prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck

Kuciwalker · September 28, 2003, 19:29

Here's your chance. Explain why what I'm about to say is wrong.

Communism is immoral, because it is slavery. I produce a commodity, my labor. I sell that commodity in exchange for money. If you require that I give that money to other people who have less money, then you are really requiring me to give my labor, without compensation, to them. Thus, I am their slave. Slavery is immoral.

Immortal Wombat · September 28, 2003, 19:32

In a perfect Communism there is no such thing as "less money" because no individual has any need for money because all commodities and services are provided for free.

Kuciwalker · September 28, 2003, 19:36

So I'm forced to provide my labor for free to other people?

Thus I'm still a slave.

GePap · September 28, 2003, 19:37

Let's see, you start with a completely biased view, with what seems like a large ignorance of the theory uderpinning the notion, and then we are to explain it to you?

Why is your labor a commodity you must sell? Should you ability to live be based on this? What is the morality in that?

I won't try. Just accept that you are biased, and live with that bias, and everyone will be better of for it.

Curiosity · September 28, 2003, 19:38

It's clearly only slavery if you are *forced* to work. Providing you may leave the country or Live from welfare, your argument fails.

Skanky Burns · September 28, 2003, 19:41

A "free market" also forces one to work, unless starving to death is what you would call a valid choice.

Kuciwalker · September 28, 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Curiosity
It's clearly only slavery if you are *forced* to work. Providing you may leave the country or Live from welfare, your argument fails.

Ok, so you know what, I just won't work. I'll still get money from other people that do work, though, so I'm fine.

Let's see where that philosophy leads us.

Ned · September 28, 2003, 19:45

If one has no option not to work, cannot negotiate his wage rates, cannot change jobs without permission, does not have the right to strike against unsafe working conditions and has no right to pass what he has earned onto his family, one is a slave.

GePap · September 28, 2003, 19:46

And the gang in complete!

Kuciwalker · September 28, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

If one has no option not to work, cannot negotiate his wage rates, cannot change jobs without permission, does not have the right to strike against unsafe working conditions and has no right to pass what he has earned onto his family

Of course you can strike - in a democratic country. That "failing" of capitalism is really a failing of authoritarianism.

GePap · September 28, 2003, 19:48

You think Ned meant that about Capitalism? Where have you been? Outer Mongolia?

Proteus_MST · September 28, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
So I'm forced to provide my labor for free to other people?

Thus I'm still a slave.

But you also get the Products which other people produce by their hands work for Free

So, in an ideal Communism it doesn´t matr if you are paid or not.
You work for your Society but the society also works for you

mrmitchell · September 28, 2003, 19:51

Society is slavery. I wanted to be born into a society where I could walk up to a Senator and repeatedly slap him with a banana. But did I get in that society? No! I was forced into this one!

St Leo · September 28, 2003, 19:56

Fill in these blanks:
To each according to their ______, from each according to their ________.

Communism sucks. Swedish free market forever.

Kuciwalker · September 28, 2003, 19:58

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." That was actually what made me realize communism is slavery.

JCG · September 28, 2003, 20:00

I think that the road to communism has proven to be much more "immoral as heck" than communism itself (even if you choose to subscribe to the "we haven't seen true communism" argument, that doesn't change the above).....

Proteus_MST · September 28, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Society is slavery. I wanted to be born into a society where I could walk up to a Senator and repeatedly slap him with a banana. But did I get in that society? No! I was forced into this one!

AFAIK you can do it.
They sometimes even reward you for doing it by taking you to a place where you don´t have to work and even get clothes and food for free

Drogue · September 28, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Swedish free market forever.

St Leo · September 28, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." That was actually what made me realize communism is slavery.

Yeah, it's no joy. Only someone with a protestant work ethic could possibly like communism.

chequita guevara · September 28, 2003, 20:12

Of course it's immoral. We are Godless after all.

PLATO · September 28, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." That was actually what made me realize communism is slavery.

What about the individual that has great ability and little need? What would the commies call him, if not a slave, under this ludicrous statement.

Communism could only posiibly work when everyone's abilities and needs are fairly equal. Beyond that and it becomes exploitation of some and welfare for others. Two different types of the same thing...slavery.

Dis · September 28, 2003, 20:23

you are correct sir. communism is immoral.

As far left as I strive to be, I will never waiver from my capitalist tendencies. It is easily the best economic system available today.

mrmitchell · September 28, 2003, 20:25

Quote:

As far left as I strive to be, I will never waiver from my capitalist tendencies. It is easily the best economic system available today.

I did a quick tally of it for today's Rant of the Day (you know, that annoying link in my sig) and no matter what good Communism does, it lacks the "free market" one has in capitalism.

GePap · September 28, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO

What about the individual that has great ability and little need? What would the commies call him, if not a slave, under this ludicrous statement.

Communism could only posiibly work when everyone's abilities and needs are fairly equal. Beyond that and it becomes exploitation of some and welfare for others. Two different types of the same thing...slavery.

This assume anyone's labor is necessary for the creaiton of basic needs. There is a reason Marx states only at the most advanced level of capitalism can communism come into being: you need an immense productive economy so that the needs of everyon can be met free of this issue. To use a bad exmaple, look at Star Trek. Could the capitalist system survive cheap near-limitsless energy, near full auto mation of industry, so forth and so on? There are ery few industries and sectors were full automation is impossible: and those fields ususally pay squat.

So the fact is, until we reach the most adavnced form of capitalism, one of Marx's most basic claims can;t be dealt with.

Theben · September 28, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

This assume anyone's labor is necessary for the creaiton of basic needs. There is a reason Marx states only at the most advanced level of capitalism can communism come into being: you need an immense productive economy so that the needs of everyon can be met free of this issue. To use a bad exmaple, look at Star Trek. Could the capitalist system survive cheap near-limitsless energy, near full auto mation of industry, so forth and so on? There are ery few industries and sectors were full automation is impossible: and those fields ususally pay squat.

So the fact is, until we reach the most adavnced form of capitalism, one of Marx's most basic claims can;t be dealt with.

Which is why capitalism has built-in safeguards against such an occurrence; minimum unemployment levels and inflation, for starters.

You also assume greed has it's limits.

PLATO · September 28, 2003, 20:40

Well I suppose we can look forward to the "Star Trek" days, but until then I think communism is grossly unfair and ultimately unsustainable.

In a scenario of limitless energy and machines making the machines that make the stuff we want then the above statement still does not pan out. Consider, rather, "To each according to their wants, from each according to their desire". If we are talking utopian theory then why not?

GePap · September 28, 2003, 20:46

"Desires"? why desires? People invariably want more than they have, in fact, usually more than they can get under their current life. Desire is a fine endless line to unhappiness. The Buddhist are right when it comes to desire.

Odin · September 28, 2003, 21:13

The only reason capitalism works in the US is because we are a wasteful, materialistic society, we are bombarded by ads telling us to buy things we don't really need. Get rid of crap ads and you kill capitalism as we know it in the US. In a communist society people buy luxury goods, say a civ game, because it really is fun, we won't have the "Infrogreed lying to the consumer" BS we have now. Basically capitalism works because it creates false needs. This is why I think the "unlimited wants" doctrine of economics is bunk, the reason people have so many wants is because capitalism creates this situation via advertisement.

The main premise of my idea of communism is economic democracy, the economy is controled by ELECTED officials, not rich bigwigs. Luxury goods are sold by worker-run co-ops. Workers will also be paid more for less work because there will be no surpluses goods to drive down wages, and the amount of time people have to work for the same amount of money will decrease as technology gets more efficent. The main problem is that communism must be global, otherwise capitalist countries will use thier millitary to do the bidding of thier corporate masters and get in the way of progress (like when the US put in Pinochet in Chile because that contry had just elected a socialist).

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Dis · September 28, 2003, 21:14

capitalism did very well in the 18th century. and there was very little advertisement compared to what we have today- which is a near endless bombardment of advertisements.

Odin · September 28, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
capitalism did very well in the 18th century. and there was very little advertisement compared to what we have today- which is a near endless bombardment of advertisements.

That was because it was the beginning of the industrial revolution, you need capitalism to develop the country before you go socialist, Capitalism has done it's job in the developed world, it is no longer needed. That is why the USSR went to heck, they went communist before they were developed enough, hence when it comes to the Russian Civil War I actually would of sided with the menshiviks (the "social democrats" of the period).