Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The one thing that makes me NOT a Commie.

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:00:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ran out of room to type out "Leninist-Marxist".

The general concept of Communism appeals to me. I like the big government, and could probably live with not owning my own property (the details of the law(s) would be the deciding factor there), but I don't get the whole equal wage part of it.

In 10 years from now, I hope to have either obtained, or in the process of working on my Ph.D in astrophysics, and would like to work at a university getting an annual salary of probably somewhere in the upper five digit area.

Under a Communist system, why would I consider it fair to get the same wage as someone working at McDonald's without even a high school diploma?

I've asked my one friend who is a Communist, and he just told me that he's alright with it, but he couldn't really justify his tolerance, so can any other Communists out there explain why the equal wage aspect of it is just?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's the only problem you have with Marxism-Leninism?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:31:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 4:46:41 PM, Noumena wrote:
That's the only problem you have with Marxism-Leninism?

As far as the theory is concerned, yeah.

In practice I have some others, but that's just me pointing to the failed Communist countries and pointing out why they failed.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
SapphireSpire
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 6:41:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Communism is based on the complete absence of government, which is why it can't work. In the midst of anarchy there is always someone willing to use violence for their own ends.

If you like big government than Socialism is what appeals to you. But the problem with big government is that it exists without your consent and produces laws that are never fair to you or serve your best interests.

That's why I prefer Democracy. Not a pseudo-democratic republic like the USA but a direct democracy, where every citizen has the right to vote directly on all legislation and nothing ever passes without high popular approval for at least a week.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 7:22:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 6:41:09 PM, SapphireSpire wrote:
Communism is based on the complete absence of government, which is why it can't work. In the midst of anarchy there is always someone willing to use violence for their own ends.

If you like big government than Socialism is what appeals to you. But the problem with big government is that it exists without your consent and produces laws that are never fair to you or serve your best interests.

That's why I prefer Democracy. Not a pseudo-democratic republic like the USA but a direct democracy, where every citizen has the right to vote directly on all legislation and nothing ever passes without high popular approval for at least a week.

so like greek empire
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 10:43:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
the one thing that makes you NOT a Commie is that you're themohawkninja.
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 8:45:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2013 6:41:09 PM, SapphireSpire wrote:
Communism is based on the complete absence of government, which is why it can't work. In the midst of anarchy there is always someone willing to use violence for their own ends.

If you like big government than Socialism is what appeals to you. But the problem with big government is that it exists without your consent and produces laws that are never fair to you or serve your best interests.

That's why I prefer Democracy. Not a pseudo-democratic republic like the USA but a direct democracy, where every citizen has the right to vote directly on all legislation and nothing ever passes without high popular approval for at least a week.

So the concept of rights becomes meaningless, as whatever is popular becomes law?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 9:00:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2013 6:41:09 PM, SapphireSpire wrote:
Communism is based on the complete absence of government, which is why it can't work. In the midst of anarchy there is always someone willing to use violence for their own ends.

If you like big government than Socialism is what appeals to you. But the problem with big government is that it exists without your consent and produces laws that are never fair to you or serve your best interests.

That's why I prefer Democracy. Not a pseudo-democratic republic like the USA but a direct democracy, where every citizen has the right to vote directly on all legislation and nothing ever passes without high popular approval for at least a week.

That would be the biggest government of them all.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2013 6:41:09 PM, SapphireSpire wrote:
Communism is based on the complete absence of government, which is why it can't work. In the midst of anarchy there is always someone willing to use violence for their own ends.

If you like big government than Socialism is what appeals to you. But the problem with big government is that it exists without your consent and produces laws that are never fair to you or serve your best interests.

That's why I prefer Democracy. Not a pseudo-democratic republic like the USA but a direct democracy, where every citizen has the right to vote directly on all legislation and nothing ever passes without high popular approval for at least a week.

direct democracy is very mush the same thing as anarchy. How would you protect yourself against dictatorship of majority? Violence?

It probably end in the same chaotic state as you would found in a failed state of various type.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:18:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One thing I hate the most about Communism and Socialism of all type is that it allow people to enjoy benefit of other people labour, without consent and with force.

If you are intelligent, hard working, and ambition you will like classical capitalism. Only the weak, the fool, and the lazy will appreciate socialist of any kind (except self-philanthropy)
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:38:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2013 4:00:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Ran out of room to type out "Leninist-Marxist".

The general concept of Communism appeals to me. I like the big government, and could probably live with not owning my own property (the details of the law(s) would be the deciding factor there), but I don't get the whole equal wage part of it.

In 10 years from now, I hope to have either obtained, or in the process of working on my Ph.D in astrophysics, and would like to work at a university getting an annual salary of probably somewhere in the upper five digit area.

Under a Communist system, why would I consider it fair to get the same wage as someone working at McDonald's without even a high school diploma?

I've asked my one friend who is a Communist, and he just told me that he's alright with it, but he couldn't really justify his tolerance, so can any other Communists out there explain why the equal wage aspect of it is just?

How about the fact that any economic system is bound to fail when it becomes a political system? This is the primary flaw of Communism, it's inefficiency is frequently highlighted, pointed out and some Communists even admit capitalism is more efficient. So thereby communism becomes more of a political system, meant to solve societal ills and give power to people (usually the proletariat) rather than being worried about actual efficiency and overall prosperity. I think the way to eliminate any incentive for Communism in 1st world countries is to set up a global standard that is accepted by all nations for what is 'poverty' and what is not. Poverty is relative now and usually has to do with income inequality, so even if the average income in the US was $800,000, if the middle and lower classes only owned 10% of the wealth and the upper classes made an average of $900 million, the middle and lower classes, while they would be well off and prosperous, would still be technically impoverished and thereby would probably be discontent. What would be better would be to set up a global standard that doesn't change (is absolute) that defines poverty, I would say that as long as everyone has their basic needs of basic shelter, adequate foot, water and medical care, you are no longer in poverty. Once we take away the relativity of poverty, we eliminate 90% of people who are currently supposedly 'impoverished' by altering the definition of poverty.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:40:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So we can thereby assume that most post in first world countries are not impoverished.

To answer your original question, the cornerstone of communism is equality; regardless of value. So if you do not accept wage equality, you are not a communist. Possibly a radical socialist.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 9:16:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:18:41 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
One thing I hate the most about Communism and Socialism of all type is that it allow people to enjoy benefit of other people labour, without consent and with force.

People who say this often neglect the fact that a good 20~40% of their income is collected as taxes by either the state of the feds (in the U.S.) -- to do things they take for granted, like build roads, regulate conglomerates, and enforce laws.

If you are intelligent, hard working, and ambition you will like classical capitalism. Only the weak, the fool, and the lazy will appreciate socialist of any kind (except self-philanthropy)

Of the three things you listed, ambition is the only thing that would make someone like classical capitalism -- along with materialism and greed. Capitalism is like poker, where your life is your only hand -- more luck than skill. It is unfortunate truth that people are more motivated by a million dollar lottery at 1/100 000 odds than a $20 bill.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 9:35:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2013 4:00:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Ran out of room to type out "Leninist-Marxist".

The general concept of Communism appeals to me. I like the big government, and could probably live with not owning my own property (the details of the law(s) would be the deciding factor there), but I don't get the whole equal wage part of it.

Equal wage? Marx speaks that one "receives back from society exactly what he gives to it" (save the transaction fee). The concept of "labor-time", is far from "equal wage". It's the product of useful labor and time -- net utility.

In 10 years from now, I hope to have either obtained, or in the process of working on my Ph.D in astrophysics, and would like to work at a university getting an annual salary of probably somewhere in the upper five digit area.

Under a Communist system, why would I consider it fair to get the same wage as someone working at McDonald's without even a high school diploma?

Too many people mistakenly believe this.

I've asked my one friend who is a Communist, and he just told me that he's alright with it, but he couldn't really justify his tolerance, so can any other Communists out there explain why the equal wage aspect of it is just?

It's equal wage for each labor-time.

The difficult part is defining what is a "labor" (time is relatively easy to measure and keep track of). Certainly the banker provides a useful service by directing large amounts of capital for projects that need it; while it is easy to measure the productivity of farmers or factory workers, it's virtually impossible to measure the productivity of people like merchants, managers, bankers, or even inventors.

What is almost certain, though, is that people like merchants, managers, and bankers do not deserve paychecks orders of magnitudes above the laborer.
0x5f3759df
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 11:44:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 9:35:42 PM, Bullish wrote:
Too many people mistakenly believe this.

To clarify, one way or another, you would be remunerated for your contribution to your education. It would either be direct (i.e. labor vouchers for time spent in class and on schoolwork, just as if it were your job, which in a sense it is) or indirect (i.e. your later, astrophysicist wages calculated on the basis not of the number of hours you actually work, but instead on the number of hours it would take the average worker to produce the same product, which work would presumably include getting their PhD). The only caveat is that, to the extent that the "signaling" theory of education is accurate, you may be doing a lot more work than would be necessary in a planned economy.

The difficult part is defining what is a "labor" (time is relatively easy to measure and keep track of). Certainly the banker provides a useful service by directing large amounts of capital for projects that need it; while it is easy to measure the productivity of farmers or factory workers, it's virtually impossible to measure the productivity of people like merchants, managers, bankers, or even inventors.

Marx certainly wouldn't agree that the banker provides a useful service, but it's a moot point because even in the transitional stage there would be no capital as such (and no financial capital in any form) and thus no bankers to direct it. Same goes for merchants (though there would of course be distributors, and they would be paid the same hourly rate as anyone else) and managers (for which the opposite is true; they do useful work currently but would obviously have no place in workers' self-management).

As for inventors, their productivity may indeed be hard to measure (though so is everyone's in an integrated economy), but Marx didn't propose to ration according to productivity anyway. Presumably, one's work has to be "socially necessary", but beyond that one simply gets paid by the hour, which I take at face value but that I suppose it's possible to interpret as the number of hours the average (perhaps equally skilled) worker would take to produce one's product given the same inputs, as in the law of value.