Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Is your system really going to function? Afterall paying everybody a similar shitty wage will not work.

IT HAS BEEN STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Then you have income brackets.. isn't that contradictory to communism?

[JohnT]

Salaries WILL vary, and vary quite a lot, but not as much as they do in the current world.

So you're going to have unequal equality.

[Az]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

Salaries WILL vary, and vary quite a lot, but not as much as they do in the current world.

So you're going to have unequal equality.

No, but we'll have true equality of opportunity, and all of society will decide and control the economy.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel


No, but we'll have true equality of opportunity, and all of society will decide and control the economy.

That's capitalism.

Sorry bro.. capitalism isn't communism.

[Az]

That's capitalism.

indeed. Check out who has most of the wealth. It's a very small group of people.

[JohnT]

"Check out who has most of the wealth."

Define your sample. If you are honest you would define it globally and then note that you, yourself are among the economic elite, though not actually an elite among elites.

So who has most of the wealth in this world? Judging from the perspective of the truly poor, the answer is "People like you."

So what are you doing/have you done to relieve the financial inequities of the world in a way that directly negatively impacted your finances, your dreams and aspirations?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

That's capitalism.

indeed. Check out who has most of the wealth. It's a very small group of people.

So you are talking about Soviet era communism? It was the soviet military brass that had most of the wealth afterall.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Wrong. There is a fundamental difference between a communist company and a capitalist company: the capitalist company is out to maximize profit, to hand it to the shareholder. This is why you have fat cats who get enriched by unrewarded hardworking people. The fact that cashiers are underpaid comes from the willingness to have a profit margin. Unlike what the liberal economists want you to believe, wages and prices don't get adjusted automagically, but they serve a purpose. In capitalism, the purpose is to bring money to the shareholder. In communism, it is to bring money to the worker.

But the forces I described (people striking for higher pay, boycotting prices that are too high) will have the same effect.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
But to what extent is our country's unequal distribution part of the elite manipulating our government, and not as a result of ordinary citizens working an honest day's work for an honest day's pay??

The "elite manipulating our government" is not a failure of capitalism; it is a failure to implement capitalism properly. Bribes and shady things are illegal, and not part of a capitalist system. In fact, they subvert it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

That's capitalism.

indeed. Check out who has most of the wealth. It's a very small group of people.

So?

For one thing, most of the massive inequality in the distrubution of wealth today is NOT a result of capitalism - it is a result of things that are NOT capitalism, like coercion through force, bribery, etc. Those are not failings of capitalism, they are failures to implement capitalism properly (really it's a failure to enforce the law). Moreover, those who DIDN'T get their money through those means got it because they were SMART. Obviously, those who get large amounts of money honestly ("exploiting" the workers) must have some quality that makes them capable of doing this, otherwise EVERYONE would be able to. Like Bill Gates - he isn't "old money". People like that EARNED their money.

[Az]

Originally posted by JohnT
"Check out who has most of the wealth."

Define your sample. If you are honest you would define it globally and then note that you, yourself are among the economic elite, though not actually an elite among elites.

I am only an economic elite in a matter of being in the top 6th of the population. If we look at what really matters, that is, who holds the actual capital, you can see that inside western countries, that hold the majority of the wealth, it is a small number of people that hold the majority of the wealth.

So who has most of the wealth in this world? Judging from the perspective of the truly poor, the answer is "People like you."

What is your point? If you mean it in a 'people in developed countries' way, that this will certainly be their POV. their POV isn't correct, though.

So what are you doing/have you done to relieve the financial inequities of the world in a way that directly negatively impacted your finances, your dreams and aspirations?

How exactly can an lower-middle class student relieve the financial inequities of the world?

Another important thing to realise is that, in a global action, I don't think that pouring money into countries will solve the problem. I don't believe that pouring money is what often needed, generally! It is the change in those countries that is going to change their reality.

Sometimes investment is needed, though. I will be willing to pay higher taxes to install infrastructure in those countries, if such a day of global socialism comes ( though, personally, I think it's far off, since the technology and logistical thought for global government doesn't exist yet. )

[Az]

Fez:

So you are talking about Soviet era communism? It was the soviet military brass that had most of the wealth afterall.

It's very obvious you know little to nothing of the soviet system, with statements like that.

For one thing, most of the massive inequality in the distrubution of wealth today is NOT a result of capitalism - it is a result of things that are NOT capitalism, like coercion through force, bribery, etc. Those are not failings of capitalism, they are failures to implement capitalism properly (really it's a failure to enforce the law).

You want to tell me that all people who are extremely rich are very corrupt? I agree.

Moreover, those who DIDN'T get their money through those means got it because they were SMART. Obviously, those who get large amounts of money honestly ("exploiting" the workers) must have some quality that makes them capable of doing this, otherwise EVERYONE would be able to. Like Bill Gates - he isn't "old money". People like that EARNED their money.

a) IIRC, Gates' father was rather rich himself. But that doesn't matter now.
b) GREAT! Gates has created an immense amount of wealth through his superior computer programs! ( ) After Gates getting himself an inormous house, a car, a private jet, and everything else, why on earth would he like to seek and appropriate more money and possessions? I think that this money would be better spent on other things, like developing other infrastructure, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

You want to tell me that all people who are extremely rich are very corrupt? I agree.

The thing is, they are rich not through some failing of capitalism, but failing to enforce laws.

a) IIRC, Gates' father was rather rich himself. But that doesn't matter now.
b) GREAT! Gates has created an immense amount of wealth through his superior computer programs! ( ) After Gates getting himself an inormous house, a car, a private jet, and everything else, why on earth would he like to seek and appropriate more money and possessions? I think that this money would be better spent on other things, like developing other infrastructure, etc.

It's his. If he wants to use it to do things like that, sure. IIRC, he's leaving all of his money and stuff to charity, not giving it to his kids.

[Az]

It's his. If he wants to use it to do things like that, sure. IIRC, he's leaving all of his money and stuff to charity, not giving it to his kids.

That's very nice, but irrelevant. "It's his" is also irrelevant. Remember? no libertarian arguements. we are working for the common good here.

The thing is, they are rich not through some failing of capitalism, but failing to enforce laws.

EVERY EACH AND ONE OF THEM? do you think that every rich person got there through bribery? Damn, even *I* don't think so. We'll make a commie out of you in a split of a second, skywalker.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel
It's very obvious you know little to nothing of the soviet system, with statements like that.

So you want to bring the soviet system to the United States?

[JohnT]

"What is your point? If you mean it in a 'people in developed countries' way, that this will certainly be their POV. their POV isn't correct, though."

No, it is correct. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less so - you are part of the economic elite of this world, easily within the top 25% definitely within the top 50%, with aspirations to move higher.

You are part of the problem. What are you doing to become part of the solution?

My answer is to create wealth rather than take it from others. But I demand a higher salary than y'all want to give me for the difficulty involved in doing so, and it is difficult, the most difficult thing I've ever done. Hell, installing sea walls and mobile homes (which I did from the ages of 6-12, every summer) was easier than running a company.

So we are at an impasse. You think that running an organization and the responsibility contained within are worth nowhere near what the market bears (even though these earnings are routinely less than some rap artist who struck a couple of top-5 singles, but noone complains about that), while I'm telling you you're wrong. Fortunately, by the time you are capable of doing what I'm doing you'll understand my position. Such is the future of capitalism assured.

[Giancarlo]

Azazel is trying to apply the standards of a country like the DRC or Zimbabwe to the United States. It doesn't work.

[Az]

Originally posted by Fez


So you want to bring the soviet system to the United States?

No. nice strawman though.

No, it is correct. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less so - you are part of the economic elite of this world, easily within the top 25% definitely within the top 50%, with aspirations to move higher.

You've obviously ignored my point that this doesn't matter since the amount wealth the 5-25 percentiles is still low, in comparison to the upper 1 percentile, for example.

You are part of the problem. What are you doing to become part of the solution?

I already answered it. it seems that you're ignoring my points instead of adressing them.

My answer is to create wealth rather than take it from others. But I demand a higher salary than y'all want to give me for the difficulty involved in doing so, and it is difficult, the most difficult thing I've ever done. Hell, installing sea walls and mobile homes (which I did from the ages of 6-12, every summer) was easier than running a company.

That's great! I have no problem of giving you a high salary, even a very high one, as long as:
a) you deserve it.
b) you'll be a wage earner, not a capitalist.
c) your power in influencing the economical future of society will be given to you by the people, and not something that is enherently yours ( going back to point b ).
d) Those amounts of money, though very large, are not astronomical.

Azazel is trying to apply the standards of a country like the DRC or Zimbabwe to the United States. It doesn't work.

Can you at least TRY to make an arguement?

[Kuciwalker]

That's great! I have no problem of giving you a high salary, even a very high one, as long as:
a) you deserve it.
b) you'll be a wage earner, not a capitalist.
c) your power in influencing the economical future of society will be given to you by the people, and not something that is enherently yours ( going back to point b ).
d) Those amounts of money, though very large, are not astronomical.

How can you be a "capitalist"? There are no "capitalists", just people who live in a capitalist society.

[Giancarlo]

I am making an argument, azazel. The living standards in the US are NOT favorable for a leftist revolution. The US is too well off for that type of nonsense.

[Az]

How can you be a "capitalist"? There are no "capitalists", just people who live in a capitalist society.

Being an enterpreneur, investing your own wealth, managing YOUR OWN bussiness, etc.

I am making an argument, azazel. The living standards in the US are NOT favorable for a leftist revolution. The US is too well off for that type of nonsense.

And I am saying that the US is perfectly ripe for revolution, and the living conditions there suck.
You see, both of our "arguments" have the same value.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel
And I am saying that the US is perfectly ripe for revolution, and the living conditions there suck.
You see, both of our "arguments" have the same value.

You can say all you want. You can say the sky is green. Doesn't make it true.

Being an enterpreneur, investing your own wealth, managing YOUR OWN bussiness, etc.

So this is wrong?

[Az]

Originally posted by Fez
You can say all you want. You can say the sky is green. Doesn't make it true.

My point exactly.

[Az]

So this is wrong?

Yes, because then you can accumulate much more wealth than what you actually need to live even a luxurious life, wealth that could be spent on building roads, building optical cables, training teachers and scientists...

[Kuciwalker]

Azazel (for that matter, any of the communists here) - do you agree that people have a right to property? I'm curious.

[Flubber]

I think the main reasons that a communist revolution is a pipedream In the US are

1. Wealth-- when such a large proportion of people in a population have it, its tough to sell revolution

2. Governmental legitimacy-- I belive that polls have shown that a vast majority of Americans believe in their government and economic system as being lehgitimate ( even if they hate a particular elected official or have just seen a big business scandal) .. . IN fact many see it as the best in the world with respect to both governmental and economic system.

3. The "brand name" of communism--Regardless of whether some folks feel they can do communism better or that communism never had a chance since the capitalists did not play fair LOL-- the reputation of communism does not exactly glow anywhere in the WEST- Cuba, CHina , N. Korea, eastern bloc, USSR . .. communism has an image problem LOL

4. the poorest of the poor are usually homeless, with health, alcohol or drug problems-- hardly fertile ground for energetic revolutionaries. Among those in the next economic strata there is usually enough of a social safety net to meet basic needs

[Velociryx]

No, but we'll have true equality of opportunity, and all of society will decide and control the economy.

and

That's great! I have no problem of giving you a high salary, even a very high one, as long as:
a) you deserve it.
b) you'll be a wage earner, not a capitalist.
c) your power in influencing the economical future of society will be given to you by the people, and not something that is enherently yours ( going back to point b ).
d) Those amounts of money, though very large, are not astronomical.

Interesting, but that's precisely what our capitalist system allows for.

a) The workers CAN own the means of production. The difference is that they're not the only ones who can. They do not have a monopoly on the possibility of ownership.

b) Who, exactly, should decide if he "deserves" the high salary? Would that not be the people who buy his product? (ie - if TONS of people buy from him, then it's prolly got a lot to do with the fact that he's either got a really good product, or a really good marketing staff that convinces people they just can't live without what he's selling) - in either of those cases, his salary is fully deserved, because the people buying his stuff have voted with their wallets. Note that robber barrons who take too much for themselves invariably lead their companies to ruin, and thus, cut off the source of further wealth for themselves. It's a short-sightedness that invariably leads to less than they could have otherwise attained, and the problem is ENTIRELY self-correcting in a market-driven economy.

c) Wage earners ARE capitalists (or rather, they are if allowed to be, and in capitalist-oriented economies, EVERYONE is allowed to be) - much is made of the sweatshops in third world countries, and yes, that's a blight. It's also not the responsible of Nike or Westinghouse to set laws in their countries, and those sweatshops would disappear very quickly IF those nations where they currently are would pass appropriate laws governing worker treatment. Every capitalist nation went through the EXACT same process. We had sweatshops here in this country a hundred years ago. The sweatshops are not the fault of the companies doing business there, but rather the governments (elected or otherwise) of the nations they are established in! The ONLY people who can effect change in those countries are....guesses? If you said "the people who live there" you guessed right! Only by petitioning their governments to pass laws modelled after the ones in more developed capitalist countries can lasting change be effected. Companies will get away with what you let them. So will you or I, and that's true whether you live in commie land or a market-oriented society.

The worker in the factory is a microcosm of capitalistic enterprise in and of himself. If you don't see that, then you lack a basic understanding of modern economics.

c) Influence IS given by the people (again, who vote with their wallets) - and individual effort is what maintains it (or not, as is often the case of the 2nd generation rich, who squander daddy's fortune in a great many cases).

d) Again, who defines "astronomical" You? A panel of randomly chosen people off the street? Who? The market makes those decisions with cunning efficiency....far, far better than any panel could, no matter how well informed or intentioned.

Sounds like you're more than halfway there tho! We'll turn you into a capitalist yet!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

The simple fact of the matter is this, guys. Since capitalism has been the big dog on the block in terms of economic systems, more people are better off than ever before, and that number is increasing, not decreasing.

The system that might theoretically replace capitalism one day has to have a proven track record that's better than capitalism. Good luck with that. Seriously.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Moreover, do you trust a government to be efficient or benevolent? I don't. I do trust in people's greed, however. It's a lot easier to channel it into something effective than to try and get rid of it.

[Velociryx]

Exactly, Skywalker. Greed is a component of the human beast. Part of our human nature.

Simply walking into a room and saying "don't be greedy" isn't gonna make it go away. People want more. People strive.

Attaboys and other forms of public recognition don't cut it. That's been shown to be a VERY poor motivator, in general.

Communism denies the existance of this component of the human beast (and a few others besides). Capitalism puts them to productive use.

-=Vel=-