GO BUSH!!! YEEAAAA!!!

[Wolf]

Well, I don't hate communists. Hating in general just leads to worse off conditions for everyone. And while I think that their goals are generally noble, as in, the elimination of poverty, complete social and economic equality (Democracy likes equality, too), I don't think it can be accomplished. At least, not in a puritanical sense. China is probably the 2nd or 3rd most powerful country in the world, mainly because it has incorporated limited capitalism into its economy to spur competition which in turn creates innovation, that, and it could get the PRC Most Favored Nation status with the US in trading. Pure communism, I do not think, provides enough motivation for workers to work as hard as they possibly can. A recent study showed that the workers of the US are the most productive overall (it was on CNN, and was written about in TIME). Therefore, I do not think communism could be enstated in the United States, because the US people are way too used to going out and doing whatever they want economically, and they would not tolerate any disruption of that. (Well, the middle/upper class, which, then again, is a good chunk of the nation).

Emprworm is as entitled to his beliefs as anyone else as long as he does not 1) break the law, or 2) cause harm to anyone else in doing so.

Anakin, I do *not* want to make mad.

And while I maintain that Bush is a fairly good president, he is definately not our best. In addition, I've come to agree with Ralph Nader that our government is RUN by the corporations.

Read Ralph Nader's Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender. I think that he is right when he says that the Democrats and Republicans MIGHT AS WELL be the same party; save for you traditional and trivial platform differences that they use merely to keep themselves unqiue, they act the same, they lobby the same as the others, and they take same corporate money.

I think that the corporations taking over the government might be a problem...

[Emperor Harkonnen]

does most americans support bush?

[HasimirFenring]

Good question... I think I read in a poll that the majority of american dont want to see bush re-elected (I'm not sure though). But most Americans probably would say they support bush becuase it is 'unpatriotic' to criticize the president in wartime, right ::)?

[ordos45]

CNN Yesterday on Bush's approval rating with + or - 3 percent difference (six percent leeway).

52% of Americans support Bush

42% don't.

And the Democrats and Republicans were once the same party, they just had a split a while back. My own state has a "Closed Primary", meaning you pretty much can't vote an Independent...

[Acriku]

Yes, so does Florida, but the actual election is open. And I can vote independent if I registered as an independent (note: in Florida we have a party called the Independent party, which just confuses most people more).

[Edric O]

"The Independent Party"... for some reason I find that absolutely hillarious. ;D

Wolfwiz, you're new here, aren't you? ;) I'm saying this because I just noticed a post you made a while back, which raises an issue that I have already cleared up several times before: the "incentive" (or "motivation") argument for capitalism. In brief, this argument claims that capitalism provides a greater motivation for workers than socialism or communism, because in capitalism you can actually have a miserable life and/or starve to death, so you are motivated to work hard to avoid such a fate (and to become as rich as possible, so you can buy fancy cars and live in luxury while others die in poverty).

First of all, there are the moral issues with this argument. A person will work much harder if you put a gun to his head, but does that mean that we should do that?

Second, there is the fact that socialism and communism do NOT give every worker the exact same wage.

Socialism guarantees certain basic living conditions to everyone: food, water, shelter, healthcare and education. We see these as part of the basic human right to life. But beyond these basic necessities, the sky's the limit. In socialism, there is no more capitalist exploitation (see below) and you get exactly the amount of money you earn through your work (unlike in capitalism, where your wage has nothing to do with the value of your product or with how much you work - again, see below for a more detailed explanation).

Communism is a system in which all private property and traditional government has been abolished. People share their possesions and govern themselves. The concept of "money" no longer exists, because it is no longer needed. Therefore, it doesn't make any sesnse to ask "how much does person X get?". You don't "get" things, you use things.

Of course, a lot of things about our society have to change before we can reach communism. That's why socialism is needed as an intermediate system between capitalism and communism.

Now let me explain what "capitalist exploitation" is all about:

In capitalism, every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much they are willing to work for. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

[Inoculator9]

Okay everyone, I have two jokes that will quickly diffuse the argument:

1) How many Communists does it take to screw in a light bulb? All of them.

2) How many Capitalists does it to screw in a light bulb? All of them, each pays someone new to do it for them.

Okay, along with DE being a pro-communist organization, I believe these jokes should reveal the truth about Stalin's romantic life to all concerned.

[Wolf]

Edric; Yes, I am new. And, yes, I can see your argument works well. But, realize that the communism you speak of was not the same as the communism that existed in the Soviet Union. In that nation, the atmosphere in which one had to work was conducive to people working ONLY as hard as they needed to get by. Do the research yourself, you will see that capitalist nations were far more productive.

(Disagreement; pointing a gun to someone's head will not make them work their best. It will only make them work as hard as they need to not to get shot.)

The communism you speak of is pure communism. Strangely (I dunno if yo uwatch Star Trek) it sounds like the Federation's society. No money, everything is shared.

Primary Disagreement. You have not explained to me WHY the worker is motivated. You have given me an excellent definition of what Communism in its pure state should be, as well as how workers will lvie their lives.

HOWEVER - You have not shown me WHY they are motivated. If I am a worker in your society, why should I work my very best? Tell me what my incentives are. I will not work to better myself by only a dime if I do a dollars work, if I do my dollars work, I want the full dollar.

The FACT is that in Communist Russia, people did not work as hard as they could because they felt no reason to. You can disagree with me, or call me a liar, but several of my friends are Russian and Romanian workers who immigrated to where I live after the Iron Curtain fell. (My Romanian friend was actually held in Romania by the government when his parents immigrated to America -- the held him essentially for ransom so that his parents would not betray the communist state).

They all say communism is garbage. I am inclined to believe them because they lived it.

Now, tell me why I am motivated. You say you have addressed this, but you have not.

[nemafakei]

Emprworm, what happened? As I recall, you at least TRIED to defend your views a bit before the ad hominem attacks!

[Wolf]

So, Edric, I guess Capitalism vs. Communism is the choice between an average life of all people, or a privilged life for some with a poor life for others. Still, then, I guess it comes down to what kind of person you are. Why not try your hand at becoming rich, then?

[Edric O]

Edric; Yes, I am new. And, yes, I can see your argument works well. But, realize that the communism you speak of was not the same as the communism that existed in the Soviet Union.

LOL, it just got even more obvious that you are new here. ;)

Of course I realize that, Wolfwiz. I hate the Soviet Union (as it was from 1923 onwards), and especially the traitor Stalin. The system used in the Soviet Union was neither socialism nor communism. Not by a long shot. For lack of a better term, we call it "stalinism" (I say "we" because this is a well-known fact among us communists). And this is by no means a recent idea. Ever since 1937, when Leon Trotsky published The Revolution Betrayed, communists have been speaking out against the way Stalin and his followers twisted socialism beyond all recognition, to serve their personal ambitions. The differences between stalinism and socialism/communism are so obvious that you can see them by just looking at the most basic definitions of socialism and communism. As I said in an earlier post:

No communist country ever existed, and no country even claimed to be communist. They only claimed to be socialist (hence the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"). But socialism is the system in which all means of production are the public property of all the people. Was this the case in the "socialist" countries of the soviet bloc? No. The means of production were NOT controlled by the people. They were controlled by a government oligarchy. Therefore, they weren't even socialists, much less communists!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

(Disagreement; pointing a gun to someone's head will not make them work their best. It will only make them work as hard as they need to not to get shot.)

The same can be said about any other threat, such as the threat of poverty (which you claim is the driving force behind capitalist productivity).

The communism you speak of is pure communism. Strangely (I dunno if you watch Star Trek) it sounds like the Federation's society. No money, everything is shared.

Yes, the Federation is communist. I'm surprised that so few people notice it.

But anyway, the communism I'm talking about isn't "pure communism", it's the ONLY kind of communism. The one you would call "impure communism" is stalinism. And, as I have shown above, stalinism is a completely different system from communism.

Primary Disagreement. You have not explained to me WHY the worker is motivated. You have given me an excellent definition of what Communism in its pure state should be, as well as how workers will live their lives.

HOWEVER - You have not shown me WHY they are motivated. If I am a worker in your society, why should I work my very best? Tell me what my incentives are. I will not work to better myself by only a dime if I do a dollars work, if I do my dollars work, I want the full dollar.

Well, at least we've cleared up the matter of motivation in socialism, yes? Good. Now on to communism:

You are thinking in terms that apply to a capitalist or a socialist system. Communism is based on the principle "from each, according to his means; to each, according to his needs". Let's look at the first part of that motto: "from each, according to his means". In other words, each person is free to work at whatever he/she likes best (by the time we reach communism, we should have sufficiently advanced technology that no one will have to do unpleasant jobs). The motivation to work harder will come from the fact that you will have a job you actually like, and from the fact that the harder you work, the better off everyone will be, including yourself.

Again, I must stress the fact that communism cannot be achieved overnight. Some might think that communism can never be achieved. If that turns out to be the case, we could always stop somewhere along the way, in a half-socialist/half-communist system.

The FACT is that in Communist Russia, people did not work as hard as they could because they felt no reason to. You can disagree with me, or call me a liar, but several of my friends are Russian and Romanian workers who immigrated to where I live after the Iron Curtain fell. (My Romanian friend was actually held in Romania by the government when his parents immigrated to America -- the held him essentially for ransom so that his parents would not betray the communist state).

I don't need to do any research. I know you're right, because I lived in that system. Look at the flag next to my name on the "who's online" list. I am a Romanian myself. I know very well what stalinism was all about. And your Romanian friend is right, too. Such things were not uncommon. After all, dictatorship governments are paranoid by nature. But neither socialism nor communism can exist without democracy.

People had no incentive to work hard in stalinism because the system was so corrupt and the bureaucracy so well-entrenched, that every last trace of socialism was removed, and replaced with a kind of all-pervasive apathy and stagnation.

Also, I really must ask you to stop calling the Soviet Union & co. "communist states". Besides the fact that the term "communist state" itself is an oxymoron (since there is no "state" in communism), it's a very big mistake to mix up stalinism with communism. Many communists died fighting against stalinism, including veterans of the October Revolution (such as Leon Trotsky).

They all say communism is garbage. I am inclined to believe them because they lived it.

Well, stalinism IS garbage. I lived it too, and I agree with them. I just wish they would stop confusing it with socialism/communism.

[SurlyPIG]

Communism will work when, and only when, we can defy the laws of physics (fusion, perhaps?), and the very nature of humanity changes. Like in Star Trek. Fictional function.

[Edric O]

I fail to see how the laws of physics have anything to do with this. I also fail to see any proof of your claims.

And, in any case, I have already given you my answer in the post above:

Again, I must stress the fact that communism cannot be achieved overnight. Some might think that communism can never be achieved. If that turns out to be the case, we could always stop somewhere along the way, in a half-socialist/half-communist system.

[Inoculator9]

He was using "breaking the laws of physics" as a way of emphasizing the point.

[SurlyPIG]

Actually no. They break the laws of physics in Star Trek, and we'd have to do the same to achieve their kind of society. (self-renewing energy sources, etc)

[Inoculator9]

Umm... that's kind of what I said...

[Wolf]

Edric; Sorry about that, Yes, I am new here, and I am beginning to think that you people have this discussion before...

...more than once...

All right, now I see what you mean. Communism isn't so much an economic system as it is a social system. The economics come only into part when a certain social mind-set is achieved.

Namely, people overcome the need to amass wealth/power and begin working towards the betterment of society. (That's what the characters in Star Trek claim is the driving force in the Federation; the goal of bettering oneself.)

The motivation comes in not from avoiding poverty (the gun example) or from accumulating wealth (capitalism). The real motivation comes in because you desire to better YOURSELF -- which does not mean the accumulation of wealth or possession, but the real "fruits of your labor", you desire to become better, and so therefore, you work better. That is how communism (not Stalinism! I got it!) works, as opposed to Stalinism...

Stalinsim, or, the Soviet Union, wasn't really communist, but something using the communist name/appearence to win its own political power. That makes sense, I guess you could say the same of Democracy/Capitalism in some states. (Kind of like Pre-war Iraq, where Saddam would be unanimously elected President.) What about China? Is there such a thing as a capitalist/communsit hybrid? Perhaps, something that we evolve into before achieving the mind-set of... say... the Star Trek world? (I'm not really asking if one exists, because that's apparent. I'm asking if that's the ONLY way to achieve that kind of society).

...am I getting the picture? If not, feel free to explain. I really should learn this.

[Inoculator9]

Very well informed post if I'd say so myself. The problem with Communism, implementation wise, was that the economic values were enforced along with the social ones, rather then enforcing the social ones followed by an economic change.

[Dante]

Not to be to obvious or anything, but could we turn this back into a Bush-hater's topic now? Please? I think there are many other threads to argue about communism in...

[Dude_Doc]

Emprworm, what happened? As I recall, you at least TRIED to defend your views a bit before the ad hominem attacks!

Indeed. Give them something to argue with!

[Dude_Doc]

Hey, I have another question. Say, what if I make a song, in "your/the" communist system, will I be able to own that song too, or is it aviable to everyone, like P2P is today, only legally?

[Wolf]

Heh, I think that at this point, the people reading this thread are more concerned with learning about real communism rather than Bush.

[Inoculator9]

Nope, I still want to discuss our sublime hatred for the G-Man :)

[Dude_Doc]

Maybe it's because Bush looks like a child? Many people over here says he looks like a child...

[Dunenewt]

??? Bit old isn't he?