the way politics function, etc. Che will fill you on that better than I can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
1) An economic system where all productive property, i.e., factories, farmland, mines, banks, are owned collectively. The specific mechanism of whether the ownership is held by those working the property or held in trust by the government.
|
Some property I understand but is my pickup truck productive property?? Does you answer change if I only use it for personal use? How about if I use it to help people move things for a fee??
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
2) Merit is rewarded through other means, such as public recognition, extra perks, longer vacation. |
Good but what if I use all my extra free time to work on something else. I mow people's lawns or invent something of value . . This allows me to buy a better house and accumulate additional wealth. I assume that my ability to own "non-productive" things would include the right to pass them on to my children??
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
3) The government is democratically elected, with each level responsible to the level below it, with instant recall for all officials. Campaigns are publicly financed. |
Ouch-- so make a necessary but unpopular decision and you are gone eh?? I don't like instant recall in current democracies and don't see how this would be that good . I think that people should be permitted to do the job they were elected to do and absent some threshold of misconduct, a representative should be able to stay in their position
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Actually I agree with Che. Longer vacations, and non-monetary incentives are better. |
While I personally see much value in non-monetary incentives, why would they necessarily be better for everyone. If you give someone an extra week off then in theory that's a weeks work that someone else needs to be paid to do. If the person wants the additional pay instead of the extra vacation, where is the harm in giving it to them, if thats what the person wants??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
1) An economic system where all productive property, i.e., factories, farmland, mines, banks, are owned collectively. The specific mechanism of whether the ownership is held by those working the property or held in trust by the government.
2) Merit is rewarded through other means, such as public recognition, extra perks, longer vacation.
3) The government is democratically elected, with each level responsible to the level below it, with instant recall for all officials. Campaigns are publicly financed. |
1) factories "owned" by the workers always fail.
2) perks -- who decides?
3) the central problem with Che's government is that there is no legislature and no judiciary. The people elected decide everything. This is very, very primitive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
The use of the word communism is very confusing.
Marx used the word communism in his "communist manifesto". However later his followers joined in the SOCIALIST International, and tended to call themselves Socialists or Social Democrats. In some places there were Socialists who shared most of the socialist aims with regard to ending private ownership of the means of production, but who were NOT Marxists, for example the Fabian Socialists who founded the UK Labour Party. Lenin established a different POLITICAL approach to attaining socialism, one which returned to the emphasis on revolution rather than gaining power by peaceful means, and which emphasized the role of a vanguard party, organized through "democratic centralism" (the meaning of which is a matter of debate". Lenin revived the use of the word Communist. While many socialists followed Lenin, many, both Marxists and non-Marxists, did not, and in fact strongly opposed Leninism.
Since 1918 Communism has commonly been used to refer to Leninists, and not other Socialists. The old use of Communist to refer to all Marxists, is often invoked by those, on both the right and the left, who wish to elide the difference.
Further confusion is added in that since 1918, the word Social Democrats, has been used both by some pretty militant Socialists, and, especially in the US and in Germany, by people who essentially accept capitalism, but who approach politics from a largely trade unionist POV, with support for an extensive welfare state and some degree of (not particularly militant) class consciousness. Some of the more militant Socialists (again both Marxists and non-Marxists) prefer the term Democratic Socialists, though Im not sure to what extent thats particularly an American thing.
Similarly, many ex-communist parties in western and central europe have adopted names based on "democratic Socialism" Thus in Germany the "Party of Democratic Socialism" is the institutional heir to the Communist Party, though presumably its no longer Leninist, while the Social Democrat Party includes a range of left and center-left opinion.
Take this historical evolution, the range of overlap and complex intellectual and political interrelationships, and try to discuss it with a group of people more interested in flaming each other or proving their own rightness than in making intellectual distinctions, and you will get something that is less than illuminating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
The way I'm understanding Spiffor's view of communism is that you can become wealthy, especially in realtive terms, and have tons of material goods, just as long as none of your wealth is used to facilitate production (except, of course, that which your own consumption drives) or make any additional money for yourself. Am I correct?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Some property I understand but is my pickup truck productive property?? |
Your pick-up truck is yours, though we'd try and encourage the use of public transportation. Larger pickups, such as those clearly used only for work might well be owned by the state or work collective.
quote:
Good but what if I use all my extra free time to work on something else. I mow people's lawns or in vent something of value |
What's wrong with that? Most people like being productive. I think this should be encouraged.
quote:
. . this allows me to buy a better house and accumulate additional wealth. I assume taht my ability to own "non-productive" things would include the right to pass them on to my children?? |
Personal items, family heirlooms, etc., I believe should be able to be passed on to children. I'm even of the position that should include a family home, though most Americans don't really have a conception of a multigeneration home anymore. I don't think that a family that's been living in one home for over a hundred years should have to move, because of the death of a particular generation.
quote:
Ouch-- so make a necessary but unpopular decision and you are gone eh?? |
If it's necessary you should either be able to explain it's necessity or stand up for it.
quote:
I think that people should be permitted to do the job they were elected to do and absent some threshold of misconduct, a representative should be able to stay in their position |
There's definately merit to that position. There is some insulation from "the masses" in that you are beholden only to those who put you in power. So if your state council doesn't like the job you are doing, they are the ones to remove you, not those below them. Presumably, they would be better able to recognize the necessity of some unpopular decisions.
On the other hand, the people need a better way to keep their politicans in check. Voting once every few years and nailing the occassional politician for corruption doesn't seem to do the job.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
The way I'm understanding Spiffor's view of communism is that you can become wealthy, especially in realtive terms, and have tons of material goods, just as long as none of your wealth is used to facilitate production (except, of course, that which your own consumption drives) or make any additional money for yourself. Am I correct? |
You're wrong.
Your company/commune can very well decide to use a part of the profits for further investment, instead of redistributing all profit to the workers (similar to the way the company decides whether re-investing the profit or distributing it to the shareholders in current system).
I'm also favourable to a banking system where you can put your savings, and have a modest real interest out of it.
Finally, you can create your personal company with your savings, if you wish. However, once you have fellow workers in the company, you'll be equal to them in terms of power at the "board of directors".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
First, they would both be paid the same.
Second, there's something more corrupt about some people having more income than others. It violates that concept of equality. On the other hand if one person gets their work done faster, they should not have to continue working just because someone else isn't working as hard. |
Doesn't that assume that every single task that's performed in the entire economy is piece-meal? I mean, isn't there anything at all that might pop up in someone's absence that needs to be taken care of, thereby putting an additional burden on the remaining workers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Kid and I disagree on how work should be rewarded. I don't have an issue with those working harder, better, or in more necessary or dangersous jobs or jobs which require more training getting more money.
According to Marx, in the 1st stage of communism, aka socialism, much of the social relations of the older forms of society will still remain. Older reward systems will still exist, even as new ones are created. This means that for a period of time, inequality will still exist. It will, however, be mitigated, and as the new forms prove themselves, the old forms will die out. Once that has happened, we will have reached the 2nd stage of communism, where the state has withered away, where money is no longer used, where the level of production is so great that everything is free, where work is reduced. This presupposes a very high level of automation and technology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kid and I disagree on how work should be rewarded. I don't have an issue with those working harder, better, or in more necessary or dangersous jobs or jobs which require more training getting more money.
|
That's because there are no more or less necessary jobs. If I pick the oranges and you put them on the truck, both of our jobs are just as necessary.
Dangerous jobs ought to be eliminated al together, or made safer, or else no one should have to do more than there share
quote:
According to Marx, in the 1st stage of communism, aka socialism, much of the social relations of the older forms of society will still remain. Older reward systems will still exist, even as new ones are created. This means that for a period of time, inequality will still exist. It will, however, be mitigated, and as the new forms prove themselves, the old forms will die out. Once that has happened, we will have reached the 2nd stage of communism, where the state has withered away, where money is no longer used, where the level of production is so great that everything is free, where work is reduced. This presupposes a very high level of automation and technology. |
I don't think it has so much to do with social relations as it does economics and politics. I think you can have equal conditions and still have the lingering social relations of the old system. I don't see why not if you've got control of the resources and you can allocate them properly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2005 20:15
Catch up on this later...
|