I joined the Communist Party

reply to post by ANOK

You keep saying that someone who does not work get's NOTHING. Well how is it that you will be able to keep tabs on all these people on a large farm? What if some do 3/4ths of the work...what if some do 1/2 what reward is there for those who pick up the slack and how can you prove someone is not doing their best?

I know that I can do the work of 2 or 3 people...does that mean they should get a third or half? It is a nice concept if all things were equal but NOTHING IS EQUAL TO ANYTHING! This is why it will not work.
Split Infinity

reply to post by ANOK

Marx was wrong though, worker ownership can work along side capitalism, and could eventually be the dominant economic model.

Then go do it what are you waiting for? Why preach this crap when you could be livin the dream and proving all the evil capitalist wrong? Gather your buddies together and get to work. If it is half as good as you guys say people will flock to the new standard when they see you guys livin the dream life...

Originally posted by jcrockva

I'm not sure why any freedom loving person would despise the idea of bottom up direct democracy. This is the highest form of freedom.

Anok says socialism lacks government, an "authority". If there is no authority, a direct democracy is meaningless - there's nothing to vote on, because there is no authority. Nothing to vote on means no direct democracy.

I just don't see a way to make the described systems work at all, even on paper, much less in practice.

reply to post by brukernavn
We all belong to a Union. Don't worry, all Americans are communists. We all have pensions, mutual funds, gym memberships, credit union memberships, participate in corporate sponsored athletics, etc. You get the idea.

Originally posted by jcrockva
94 million kills you say? Can you let us know how many people global capitalism has killed, is killing, and will kill. If we really want to talk about total kills lets talk about christianity. The third world poverty mixed with imperal wars to maintain capitalisms dominance makes 94 million look rosey.

Silly me. I thought killing was considered "bad". Now I see that if others do it, then when communists do it, too, it's not only GOOD, but in fact "rosy".

I'll consider myself corrected,

Originally posted by nenothtu

Anok says socialism lacks government, an "authority". If there is no authority, a direct democracy is meaningless - there's nothing to vote on, because there is no authority. Nothing to vote on means no direct democracy.

I just don't see a way to make the described systems work at all, even on paper, much less in practice.

I never said socialism lacks government in that sense. I said anarchism is a form of socialism. Anarchism is a form of social order where control comes from the bottom instead of the top, where the workers own the means of production (which is socialism) and make decisions between themselves using direct democracy.

Anarchism is no forced authority, voluntary authority can be allowed if the community decides it's necessary.

The only thing keeping you from seeing that could work is your imagination always looking for the negative. Every kind of economic and political system has a negative side, you have to have a system where the positives outweigh the negatives for the majority of people.

Socialism obvioulsy works in practice as there are about 11,000 worker owned companies in the US. They operate outside of government, in other words they could operate just as they do without a government in place.

No one needs a government to tell them what to do. Government is just a part of the state and the state was set up to protect capital. Without the state the capitalists would have no law to protect them and their capital. Workers could simply take control and oust the owners. Under socialism the state is not required, once the workers own and control their own workplaces the state would not be necessary, as capital would not need to be protected. This is why all left wing ideologies want the same thing, free association...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is the private ownership of production that creates the state and authority in the economy, and in society as almost everything is based around you making profit for someone else, not meeting peoples needs.

reply to post by ANOK

Without the state the capitalists would have no law to protect them and their capital. Workers could simply take control and oust the owners

And how does the state protect theses so called capitalist? Why are the workers sitting around hoping to take over the employers business at the point of a gun? Why don't they just start their own if they can do it better?

Oh wait a minute I get it you want to steal the property of the business owner who in most cases worked his ass off to build the business to that point instead of creating your own like the business owner did... Gotcha...

Why do theses workers think they have a right to what the business owner created and built? No one forced them to work for him they contracted their labor in exchange for compensation. Now you think they have a right to oust their employer when they would not have even have had a job had the employer never sacrificed and created the business in the first place?

I can guarantee you the day enough people like you ever think the time is right to try something like that many of you will die!

Yeah there are some politically favored corporations that deserve to be taken over or dismantled but the vast majority of American companies earned their wealth the old fashioned way with hard work and won't take kindly to having it stolen by force!

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ANOK

 

You keep saying that someone who does not work get's NOTHING. Well how is it that you will be able to keep tabs on all these people on a large farm? What if some do 3/4ths of the work...what if some do 1/2 what reward is there for those who pick up the slack and how can you prove someone is not doing their best?

I know that I can do the work of 2 or 3 people...does that mean they should get a third or half? It is a nice concept if all things were equal but NOTHING IS EQUAL TO ANYTHING! This is why it will not work.
Split Infinity

That happens in most jobs already, I work harder than my co-workers but still get the same pay.

No boss can monitor workers like the other workers can. Not only would there be peer pressure from workmates but there would be way more eyes around, you couldn't hide and have a sleep as easily.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Oh wait a minute I get it you want to steal the property of the business owner who in most cases worked his ass off to build the business to that point instead of creating your own like the business owner did...

the vast majority of American companies earned their wealth the old fashioned way with hard work and won't take kindly to having it stolen by force!

Haha what a myth, most people are born into wealth, its just that the media loves a good rags to riches story to keep the masses always hoping that next week will be there time in the sun. They gotta convince you there's room at the top for everyone.

Business make their profit by not compensating their workers for the full cost of their labor, ie exploitation. So the business was built off the hard work of the workers, therefore they should rightfully own it.

Haha I'd like to see the boss out there doing all the work on his own! Then yes, it would be built from his hard work.

Originally posted by ANOK

I never said socialism lacks government in that sense. I said anarchism is a form of socialism. Anarchism is a form of social order where control comes from the bottom instead of the top, where the workers own the means of production (which is socialism) and make decisions between themselves using direct democracy.

My apologies. I took where you said :

Anarcho-capitalism is a modern invention that is simply based on a misunderstanding of terms. It's based on the misconception that capitalism means 'free-market', and the misunderstanding of 'private property'. They think private property (of the means of production) is freedom, when we know it is exploitation and creates an authority.
It gives a minority class the economic power to control the majority.

As we know capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and that alone creates an authority. So it simply can not be anarchist in the traditional sense, and should not be talked about as a form of anarchism.

Capitalism is an authoritative system.

... to mean that you thought authority was a bad thing, the lack of which would be one of the hallmarks distinguishing capitalism from socialism. Surely you can understand my confusion in trying to figure out how authority exercised by direct democracy would not be incompatible with a lack of authority. Authority either IS, or it IS NOT.

Anarchism is no forced authority, voluntary authority can be allowed if the community decides it's necessary.

If the community authorizes a lack of authority, what is there to prevent authoritarian capitalism from manifesting itself? Who is going to stop it, if they have not the authority to stop it?

The only thing keeping you from seeing that could work is your imagination always looking for the negative. Every kind of economic and political system has a negative side, you have to have a system where the positives outweigh the negatives for the majority of people.

I always look for the negatives in ANY plan. The negatives are where the weaknesses will manifest and prevent the plan from coming to fruition.

Socialism obvioulsy works in practice as there are about 11,000 worker owned companies in the US. They operate outside of government, in other words they could operate just as they do without a government in place.

On a small scale, as discussed previously, there is nothing to prevent it. On a large scale, without enforced participation, not so much. Without a framework of authority to prevent capitalism from springing up via forced participation in the collective, it can't last very long on the large scale.

No one needs a government to tell them what to do.

I don't think so, either - but those pesky folks who want to make our lives a living hell - they'd be a lot happier without restraint, too.

Government is just a part of the state and the state was set up to protect capital. Without the state the capitalists would have no law to protect them and their capital.

Nor would there be any law to prevent amassing capital.

Workers could simply take control and oust the owners.

You advocate mob theft, then? What is there to prevent the mob from just taking my farm, because they like the view?

It is the private ownership of production that creates the state and authority in the economy, and in society as almost everything is based around you making profit for someone else, not meeting peoples needs.

I don't make profit for anyone else. My job is to prevent mobs from helping themselves to other people's stuff. I'd be just as happy living on my farm.

Until the mobs came to take it.

Okay. All definitions aside, can someone bottom line this for me?

Under our current, yet flawed, system, I work, I save, I get what I want, buy what I want and live how I choose.

Under true "communism" (according to many on this thread) I get to work, save, get what I want, buy what I want and live how I choose.

Maybe I'm slow (it's been said many times on ATS ) but where is the difference?

The people selling communism say it's the ideal system. Yet it sounds just like the system I currently live in.

People get all hung up on definitions.

I look at results.

reply to post by beezzer


The difference is that under capitalism, you have absolutely no right to work, which supplies you with the things that you want.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by beezzer

 

The difference is that under capitalism, you have absolutely no right to work, which supplies you with the things that you want.

But I DO work.

I don't rely on government to supply that oppourtunity for me.

I create that oppourtunity myself.

Is that the only difference?

Really?

reply to post by beezzer


Unless you have your own business, such as I, you are not the one responsible for you having a job. True, you could be lazy and not look for a job, but there are millions in the US (not my country) whom cannot work even if they choose to. Even me, a business owner, do not have the right to work or own a business. It is all luck of the draw, unfortunately. I am happy for you that you have a job, but under capitalism it is not a right and if things get bad enough, you lose your job, there is no guarantee that you will be able to find one, nor is there a guarantee that you will be able to survive.

reply to post by polarwarrior

I am a BOSS in all three of my jobs and I find that as long as I treat my people with respect and be very up front with my meanings and I have worked as a Consultant for a short time for a Large bank where I was mistook for an employee. I was wearing a GOLF SHIRT and some VP started Chewing Me Out for not wearing a tie! LOL! I was walking toward the secondary elevator that brings you up to the top floor and I back then you had to buzz in as they had no pass keys and I did not have the elevator key.

This VP worked at this Bank for years but yet he did not know who I was and actually thought I was an employee so as far as being able to monitor people working as in a communist system and know who is working harder or not....still demands a Leadership system and even then as per this example...in a large say...Co-Op....it is hard to keep track of everyone.

The Bank President came out of the first set of elevators just in time to see me being Bitched out as I knew he was right behind me....and read his VP the riot act as the President and I were working a deal as we played Golf all morning.

A Capitalistic system is not a BAD thing...what is BAD is the Leadership that works for some of these companies. It is important for a BOSS to know everyone who works in the building. These day's...they have seperated themselves to too great an extent. Split Infinity

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by beezzer

 

Unless you have your own business, such as I, you are not the one responsible for you having a job. True, you could be lazy and not look for a job, but there are millions in the US (not my country) whom cannot work even if they choose to. Even me, a business owner, do not have the right to work or own a business. It is all luck of the draw, unfortunately. I am happy for you that you have a job, but under capitalism it is not a right and if things get bad enough, you lose your job, there is no guarantee that you will be able to find one, nor is there a guarantee that you will be able to survive.

While it is true I have no guarantee for employment, it is my responsibility to insure that I do.

It is also my responsibility to make sure I have enough food/shelter/savings in case I can't find work.

I have a very simple philosophy.

Personal responsibility.

"I" insure a home for me and my family.
"I" insure food and clothing for me and my family.
"I" insure funds, capital so that me and my family can lead happy and productive lives.

Governments screw up all the time.
ALL governments.

To rely on anything or anyone other than yourself eliminates responsibility and maturity and the oppourtunity for growth.

reply to post by beezzer


I am glad that you agree with me on the point that the individual is responsible. That is the exact belief of communists. It is the individual that is responsible, not the state. I am so happy that you agree.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by beezzer

 

I am glad that you agree with me on the point that the individual is responsible. That is the exact belief of communists. It is the individual that is responsible, not the state. I am so happy that you agree.

Awesome.

Again though, what's the difference then?

Is it just a work thing?

Because if the government replaces the individual in assuring work, then that's a big issue.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by beezzer

 

I am glad that you agree with me on the point that the individual is responsible. That is the exact belief of communists. It is the individual that is responsible, not the state. I am so happy that you agree.

Awesome.

Again though, what's the difference then?

Is it just a work thing?

Because if the government replaces the individual in assuring work, then that's a big issue.

Under capitalism, you get what the state says you should get. You work for a wage, then the government takes what it wants from that wage and gives you whatever they deem is fair. Under communism, you own (along with your co-workers) the means of production. You get paid based on what you produce. If you are lazy, which I am not saying you are, you get very little and are booted from "production". When the people own the means of production and see a lazy person trying to leech off of them, they boot them. It is so much more proficient than capitalism. I have worked in steel mills, lumber mills, road oil, cartography, retail, waiter, police, many things. The lazy get just the same under capitalism. Under communism, laziness is not rewarded.

Here is someone's "individual" opinion:

The Ideal Communist Worker

Within a communist society, people are expected to act in the interest of the Communist Party and the majority of society. Specifically, the individual is expected to work and act to promote the betterment of the community. Chairman Mao Zedong elaborates, “At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while ... working with all one’s energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.” Hence, communists are expected to work diligently and thoughtfully in order to ensure he or she provides the most benefit to society. As a result, any worker in the computer field is expected to manufacture computer products without the wish for acknowledgment or excessive monetary reward.

Most importantly, communists are expected to surrender their own personal interests when they are in conflict with those of the Communist Party. The most fundamental philosophy of work in communism is expressed in a quote from the 2nd Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, Liu Shaoqi. He writes, “[The ideal communist] is the first to worry and the last to enjoy himself.” Communists, in this regard, must become selfless in providing for society. When one’s individual interests contradict those of the public, the individual is expected to yield. Most importantly, this means that individuals can not refuse a work assignment due to personal reasons. However, this does not mean that the Party is blind to one’s abilities or strengths. Shaoqi continues, “Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrade should, as far as possible, take their individual inclination and aptitude into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward.” Hence, work ethic and motivation, regardless of profession, comes from one’s duty to better benefit the communal community without question or hesitation.

Work Ethic and Motivation