Marxist's Apartment A Microcosm of why Marxism Doesn't Work

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It's funny people are gettting their panties all up in a bundle over an article from The Onion.

It's not the article people are objecting, it's the way somebody takes it as true to build an argument upon that people are objecting.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This is a moot point.

A person who does not work in a capitalistic society starves to death.

there are a fairly numerous amount of ways to not work in capitalism. have a sugar daddy, have investments, welfare, rich parents, government job, and like u sed, starve; which is a choice.

I assume when the capitalists harp on communism its that if u don't work u will be thrown in jail then sent to labor camps or something of the sort. that is far less freedom than capitalism.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
In the Q & A someone asked him what he thought about communism. Gorbachev then made a very interesting and strong rebuke of communism. Saying it became more of a religion than a political system and that it was oppressive tyranny. He said people rejected it because people prefered to live free.

If Gorbachev has even realized Communism is wrong and oppressive, why can't you all?

That's pretty much what communism is in China now. Although it is rarely used as an economic model anymore, it now filled the role of a theocracy. Schools still teach it as canon despite that it is no longer practical in their new Western styled lives. Mao has become diefied, and the works of Marx's and other 'apostles' have collectively become their Bible. Jiang is the current Pope and will probably remain so until death. And as you go down the heirarchy of the communist party, you can see where each member plays his role in the customs of feudal Catholicism.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yavoon
there are a fairly numerous amount of ways to not work in capitalism. have a sugar daddy, have investments, welfare, rich parents, government job, and like u sed, starve; which is a choice.

None of these "choices" are inherent to capitalism. The only real ones are work or starve, and starve is not a choice.

Originally posted by yavoon
I assume when the capitalists harp on communism its that if u don't work u will be thrown in jail then sent to labor camps or something of the sort. that is far less freedom than capitalism.

Less free than being dead?

[Ned]

I am glad the commie's here now admit that they need a government with authority to punish, not crimes, but lack of work, in order for communism to function. No more bullsh*t about the dictatorship of the proletariat withering away.

Punishment and rewards. Punishment and rewards.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


None of these "choices" are inherent to capitalism. The only real ones are work or starve, and starve is not a choice.



Less free than being dead?

actually other ppl deciding to spend money on u is very inherent to capitalism. its part of the freedom u have w/ ur money. in communism taht freedom doesn't exist. everyone just works.

[Berzerker]

UR -

None of these "choices" are inherent to capitalism. The only real ones are work or starve, and starve is not a choice.

Sure they are, in capitalist systems charity has always existed whether it's the family supporting a member who can't work or communities supporting residents down on their luck.

[:) Smiley]

Yeah, the situation described in the article sounds a lot like that in the co-op house I live in now... except we have a government that makes people actually do work so there's food to eat and the house doesn't smell bad. Works out quite well, though the level of messiness is higher than most student housing... that has more to do with the kind of people who want to live in a co-op though.

University Student's Cooperative Association- http://www.usca.org/

Conclusion? Be it capitalism or communism, laziness causes problems. In capitalism though not everyone has an equal opportunity to be lazy though.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sure they are, in capitalist systems charity has always existed whether it's the family supporting a member who can't work or communities supporting residents down on their luck.

Just because such charities has always existed within a capitalistic society does not mean that it is an intrinsic component of capitalism. I am not aware of any theorists advocating this.

Such charities had been in existence long before capitalism.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
I am glad the commie's here now admit that they need a government with authority to punish, not crimes, but lack of work, in order for communism to function. No more bullsh*t about the dictatorship of the proletariat withering away.

Punishment and rewards. Punishment and rewards.

This doesn't matter, since "work or starve" is a form of punishment - a communist system could use that as its form of worker motivation and be no different from capitalism in that respect.

Some better arguments are needed by the opposition here.

[OzzyKP]

work or starve is a natural "punishment", work or be sent to the gulag is not.

For example under capitalism if you drop a hammer on your foot your "punishment" is to have a painful foot. Under communism everyone is given steel toed boots, and if you drop a hammer on your foot someone from the government whips you.

Why try to prevent natural consequences of one's actions when you are just going to impose artificial consequences in their place?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Thanks! I eagerly await your results.

(Oh, can we get some specific names of these leisured people?)

Don't you think that's an awful lot of work for a forum thread debate?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


This doesn't matter, since "work or starve" is a form of punishment - a communist system could use that as its form of worker motivation and be no different from capitalism in that respect.

Some better arguments are needed by the opposition here.

Let's compare to reality where we actually have a social safety net in capitalist societies. It is not work or starve. It is work hard and do well. Work harder and become rich.

In communist societies, it is work or else. Work harder and you are stupid.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Let's compare to reality where we actually have a social safety net in capitalist societies. It is not work or starve.

Oh, and all those millions of people starvnig to death every year in the capitalist 3rd world are really not starving to death? Sorry Charlie, but you don't get to pick only the imperialist countries to show how great capitalism is. You have to take the colonial and neo-colonial world too. Millions of people starve to death every year in the capitalist world, all because the holy market has no use for them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It really is a good example of how socialism breaks down. Has anyone read about the utopian collectives many communist students started in the 60's & 70's? All of them started with big talk about fairness and equality but they almost always broke down over something stupid like who was going to do the dishes.

That's just communism.

yet israeli kibbutzim managed to get people to do the dishes, and even to fairly productive - (at least until they started doing stupid things like speculating in bank stocks) differences - 1 careful selection of members 2. disciplined ideology and strong social pressure to work 3. Willingness to toss out the lazy.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Let's compare to reality where we actually have a social safety net in capitalist societies. It is not work or starve. It is work hard and do well. Work harder and become rich.

In communist societies, it is work or else. Work harder and you are stupid.

Actually it's very often the opposite. People who do very well at a job (work hard whatever) usually stay at that job. That's efficient anyway. They may get small raises but they don't become rich. They just get exploited more. So really you are stupid to work hard at your job. The key is to work smart if you don't want to be exploited. You want to show your boss that you are much more valuable moving up the latter than you are working at the bottom. The bottom is where everyone works hard, and don't get sh1t for it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Oh, and all those millions of people starvnig to death every year in the capitalist 3rd world are really not starving to death? Sorry Charlie, but you don't get to pick only the imperialist countries to show how great capitalism is. You have to take the colonial and neo-colonial world too. Millions of people starve to death every year in the capitalist world, all because the holy market has no use for them.

I was unaware that the third world had capitalist societies. I thought they all had socialist societies of one extremity or the other.

[Ben Kenobi]

People who do very well at a job (work hard whatever) usually stay at that job. That's efficient anyway. They may get small raises but they don't become rich. They just get exploited more. So really you are stupid to work hard at your job.

What if you love your job, Kidicious?

You assume that the only motivations for working are for material benefits, and that is just not so!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned


I was unaware that the third world had capitalist societies. I thought they all had socialist societies of one extremity or the other.

Chile, Peru, and Bolivia are all countries that are far more neoliberal than the US. In fact I would dare say that any politician in the US that ran on a platform of reducing government regulations to Peruvian levels would lose in a landslide - even in a heavily deregulatory state like Texas.

[Ned]

Example:

Job: produce widget.
Normal production: 1000 per day per worker.
Objective: Increase production

Communist solution: Use the whip or deny perks. (Punishment)
Capitalist solution: Pay bonus for every widget produced above 1000. (Rewards)

Observation, both systems work to increase production, but the worker is happier under the capitalist system.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
Example:

Job: produce widget.
Normal production: 1000 per day per worker.
Objective: Increase production

Communist solution: Use the whip or deny perks. (Punishment)
Capitalist solution: Pay bonus for every widget produced above 1000. (Rewards)

Observation, both systems work to increase production, but the worker is happier under the capitalist system.

More likely -

Captialist solution: threaten to fire non-unionized workers who do not meet quota.

Just a different sort of whip.

[chequita guevara]

I would suggest that Ned hasn't worked in a real job in a capitalist country before when they decide to increase production. Generally here's how it works, "work faster or be fired." Ever hear of speed-ups?

When I worked at UPS in 1989, they increased the number of packages we had to move by ten percent (IIRC). UPS workers didn't get a pay increase until 1996, and at the time hadn't had one since the early 1980s. The only incentive was avoiding being fired. At the time of he speed-up, the union was still under the control of the mob, so we couldn't fight the speed-up either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
work or starve is a natural "punishment", work or be sent to the gulag is not.

It most certainly is not, since there is no such thing as a "natural punishment". I mean, if there is then beating someone to death with a club would surely qualify, as that was "natural" to our ancestors.

[monolith94]

"And who expects a bunch of students to be able to organize anything useful other than beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests?"

So beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests are useful?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by monolith94
"And who expects a bunch of students to be able to organize anything useful other than beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests?"

So beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests are useful?

god damn yes. well the latter atleast.

[SKILORD]

What he means is an effect to a cause which you put into motion, not imposed by your brother man.

[:) Smiley]

Communism is not without rewards, those who perform well do get recognition and promotion. There are not so many material rewards though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD
What he means is an effect to a cause which you put into motion, not imposed by your brother man.

Really, so if I starve someone to death, it is starvation that kills them and not me.

What about negligence?

You really don't want to go down this road.

[Odin]

Reagan not allowing airline employees to strike is an example of the evils of capitalism. Capitalism would fall if we would get rid of thiese fascist regulations against strikers.

Che, what do you mean that your union was controlled by the mob?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
Che, what do you mean that your union was controlled by the mob?

After Jimmy Hoffa went to jail, the Mafia took control of the Teamsters and more or less remained in control until the early 1990s, when the US government took control of the union (more or less). At the time I was in the union, being a worker militant could literally get you killed (I met one guy who had almost been shot in the head when the police pulled up and saved his life). There are still quite a few old guard mob bosses in the Teamsters, and with Hoffa Jr in charge, they're feeling their oats again after being on the defensive for a decade.

Several unions are still mob controlled. IIRC, the fish handlers in NYC are mob controled. The train workers union in Chicago is mob controled. There another union in Chicago that's mob run. Bascially the mob uses pension funds to fund illegal schemes and the workers get left with nothing. Bosses get compliant workers, also, as the mob will hurt or kill workers who get uppity.

In the Teamsters and elsewhere, they seized control by driving out the militants (commies and union activists) of the union structure. This happened during the late 40s through the early 60s, during the period of McCarthyism, and the Feds turned a blind eye because it helped break the power of the Reds. Anyway, without any opposition, the mob would change the by laws, so that the President of the union would appoint the delegates, and the delagates would appoint the President. So the rank and file had no say in who their union leaders were.