Intelligent Party
2024-08-29 20:07:29 UTC
Hey Victoria though we'd best move that conversation about communism
from FSX to here.
ma> I am a Marxist-Leninist... aka communist/bolshevik/(derogaatory by
ultra
ma>leftists and liberals) tankie
ma> I am a super strong avocate for 20th century Socialism
ma> which is worker's state, centrally planned economy, means of
production ma>seized
ma>by workers, and no markets
Though I'm definitely on the left, I'd have to say that history & the
soviet union's failure to keep up with the west illustrate that a
centrally planned economy just doesn't work well.
ma> under capitalism there is severe exploitation
ma> under socialism exploitation is non existant
ma> exploitation is where someone who dose not contribute to society
live off ma> the
ma> labor of others. aka the capitalist. they live off the labor because
they ma> own
ma> the factories etc. aka the means of production
Again history shows that just isn't the case, at uni I met a number of
Russian and east european academics all of whom had horror stories of how
just how exploitative Russia's socalist state was to its people.
Similarly I know several Chinese Ex-Pats who say similar things about
the CCP & how things are run in China.
How do you envisage a new communist partly/state avoiding this?
... White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.
1) All big businesses started small. Microsoft started in someone'sfrom FSX to here.
ma> I am a Marxist-Leninist... aka communist/bolshevik/(derogaatory by
ultra
ma>leftists and liberals) tankie
ma> I am a super strong avocate for 20th century Socialism
ma> which is worker's state, centrally planned economy, means of
production ma>seized
ma>by workers, and no markets
Though I'm definitely on the left, I'd have to say that history & the
soviet union's failure to keep up with the west illustrate that a
centrally planned economy just doesn't work well.
ma> under capitalism there is severe exploitation
ma> under socialism exploitation is non existant
ma> exploitation is where someone who dose not contribute to society
live off ma> the
ma> labor of others. aka the capitalist. they live off the labor because
they ma> own
ma> the factories etc. aka the means of production
Again history shows that just isn't the case, at uni I met a number of
Russian and east european academics all of whom had horror stories of how
just how exploitative Russia's socalist state was to its people.
Similarly I know several Chinese Ex-Pats who say similar things about
the CCP & how things are run in China.
How do you envisage a new communist partly/state avoiding this?
... White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.
basement.
2) 50% of the American economy is small businesses.
3) If the state is ever going to wither away, and it's going to be a
Utopia as Karl Marx said, then why don't the Communists just say no one
owns anything today unless they're carrying it?
4) Why not just raise the minimum wage to 50% per capita GDP after taxes?
5) And have free education, and 1/2 minimum wage to non-earners. i.e.
more Socialism, not Communism.
6) Why does the government have to own all the means of production? Why
not just some of the means of food production. Or, what if businesses
merely couldn't ever pay dividends, what would the difference even be?
At the moment I'm not sure how you can restrict spending on high
salaries though, ultimately, everyone should get equal pay (or
consumption) for an hour worked at anything is obvious. We're all equal
in cost and expense and Spirit. We differ temporarily in assets until
everyone has everything. Pay (in Capitalism) is a return on capital, for
instance your skills and education, more than your labor.
7) Saving is what Capitalism does better than Communism. Capitalists
don't consume everything they produce. China has been saving, and so
Communism has apparently worked out a bit there.