Equality Or Freedom?

[GuidoNius]

castille,

Where do you get the funny notion that people will minimize their work for any given dollar. Many people voluntarily work their asses of for no money at all.

Wouldn't you at least consider the possibility that people will only tend to do a lousy job mainly when when they are forced to do what is for them a lousy job?

The free market system not only assumes that agents on a free market will maximize the return of their effort but also that it will maximize that these agents actually produce things that are of added value to them.

In labour market terminology, people in a free market will have the best possibility of actually doing what for them, individually, is a fine job.

Capitalism, as many argue, is of potential threat to free markets insofar as it tends to create dominance based on centralization of capital & such a dominance tends to create a distortion of a free market.

As a fairly recent economic system, the jury is still very much out on a global capitalistic system.

The choices are rarely neatly divided in two opposites.

GuidoNius

[GuidoNius]

castille,

Also, communism is not the same as egalitarianism. It is not communist to say everybody has to have & do the same. Rather, regardless of the things people have & the things people do, everybody needs to have an equal access to the public goods & none should be able to monopolize a public good for his personal use (beyond what's immediately needed by a person for his subsistence).

GuidoNius

[castille]

Communism has been TRIED.

Its just never suceeded.



Its all good to say "We don't need no damn law and government", but that also means I can kill you, rape your family, and steal all your possessions. Since there is no government enforcement agency (ie. police) to prevent or regulate my action, humanity devolves into chaos.


For some people, that can be acceptable. Theres a guy called Kit, mercenary in Bosnia, who'd love to live in a government-free land. But then, he kills people for a living, so he'd do better.

[The Fyrdman]

Just because you could kill people, would you?

There would be no need for Kit and other mercs to kill people for money, as money would be replaced by a system that prevents the accumulation of wealth beyond ones need. As long as he worked, he would have all he needed for a good life.

[Waychel]

Human beings are never satisfied; we always want a better life, or a better life for our family and those we care for. We want more, and don't tell me that you yourself don't feel this impulse as well, since you "want" Communism. Whether its material greed, philosophical want or individual desire, people are going to want something, somebody or more.

That need is what leads people to be so greedy as to be inconsiderate towards others and commit crimes. I cannot begin to explain how naive it is to claim that criminal thought can be eradicated with Communism. Limiting the social environment to where everyone has the same as everyone else will not eliminate individual thought, individual desire and individual needs.

"Just because you could kill people, would you?"

Definitely not, but that doesn't mean others would not either, and I think all murder and violence on the planet is proof enough of that.

For Communism to work, you would need to eliminate philosophy, sexual and emotional desire, feelings, etc. You would have to remove everything from the human being, culture and individuality among all other things, that makes them human in the first place.

Sure doesn't sound very utopian to me... although, I suppose after you removed our very souls and turned us into practical zombies, we would interpret anything as being what we were told. Not that words would hold any value or meaning anymore.

[The Fyrdman]

Communism has nothing to do with turning people into zombies, its entirely the other way round. For most people to survive in the capitalist system, they and their family work 12+ hours shifts, if they are lucky enough to have a job. 50% of this planet earns per person $1.04 per day. So say a family of six gets that, $6.24 a day. Hmm, now what kind of lifestyle can you live like that? You can't afford the good things in life, like music or literature. You can't afford even reasonable housing, and clean water is out the window. You can't afford those $10 a pill anti-retroviral drugs for your kids aids. Hell, you just scrape enough to have a corrogated iron shack in the shanty town and food not worthy of being called so to keep yourself and your family alive. All of this would end under communism.

[castille]

Under Communism, if there was no law, why work 10 hours a day for a loaf of bread when you can kill your neighbour and get it without working?


Those "poor countries" are NOT capitalist. Ironically, the majority of Third World countries are ruled by a military dicatatorship (socialism). Libya, Zimbabwe, former Iraq, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, etc are all ruled by socialistic governments, not democratic capitalist governments.

[Waychel]

We have Medicare, and it would pay for the child's medical. =P

Also, there is such thing as the welfare system for large families with low income.

Anyone who gets so little as $1.04 in the US is here illegally working under-the-table, because the minimum wage is the lowest payment allowed by law.

Welfare also makes it possible for people to go back to school, to study for a better career for themselves.

I fail to see how Communism is "the other way around" when you would have to eliminate all individual thought and desire for people to be satisfied with entirely equal bare essentials.

[The Fyrdman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Under Communism, if there was no law, why work 10 hours a day for a loaf of bread when you can kill your neighbour and get it without working?


Those "poor countries" are NOT capitalist. Ironically, the majority of Third World countries are ruled by a military dicatatorship (socialism). Libya, Zimbabwe, former Iraq, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, etc are all ruled by socialistic governments, not democratic capitalist governments.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Ahh man what bollocks. Those countries are not socialist, nor are there governments, regardless of what lies they produced in order to get the support needed to get into government.

I don&#39;t know enough about Libya to argue over it in particular, but

Zimbabwe-Socialism is colour blind, as is communism. Robert Mugabe isn&#39;t. He is pursuing nationalistic, racist agenda, neither of which are compatible with socialism.

Ba&#39;athist Iraq-It was ran by a militaristic regime. A socialist regime cannot be run in such a way because of the limits on freedom. Secondly its government leeched off the people, also not compatible with a socialist regime.

Pakistan-Pakistand has been torn apart by civil war and has had little stability to develop itself. Its previous &#39;democratic&#39; government was corrupt. It is currently run by Pervez Musharriff, who came to power through a military coup, and is not socialist, as his power base, the army, would not allow it.

Sierra Leone-What the hell? Sierra Leone has no real government, never mind a socialist one. It has been ripped apart by a civil war and diamond hunting mercs for the last 50 years.

[castille]

A socialist government, defined by dictionary.com, is "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT that often plans and controls the economy."


Zimbabwe&#39;s production is owned by a centralized government. Libya&#39;s government owns all production. Sierra Leone is also under centralized government (only some portions of Sierra Leone are under civil disorder). Pakistan&#39;s centralized government also owns all means of production.


On contrast, an ideal capitalistic government allows all forms of freedom, while only placing very minimal barriers to protect against danger (ie. murder, assault, burgulary, etc are all illegal). So in effect a libertarian government to an extent.

[RebelWithanAK]

Dear lord, I didn&#39;t know that a form of societal configuration could be defined with only one sentence&#33; And what a misguiding, wrong-headed sentence it is, too&#33; Under those guidelines, WWII Germany was socialist&#33; Britain is socialist&#33; Italy is socialist&#33; Bosnia is socialist, Japan is socialist, South Africa is socialist... fuck, I can&#39;t think of very many countries that aren&#39;t socialist, if all there need be to be socialist is to have some form of a state capitalist system running&#33;

Or maybe it&#39;s you who&#39;s getting it wrong, not Japan or Mexico or Zimbabwe or the Congo...

[Section 8]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
A socialist government, defined by dictionary.com, is "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT that often plans and controls the economy."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Dictionary.com is incorrect. Read Berkman or Marx, and then tell me if that&#39;s true.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
On contrast, an ideal capitalistic government allows all forms of freedom, while only placing very minimal barriers to protect against danger (ie. murder, assault, burgulary, etc are all illegal). So in effect a libertarian government to an extent.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You are forced to work. If you don&#39;t work you die, how is that freedom. If your poor you don&#39;t get equal representation. You only have freedom if you can afford it.