Current state of the International Proletarian Revolution

[UmarilsStillHere]

Originally Posted by Vythica

Also I don't disappear when I disagree, I have to go get exploited for 10 hrs a day so I can eat.

And you think you wont need to work as much under communism? You will still need to be working just as much since what you do is probably needed for whatever company you work for to function. If everyone just dossed off then no one would be generating any money and the whole world would be in poverty.

I highly doubt you will be able to get away with doing a lot less than you already are, after all its 'workers of the world unite' not 'half of you doss off maybe work at asda for 2 hours a day when those in the (current) high end jobs work their arses off all day every day for the same pay as you' if your not working under communism, you dont eat at all.

[Cuchulainn]

Originally Posted by Umaril

And you think you wont need to work as much under communism? You will still need to be working just as much since what you do is probably needed for whatever company you work for to function. If everyone just dossed off then no one would be generating any money and the whole world would be in poverty.

I highly doubt you will be able to get away with doing a lot less than you already are, after all its 'workers of the world unite' not 'half of you doss off maybe work at asda for 2 hours a day when those in the (current) high end jobs work their arses off all day every day for the same pay as you' if your not working under communism, you dont eat at all.

I think the majority of the people would have less work under communism or socialism and in long term there would be less poverty in the world, especially in the poorer countries and recourses of the planet would last longer.

Reasons:
- in a capitalistic system the economy and the profit of companies has the highest priority
- people have to consume much more than they acctually need, so that the economy grows
- in a capitalism war is much more important, so that the consumption can be kept on a higher level
- advertisment would be (almost) unnecesary under communism
- in long term we destroy the future of the planet for our younger and for coming generations with our current materialistic life
- richer countries could have much more own agriculture so that they dont have to exploit the people of poorer countries
- education is under capitalism less important than the economy


If someone is political interested he could also see that there are other serious issues with the capitalism and the current bank system:
- high devaluation of currencies, to solve dept problems and also to increase the consumption of the people (btw. the US government covers only one third of their spendings with taxes currently, last year it was almost 50%; most other richer countries have also high dept problems currently; Greece, Island, Japan, US, Italy, Portugal, Spain, UK and other countries are at risk to become bankrupt)
- companies and esspecially the bigger concerns have much more impact on the politics than the people

[Arafails]

There is a difference between working for the common need and being exploited for the wants of the few, even if you work as hard and as long.

[Vythica]

Well said, and I agree Arathael. +1

[salamander21]

Advancements are made by thinking individuals, and capitalism is the system that rewards individuals for harder work and more production (e.g., if I do work for my boss then I get paid, if I do good work I get promoted, if I do no or crappy work I get fired), whereas communism rewards people equally, giving absolutely no incentive to work or produce anything.

Imagine a society in which all the money made from production was distributed evenly among all members, a classless and completely equal society. Imagine that you go to work every day, and do the job expected of you, and generally just live your life. One day you notice that your neighbor doesn't do anything but sit at home and watch TV all day, but he still gets "paid", or given, just as much out of the communal money pool as you do. You have just been working to pay for his, and god knows how many other lazy people's laziness. And it is system that you live in that has made it possible. In communism, the lazy or incompetent benefit as parasites on people who actually work and produce things.

In capitalism, on the other hand, you can only earn a living by actually working and producing things. Your lazy neighbor in the above example would not be able to just sit at home watching TV if he had no source of income.

I don't think it is the fault of "human nature"; human nature has evolved in order for humans to be able to survive. I think that it is simply that people should be able to enjoy the products of their own labor and productive ability, and not have to contribute it to the "good of society" or the "good of their comrades".

[Cuchulainn]

Originally Posted by salamander21

[...]

The theoretical idea is that before we are ready to live in a communistic economy system, we would have to live in a socialistic system where the people are rewarded deservedly for their work, with nationalized concerns and banks etc..

I like the idea of a socialistic economy system combined with a direct democratic state. It could be more democratic than our current (representive) democracies in the world, where the concerns have more impact on political issues and more impact on mass medias than the people.

Consumption, exploitations of resources, competition, profit of concerns and very unequally distribution of wealth has too high priority in the capitalism IMHO.

[salamander21]

My point is that in capitalism, there is no specific "priority", but every person can pursue whatever individual goal they want. So if a person wants to go off and join a commune, then they can do it, but they can't drag other people who don't want to along with them. The reason why communism doesn't work is as I explained before; only lazy people like the man who does nothing but stay at home and watch TV would enjoy and encourage that system, while any other person would immediately leave upon realizing what the system is like. The lazy people can try to keep the productive ones from leaving by force, and the result is nothing other than slavery.

Then the idea arises to distribute the money, or products, according to who has done how much work to produce it,therefore eliminating the problem. But then this question arises: "How is that to be determined?"

The answer is difficult to find, and I think that the best way to determine how much a person's labor is worth is to simply let market forces do their work. Because many people see the words "market forces" as a sort of voodoo or catch-all used by capitalists, I will explain. Labor, or work is a commodity like any other. People get paid a certain amount based on how much their work is worth. Say I work for my boss, and my work is worth $1 an hour. My boss is willing to hire me for anything under $1/hour, because otherwise he is taking a loss. In a capitalistic system, he would try to pay me as much as he possibly could of that $1/hour I am producing, because otherwise I could quit and go to work for his competitor, who is willing to pay me more.

At this point, some might complain that there might not always be a competitor to go work for, and that is true, there might not be. However, consider this: I have a certain number of widgets, each of which I am trying to sell for $1 each. I can only find one person who wants to buy widgets, but they only want to pay 50 cents per widget. What are the widgets worth? Price is whatever someone is willing to pay for something, so the widgets are worth 50 cents. Likewise, if the most that is offered me when I am looking for a job is less than I think my work is worth, then I am wrong. The price of my work is determined by the wages that are offered, just like the price of widgets is determined by whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

But couldn't bosses get together and all agree not to offer pay above a certain amount? Yes, they could. Workers could do the same thing. In fact, they already do. Labor unions are common across the world.

Basically, people can demand whatever they get, but if others don't give it to them, then they have no right to take it by force.

[Cuchulainn]

Originally Posted by salamander21

My point is that in capitalism, there is no specific "priority", but every person can pursue whatever individual goal they want. So if a person wants to go off and join a commune, then they can do it, but they can't drag other people who don't want to along with them. The reason why communism doesn't work is as I explained before; only lazy people like the man who does nothing but stay at home and watch TV would enjoy and encourage that system, while any other person would immediately leave upon realizing what the system is like. The lazy people can try to keep the productive ones from leaving by force, and the result is nothing other than slavery.

[...]

You have good points. Communism is still not practicable because of the attitude and thinking of the people; some people would be too lazy etc..

But Capitalism has its problems too.

If we continue to waste ressources like in the past - and in the capitalism we will most likely do it because our consumption is very important for for the capitalism - then this will lead to serious ressource problems in few decades. Its very likely that we will be short on oil, plastics, food, water... This will lead to more wars and high spendings on military.

Other issues of the capitalism:
- very inequal distribution of wealth (1% of the woldwide richest people have about 40% of the wealth, in Germany 10% of the richest people have 61.1% of its wealth, in the US its probably even more unequal distributed)
- concerns have much more impact on political issues than the people
- war is common to help the economy
- education is far less important than then the economy
- with our bank-, interest system its likely that there is a hyperinflation every few decades (a few people believe that a hyperinflation of euro, dollar, yen, maybe pound and other currencies will likely happen in the next few years); such a hyperinflation could increase the inequality of wealth

Then the idea arises to distribute the money, or products, according to who has done how much work to produce it,therefore eliminating the problem. But then this question arises: "How is that to be determined?"

The answer is difficult to find, and I think that the best way to determine how much a person's labor is worth is to simply let market forces do their work. Because many people see the words "market forces" as a sort of voodoo or catch-all used by capitalists, I will explain. Labor, or work is a commodity like any other. People get paid a certain amount based on how much their work is worth.
[...]

"How is that to be deteremined" is a good question.

A possibility is that the workers of a nationalized concern vote for several experts of their concern, who determine realistic prices of their products and determine how much to produce, what to produce, earnings of their workers etc..

Im curious to see how much longer we will live in our capitalism; Maybe the end of the capitalism is not very far away.

[Vythica]

salamander21

I don't know what else to say other than I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

You are right, this is how things work in a capitalistic society, but that doesn't make it morally right.

Is it right to offer someone 50 cents for a widget that is worth $1? No.

Is it right to right to be forced to accept wages that are lower than what your labour is worth? No.

On that topic btw, everyone is entitled to a living wage. Everyone, regardless of the type of work they do. The one area I think you don't even understand capitalism in is when you said that your boss will try to pay you as much of that $1 wage as he can to keep you working for him. You are dead wrong on that. Your boss wants to pay you as little of that dollar as he can, without you going to a competitor. Why? Simple; more profit for him. That's a basic tenet of capitalism.

[DragoonEnNoir]

Originally Posted by Vythica

I don't know what else to say other than I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

You are right, this is how things work in a capitalistic society, but that doesn't make it morally right.

Is it right to offer someone 50 cents for a widget that is worth $1? No.

Is it right to right to be forced to accept wages that are lower than what your labour is worth? No.

On that topic btw, everyone is entitled to a living wage. Everyone, regardless of the type of work they do. The one area I think you don't even understand capitalism in is when you said that your boss will try to pay you as much of that $1 wage as he can to keep you working for him. You are dead wrong on that. Your boss wants to pay you as little of that dollar as he can, without you going to a competitor. Why? Simple; more profit for him. That's a basic tenet of capitalism.

I think part of the problem is that people confuse the Capitalist economic system with the political and socio-cultural elements that are dominant in Capitalist countries.

I don't think systemic change of any type will really create any lasting paradigm shift in thinking/action though. The issue is not merely one of economic structure, but more one of human nature.

So long as WE are unjust, possessive, acquisitive, and unloving in our hearts, then what is in our hearts will continue to flow out into our actions. Even if there were an end to classes, if our hearts are not changed, then we will simply create new classes. It makes me think of private schools where standard uniforms were established to create 'equality'. The students simply began to class students by the things that were not standard; their shoes! No matter what economic or political system we have, what is within us will still find a way out.

The only 'real' change will occur when our hearts change.



If our hearts change, then regardless of whether we live in freedom or servitude, there will be peace.