What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Yshania
My argument obviously comes from a local rather than a global perspective, here, since what I have spoken of is poverty in a rich country. Those that know me will attest that I am not blind to what goes on beyond my garden gate – and neither are my children. I strived for a better life for me, I wished for my children to have the choice of further education, to have different role models and more positive influences than were what was available to me.

Nice post Ysh and I think you illustrate what is maybe the main difference between some of us who have opposing views: global versus local perspective.

@all: I am sorry for my long posts that take up half of this thread I meant to post some of it yesterday night but I was too tired...so please excuse my massive cluster of posts!

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by Tom
...At first sight there seems to be a number of situations where another moral claim overrides a person’s property right. One example would be if a child was dying of thirst and a person nearby has more water than he needs. It seems to me that if the person with the water was unwilling to give up water to help the child it would become morally right to take the water of him, ignoring that he has a property claim on it, in order to save the child. Clearly one can think of innumerable such examples...

You're a philosopher, aren't you Tom? The example you provide has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand. We are not discussing an isolated moron who won't share his water with a dehydrated child. We are discussing a system of politics and/or economics which would necessarily require the enslavement of one segment of the population. The two are simply not comparable.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Lazarus
You're a philosopher, aren't you Tom? The example you provide has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand. We are not discussing an isolated moron who won't share his water with a dehydrated child. We are discussing a system of politics and/or economics which would necessarily require the enslavement of one segment of the population. The two are simply not comparable.

Then why did you bring up the arguement of morales? Tom's point is very valid to the current discussion, and makes a very strong arguement. In a sense, he is comparing the man with water, to Capitlism. In the current Captilist soceities in the world, that is how it happens. People are too wrapped up about possession and how hard they worked, that they are unable to see the fact other are unable to work as hard, or at all, thus have nothing.

Let's throw this into the equation now. In a Capitilist soceity, businesses are forced to meet qoutas (hire so many ethnic groups, women, disabled, etc.). Not because they are qualified, but because they have to. For all we know, Scayde may've been hired in order to fill a quota. How does that make you feel? In a Communist soceity, that issue does not arise. Instead, people are placed into a job, based on their skills, not their ethnic backgrounds.

Remember, btoh Communism, and Capitilism in it's most raw form of theory, are perfect, but in practice neither have been proven to work efficiently.

I know this post is rather disjointed, but I'm going through some crap at home, and it's a little difficult to focus at the moment. I will try to sort this out, and post a better comment though.

[Mr Sleep]

*Sleep skips through the thread putting flowers in everyones hair* - lets all just smoke pot, get naked and forget about laws and regulations, peace man.

So, just to pose a silly question, what is the solution? I mean if Capitalism stinks like a kebab left in a car for 3 months and Communism leaves a taste in your mouth like 3 month old pizza, what is the better utopian ideal?

[fable]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
So, just to pose a silly question, what is the solution? I mean if Capitalism stinks like a kebab left in a car for 3 months and Communism leaves a taste in your mouth like 3 month old pizza, what is the better utopian ideal?

First of all, neither is bad. Most people here, IMO, are looking at both capitalism and communism as though they were political systems, instead of economic ones. Considered as economic systems, both provide enormous benefits and assume human behavior patterns that will cover for their grave weaknesses. In practice, those same behavior patterns ensure that both systems usually work as ghastly parodies of themselves.

As for solutions: it depends on whom you talk to, doesn't it? I personally favor the solution CE has already presented, in which the governments of capitalist societies take steps to ensure the redistribution of *resources* (not a free handout) to provide opportunities for growth among indigent groups (the handicapped, the elderly, orphans, the mentally ill, etc), and among indigent societies.

[Mr Sleep]

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I seemed to be looking at the black and white...I should know better.

Originally posted by fable
As for solutions: it depends on whom you talk to, doesn't it? I personally favor the solution CE has already presented, in which the governments of capitalist societies take steps to ensure the redistribution of *resources* (not a free handout) to provide opportunities for growth among indigent groups (the handicapped, the elderly, orphans, the mentally ill, etc), and among indigent societies.

It will come as no surprise that I haven't read all the content as of yet (although I intend to read most of it) so if the point has been covered before I will get to it at some point, the bits that I had read didn't seem to cover the solution aspect. That however would probably be built on the foundations of the current system, would it not be better to create an entirely new system, something outside the box, or is that just not a possibility.

[Yshania]

Originally posted by Dottie

@Ysh: I think that perhaps you can split up the issue of sharing/not sharing into two.

One is how much wealth is distributed to someone for a specific kind and amount of work. As it works right now the factors of working hard isnt that closely connected to salary... a miner doesnt earn more than someone who just sits on a great amount of stock...

If I am understanding you correctly, would a payment according to skill/education work in your opinion (or anyone's opinion)? Who would determine this scale of income? It would have to be a large and diverse body that could fairly judge the qualification...whether it be education or ability (in the case of manual labour) then, would there be a sub-system in place that take into consideration levels of experience/further education achieved after initial employment in a given trade/profession?

Would you agree that a scientist or a surgeon should be paid the same as a ship-builder? Working hard should not only account for the level of physical manual labour, but also for those who have gone through university, or worked against the odds to achieve, or dedicated themselves to becoming experienced in their field.

Where I do think that "systems" are unfair, are where women doing exactly the same job as a man in the same industry, in the same country, are paid less, and of course I disagree with "sweat shops" and child labour. In the UK it is illegal to work below the age of 14. This is not to say that it does not go on, or that this has always been the case. My grandfather went to work down the mines as a trapper boy when he was 13, and spent his entire life working down the pits. This was the norm then.

The Other side is what systems and services one should include in a government and then ofcourse have to pay for.

LOL! (I am not laughing at you, only the concept of an indiviual possibly having a choice in the matter) but I agree

Ok, I can only speak as a UK citizen here. The average UK worker has 33% of his/her earnings deducted as taxes/National Insurance contributions at source. These taxes are supposed to support central Government expenditure, such as defence, healthcare, social security. We take home two thirds of what we earn and have no say as to how much of and where those deductions are spent, other than voting in the party that promises to spend it in areas we favour. The UK has been referred to as a two party state, but this is not the opinion of many UK residents.

So we take home two thirds of what we have earned, then we are taxed again by the local government. This tax is not means tested according to earnings, it is based on the area you live in and the marketable value of your property. This tax is to provide fire service, libraries, upkeep of local roads. Personally, I pay nigh on £150 per month for these services.

Then we pay 17.5 % value added tax to practically all of our purchases (bar a few items that no government has yet dare tax such as childrens clothes (except known "labels") and staple foods) We are hit big time in the UK on petrol, tobacco and alcohol. Then we pay water rates and road tax. The list goes on, as I am quite sure it does everywhere.

As you probably know Im quite red politically, But even if you think giving or not giving should be a choice could you agree with that the first of these things does not have much to do with removing peoples freedom? [/b]

I disagree, on the basis that - though in theory it might work - in practice it would be nigh on impossible IMHO to fairly pay an person according to their individual education, training (and have them remain motivated within their field) by casting a blanket that levels out and de-personalises.

On another note, I found this:

What would it cost us to cancel poor country debt?

Only £2 per taxpayer per year.

In response to the repeated question: What would it cost to cancel the debt?, the Jubilee 2000 Coalition has calculated the figures. We find the cost of cancelling the debt of the poorest countries would be negligible -- between £14 million and £75 million per year, according to House of Commons figures. The cost per taxpayer is likely to be under £2 per year, or four pence per taxpayer per week. The new report, In our own backyard, is published this week, and is available for £5 from the Jubilee 2000 Coalition, PO Box 100, London SE1 7RT.

The report also reveals that Britain is refusing to pay a debt to the United States that is exactly the same size as the debt that Britain is demanding developing countries pay – £ 8.8 billion.
The pennies flowing into Britain mean little here, but cost lives in poor countries. Using United Nations figures, In our own backyard estimates that in Zambia alone, the lives of 400 babies and children would be saved each year if Zambia stopped paying Britain and used the money instead for health and education.
"Why do we demand that children in Zambia die so we can be repaid, yet at the same time we refuse to pay our own debts?" asked Ann Pettifor, director of the Jubilee 2000 Coalition.
Britain's debts

The report reveals that Britain borrowed money from the United States to fight the First World War; we stopped making payments in 1934, and have not paid a penny since. The United States Treasury confirmed last month that the debt is still due and that each year it adds on the unpaid interest. The total debt is now $14.4 billion (about £ 8.8 bn).

The total debt to Britain from all developing countries is also £ 8.8 billion. Of this, only 4% is owed to the Department for International Development (DfID) and 96% is owed to the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD). This is debt where ECGD provided insurance cover for exports, the importer failed to pay, and ECGD paid the exporter. In that situation, ECGD nationalises the debt and tries to collect.

Of this debt, £5.1 billion is owed by the 52 poorest countries, where Jubilee 2000 believes that substantial debt cancellation is essential. In 1997/98 Britain received £86 million from these countries, but this will surely fall after some of these countries go through existing debt relief processes. The report makes various calculations, based on House of Common library data, as to what it would cost to unilaterally cancel all of the debt of 52, and estimates that it will be more than £14 million and much less than £75 million per year. Compared to Britain's aid and defence budgets, this amount is extremely tiny.

Cancellation is possible

Jubilee 2000 also reveals that it is possible for Britain to act unilaterally to cancel poor country debt. Chancellor Gordon Brown has always argued that this would not help poor countries because of the arcane rules of the "burden sharing" process in existing debt cancellation. But Norway has resolved this problem and has already announced unilateral debt cancellation for all of the poorest countries.

"If Britain cancels poor country debt, the poorest people will benefit, and it will set a clear moral example for other industrialised countries. It is time to stop making the poorest people do something we are not prepared to do ourselves. Cancel the debt now," said Ann Pettifor.

Now, my own opinion is this. I am not trying to divert attention away from increasing my own personal taxes (if I could be guaranteed that an increase of - say - another 1% (negligable to the individual, but en masse a fair amount of revenue) would be donated 100% to third world causes, I would opt in). Neither am I taking the stance that cancelling foreign debt would immediately relieve those countries who are struggling to repay (since many do not have enough hard currency, and are still reliant on many imported goods/services) It may only be a short term solution, but would it not be a start?

Edit:

Regarding such opinions as:

In our own backyard estimates that in Zambia alone, the lives of 400 babies and children would be saved each year if Zambia stopped paying Britain and used the money instead for health and education.

We would have to bear in mind that by cancelling these debts it may not have such an impact at ground level (whether short, medium or long term) - such a hope would be assuming that the funds would be redistributed so by the said governments....

[fable]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
That however would probably be built on the foundations of the current system, would it not be better to create an entirely new system, something outside the box, or is that just not a possibility.

Creating an entirely new political entity in RL is nearly impossible to accomplish, because first, you have to convince nearly all the people in a country and the government itself of your system's greater worth. Forms of government are organisms that strive to reproduce themselves, and will take every measure possible to ensure their survival. It would take a massive national calamity and a collapsing administration to trigger the accession of any new form of government.

If you mean creating a new system in theory, I tend to shudder at these. Whatever they call themselves, they fall far short of their goals because they deal with people as they should be, rather than as they are. Read Adam Smith, read Karl Marx: both presupposed a humanity that was unnaturally good. Instead, we ended up with economic systems that are run by sharks who prey upon millions of minnows.

It's just my opinion, but I think it's best to work within the frame of an adaptible system, in a nation whose inhabitants understand the responsibility of owning their government, and the value of life, everywhere.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by fable
Creating an entirely new political entity in RL is nearly impossible to accomplish, because first, you have to convince nearly all the people in a country and the government itself of your system's greater worth. Forms of government are organisms that strive to reproduce themselves, and will take every measure possible to ensure their survival. It would take a massive national calamity and a collapsing administration to trigger the accession of any new form of government.

With the general feeling of patriotism umong most countries citizens I doubt it could happen. So even if a better system was suggested and the attempt was made to put it into practice most cistizens would probably disagree with its implementation, I am still amazed that Russia managed to begin movements towards captialism (in some form)

If you mean creating a new system in theory, I tend to shudder at these. Whatever they call themselves, they fall far short of their goals because they deal with people as they should be, rather than as they are. Read Adam Smith, read Karl Marx: both presupposed a humanity that was unnaturally good. Instead, we ended up with economic systems that are run by sharks who prey upon millions of minnows.

I suppose it is a learning process, perhaps with taking into account of previous versions of a theory then some solution may be created...although I doubt it.

It's just my opinion, but I think it's best to work within the frame of an adaptible system, in a nation whose inhabitants understand the responsibility of owning their government, and the value of life, everywhere.

I think the sad fact with all democracies at the moment that the choice has decreased greatly, I do believe that Britain's democracy is a two party system and the choice is limited to two of the same government style, they do not represent very differing lines of thought. We may own our government but I wonder if I even want to.

[Littiz]

Uhm, I'd want to add my opinion about taxes, earned incomes and such.

My father pays about 50% base taxes from his income.
Then you have to add all the little and conceiled taxes that are not counted explicitely
when you pay the base ones.
Then you have to add all the taxes that a family pays when buying goods of any kind.
Then the (very high) taxes just for the owning of cars or houses or whatever.
Then... I could go on.
I can't do an exact exstimation, but my father, basically, creates more richness
for the community than for himself and his family.
(For the sakes of semplicity, I exclude my mother's incomes from the reasoning).

Does he deserve to enjoy the rest (less than a half) of his income?
Forgive the little usual dramatic story, but it's really functional to my arguments.
Well, he came from a family definetely not rich.
They lived in 15 in an apartment, not so small, but still...
He started university, and I can assure you, university in Italy at his times was REALLY hard.
It was really meant to SELECT, not to graduate all those who payed.
The university was at Pisa, so he had to reach it every day by train.
Soon it became evident that in order to keep the pace, he had to study while in train, both
in the morning and in the evening. Then he had a little time after dinner, and of course,
he used to sacrifice Saturday and Sunday to his studies.
When he completed the first brillantly, he took ANOTHER course of study.
Again I point out the level of difficulty of the italian university in those times, which
isn't unequaled anywhere in these days, I'm sure.
When he completed the second, he started his work as a free professionist, and slowly
he build up something. Not without difficulties but let's forget those, for now

On the other hand, I saw many of my friends, at 15 or so, leave the school for a manual
work of some kind. I'm not speaking about persons in extreme need... I speak about
guys who didn't feel like keep the studies. They wanted some more money *immediately*, they
wanted to buy themselves a scooter (or later, a car), and mostly, they wanted that kind
of work to have freedom. You have to work 8 hours, starting from the morning, but at 5 P.M.
you're free to go out with friends on your new scooter.
The evening, you can go out without worries.
You see where I'm going. On a side, you can decide to sacrifice your youth, to risk
your resources and your sweat to try build something of your own.
And mind you, you're never out of worries. Nobody grants you the work will go well.
You have to keep the profile high, you can't just stop to work at 5 P.M.
The work NEVER leaves you, as well as worries, so every day, every hour it's just the same.
And I can testify it goes exactly this way for my father. I almost never see him, out of
the context of his work.
On the opposite side, you can choose NOT to sacrifice your youth, gain money immediately,
find a work where you have the sureness to get paid at the end of the month, even if
probably not with an enormous salary, and keep for yourself a fraction of time everyday
free from worries, or at least, free from worries related to work.

Please forgive the extreme semplicity of this scheme, I'm aware things are not always so
simple, as well as I'm aware I myself have been a total parasite for quite some time
And I am not considering here situations of extreme need.
But I am convinced that the system of rewards/tradeoff has to enter every possible implementation
of social system.
But you can't just count the hours of work of two persons and compare them!!
You have to take ALL in consideration.

About the sharing with the poorest...
Well, I could gladly accept what Fable and CE are proposing, and have taxes even more raised,
for the genuine aim to help the survival of poor populations and kids.
I've already said it, this is a *priority* indeed, while bringing all at the same level
of richness isn't (and it is even impossible, IMHO)
The problem is, who would grant that money end where they're meant to?
As a marginal comment, I say that about the children sold to sex slavery, we should start solving
the problem making a Great Pyre with those who abuse of them.

[fable]

The problem is, who would grant that money end where they're meant to?

For starters, those whose nations have a much lower income tax, for one. Secondly, much can be achieved by the redistribution of tax revenues. A lot for example could be accomplished if the enormous amount of money Bush has earmarked for the Star Wars "defense" system would be spent instead on international and national development programs targeted at education, infrastructure improvements, health--and for that matter, it would be really nice if the Bush administration could reverse it's policy towards backing huge corporations fighting the introduction of cheaper generic AIDS-fighting drugs in Africa.

[Scayde]

Just a quick note before I go home. I have only had time to read your posts today, and not had time to reply, but I wanted you to know I found them interesting all, (even the ones I do not agree with ). I will try to post more direct arguements soon, but for now let me say this: I do not think any of us are in disagreement over some fundamental issues here. It sounds we all agree there is dispairty of opportunity in the world. We all seem to have a degree of compassion for our fellows. We all seem to agree that the human race would be bet served if there were a more balanced system than there is now. The point of contention seems to be on how to get there.

I like Lazurus cannot support the abrupt redistribution of wealth or resources based purely on need. This is expropriation, and it is a violation of human rights. I realize there is need in this world., but two wrongs, IMHO can never equal right.

It seems to me, the answer then, is not to reduce the freedoms of those born in the west, but for the countries which are suffering so, to embrace the free market, enforce international commerce laws, adn look out for the citizens within there borders. For instance, the governments of these countries might insist that the companies which come in to take advantage of the cheap labor, must offer something in treturn. ie: education, healthcare, child care, community works. They do no less here in the states, but here it is voluntary, because the labor market demands it. It is market driven.

As the poeple who work for these companies begin to make more money, the community will benifit from their spending power. The trickle down theory realy does work.

The fact that disparity between the free world and the third world does not tell me we are taking advantage of anyone. It tells me thir governments are not doing all they could to protect their people's rights and liberties.

To me the answer is very simple. More freedom, not less.

I would love to post more, but I have to go for now. I'll see you all tomorrow

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by Scayde


To me the answer is very simple. More freedom, not less.

The more freedom a country, the closer you are to anarchy. That would be the worst of the lot. So that theory is incorrect.

There has to be a means between freedom and government. The populous is too dangerous to be set free like an angry set of bulls. There needs to be a herder and a fence to hold those bulls in line. Im not sure if the correct means between freedom and government has been found.

[Yshania]

Originally posted by Tybaltus

So that theory is incorrect.

I am not picking on you here, Ty, just on your choice of wording. Whilst in general I might agree with what you have said, this is not the first time I have seen someone being accused of being incorrect in this thread. I would like to offer that just because an opinion is different, it is not necessarily "incorrect". I would also like to add that Scayde may not have been suggesting anarchy, only freedom of choice. Maybe if you asked her in what context more freedom would work in her opinion ....

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by Yshania
I am not picking on you here, Ty, just on your choice of wording. Whilst in general I might agree with what you have said, this is not the first time I have seen someone being accused of being incorrect in this thread. I would like to offer that just because an opinion is different, it is not necessarily "incorrect". I would also like to add that Scayde may not have been suggesting anarchy, only freedom of choice. Maybe if you asked her in what context more freedom would work in her opinion ....

Not like Im flaming here. I take things literally in debates, most everybody I know does. And my ideas have been shot down before. Its simply the nature of things. Certainly understandable.


EDIT-I apologize. I am a bit frustrated at things today and Im a bit antsy. I take back nothing, but perhaps it is not the tone I am aiming for.

[Yshania]

@Ty, I wasn't shooting down your opinion at all I only suggested generally (but with reference to your post) that calling someone incorrect before ascertaining their stance, and even after ascertaining their stance, is not always right. You can disagree, but unless the facts are black and white neither of you are necessarily wrong or right, just differing.

I didn't think you were flaming either, and neither was I Just making a point.

[Tybaltus]

Ysh, please look at my edit. I feel it explains it thoroughly. Today nothing has been my friend.

EDIT-Just so this isnt spam: Well at least both govts and economic systems are better then a despot system or anarchy. Heh.

[Yshania]

@Ty, Ok, no harm done. I hope things work out for you *hug*

[Dottie]

@Yshania: My point was not that its neccessary to provide exact calculations of how much money a specific amount and type of work is worth, Im sorry if it sounded that way. It was more that I find they way it works atm very unjust. And not in any way connected to freedom. Now what would solve or ease this problem is imo not a 'who', but a 'what'. Ofcourse wich systems does work better and wich does work worse you have to find out by trying, But one suggestion that I think would improve alot in this aspect is democratic and employee owned workplaces. Such solutions I consider somwhat unlikely to reduce peoples motivation.

But as a theoretical question I do ofcourse think there are many other factors then physical labour that makes a job worth higher payment.

And its okey to laugh at me, Atleast your not sighing with resignation as CE usally does.

Regarding taxation though I agree that tax systems often have flaws that hurt people its not supposed to and favours others who doesnt need it. And I agree that its sad that people have almost no control over how the tax money are spent. However I see the first problem as connected to taxation laws and the second problem more connected to the state of our current democratic system rather than the priciple of taxes or the amount that is payed.

[Chanak]

I'm back from my sabbatical...and I see I have some catching up to do.

@CE, Aegis: As I'm feeling pretty vacant right now, I think I'll wait 'till this weekend to respond.