The Communist Guild

[Xaenn]

Here's what I think. That we'll probably have much more than we need of people to do each job. That way each person just has to work less. This is a bit off from Marx's totally free system but I think that so much common labor should be required of everyone (something small like 2 hours a day or something, probably even less than that). That way we can get everything we need to be done to get done. Then after that people are free to work on whatever projects they might have.

[Stranger]

sounds good to me although I might have to wait for a PS3 to come out for a long time in a system like that , still at least it would be fairer eh?
But good luck on convincing everyone else out there. Humans are too self serving
nevertheless good luck with yr guild, good to see ya believe in something.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by Stranger
sounds good to me although I might have to wait for a PS3 to come out for a long time in a system like that , still at least it would be fairer eh?
But good luck on convincing everyone else out there. Humans are too self serving
nevertheless good luck with yr guild, good to see ya believe in something.

You seem to adhere to some of these same ideals...c'mon and join buddy!

I think that it might take awhile for your ps3 to come out. But on the bright side you'd probably just have one console that was superior than the other 3 that would result. All games could be made for it and there could be many places to play it for free! yeah!

[omni_rom]

Idea: You should all try communism out by donating all ur gil to the government, maybe Ifrit, and then he can do the communist thing by distributing it equally among everyone in the clan. It would be pretty cool to see what clan was more prosperous, communism or capitalism.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by omni_rom
Idea: You should all try communism out by donating all ur gil to the government, maybe Ifrit, and then he can do the communist thing by distributing it equally among everyone in the clan. It would be pretty cool to see what clan was more prosperous, communism or capitalism.

Yeah, but the thing is this gil is just pointless for some extra luxuries. Everyone get's the basic rights for free. So maybe this board is running in a communistic way!

[Meridian]

If everyone got a set amount of gil... what's the incentive to work hard if you're going to end up with the same amount no matter what?

Lets say a college class has a combined average of a "C" on tests in a certain course. Now, no matter what, the test you take will have its results based on the average score of your entire class. This will exemplify the Proletarians. Now, the students who would get F's on their own, will be glad for this new class average initiative, while the "A - students" will be pissed, as no matter how much they study or try, theyre gonna be brought down by the others, and given a lower grade.

So, what's the incentive to try? People would get tired of making efforts, and that would lower the class average even further, as people would begin to slack off.

Even Lenin had capitalism in his economy, as seen in his N.E.P (New Economic Policy).

Even small incentives, civic virtue, patriotism, and small capitalism wouldn't inspire people to work hard. That's why people prefer capitalism.

Is it fair?
-no

Are people well off?
-not all

Does it provide incentives for people?
-Yes, as in Capitalism, your individual efforts, prowess, and achievement factors into your success 100%.

It's human nature for people to be greedy, regardless of the regime that monitors the person.

Evidence: The History of Earth.

- Conquests of Nations
- Imperialism
- Colonization of Latin America
- Theft

Some may argue that Communism can have some major capitalistic/modern influences, but would the government still be communist then? No. Look at Marx's Communist Manifesto.

TRUE COMMUNISM IS IMPOSSIBLE!
-as long as there's a leader, just ONE, that is above the others, then it is a 2 tier class system. And in Communism, it's only one force. If this utopian society was achieved, there would be no need for government, as perfect class equality would be achieved, undermining communism itself.

Now, the "Communist", "Axis Of Evil" countries e.g. North Korea are actually socialist, and are divided into the: intellectuals, farmers, and military. The intellectuals get the best treatment, in the cities, while the farmers starve in the fields.

Sounds like a bourgeoise, the one Marx kept on talking about.

Their economy is in shambles too, so is their infrastructure... did you hear about that massive train explosion there? Look at Cuba... their citizens flee to Florida all the time.

Look at the U.S.S.R, we all know what happened to them.

- Hope you all have fun loving the "motherland Russia" and the Bolsheviks.

[Toto]

You seem to be eclectic in your arguments, and my response come from what little sense I can make of your post.

Even Lenin had capitalism in his economy, as seen in his N.E.P (New Economic Policy).

True enough. But then again, you COULD argue that if WORLD communism had been acheived, Lenin wouldn't have needed to. Reading stories of his life, Lenin really didn't want to, but necessity forced his hand. He wanted to keep the Union alive, so that it wouldn't have to stay with the NEP for long.

Now, the "Communist", "Axis Of Evil" countries e.g. North Korea are actually socialist, and are divided into the: intellectuals, farmers, and military. The intellectuals get the best treatment, in the cities, while the farmers starve in the fields.

Yet another example of communism gone wrong, and what the pressures of capitalism can do to a country.
The intellectuals do get better treatment. But not radically better treatment. It isn't like now, when I in my house get to watch cribs, where a person has a basketball court and a golf course in his house.
The U.S is basically occupying South Korea. All sorts of pressures have been put on the North (embargos etc). Kim Jong-Il has been forced into dictatorship to keep his country together. It's probably something he doesn't want.

Look at the U.S.S.R, we all know what happened to them.

Get a clue.
Ok, the U.S.S.R did fail. It took it a very long time to, but it did. So, look at it this way.
The U.S.S.R funded other Communist countries - It poured money into North Korea, China and Vietnam. It helped out, leading to economic decline.
The U.S.S.R was under CONSTANT world pressure. The capitalist countries of the world were in fear of losing their wealth and privileges, so they poured money into countries to make war with the communists. The U.S spent billions of dollars spying on the Union, and developing weapons to destroy it. The Soviet Union, in turn, needed to defend itself. If no pressure had come, things could have been radically different.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by Meridian
If everyone got a set amount of gil... what's the incentive to work hard if you're going to end up with the same amount no matter what?

Lets say a college class has a combined average of a "C" on tests in a certain course. Now, no matter what, the test you take will have its results based on the average score of your entire class. This will exemplify the Proletarians. Now, the students who would get F's on their own, will be glad for this new class average initiative, while the "A - students" will be pissed, as no matter how much they study or try, theyre gonna be brought down by the others, and given a lower grade.

So, what's the incentive to try? People would get tired of making efforts, and that would lower the class average even further, as people would begin to slack off.

Those are kind of messed up analogies. The point of being graded in school is to see if you are ready to move on, but more importantly to learn. Giving out people equal grades has nothing to do with economic equality.....

And gil on this forum...it's not like you work for it. You are just posting and hanging out and get some.

[Nima D'Graven]

Originally posted by Xaenn
[B]
You talked about businesses cycling out and more replacing them. Yes this is true. I was talking about using up our natural resources. Whether or not one business or another is using them, we are consuming them at an alarming rate. I don't really know what the numbers were, but I think it was estimated that a in the past 50 or 100 years the same amount of resources have been consumed as the rest of history of humanity. If that isn't alarming, I don't know what is. Just look at all of the overflowing landfills and waste and pollution everywhere, it isn't hard to see. Which leads to the inevitable fate that if the way our society runs doesn't change, into a state of sustainable development it will have to perish eventually. But by nature capitalism needs to grow and people need to consume for it to function properly. I don't see how these two things are compatable.

You're going to have pollution everywhere though.. Everything generates radiation, even a freaking table. Sure, it's small, but you still get pollution...

And capitalism does grow.. Even if it recesses it climbs again.

As for consuming natural resources at an alarming rate. As stated before, science grows at alarming rate, too and we are finding new ways to provide for natural resources.

Hydroelectric power.. Wind power..

Those type of things have a hard time dying.. Besides, I'd be more concerned of global warming .

I don't understand your idea of Marxism forcing you to conform... Right now you are forced to live in a capitalist society...how is that any different? Also, I think you have a bit of a misconception. When the final state of Marx's system was to be implemented, people were meant to work at what they wanted to. That was the point is we could labor and produce how we choose to. Because he believed humans were laboring by nature and that having freedom to labor as we please would be the goal. Therefore you would have opportunities to work as you want in a marxist society where you don't in a capitalist one.

Whether you live in a capitalist society or a marxist one, you're going to conform anyway. However, in a marxist society, you have less freedom of choice on the job you want to do because you're utilising farming etc, stuff you need to survive. I don't want to be a farmer, I want to be a programmer. At least in capitalism, I have that choice.. In capitalism, I'm providing for my "community" in my way by giving them the choice of a luxury good. You also said that we could do that in our free time.. And you said we have to conform to working 9 to 5 in a capitalist society... If we all ended up in a marxist society, we'd probably work longer hours than 9 to 5.. Probably more like 6am to 7pm.. Especially if you're in agriculture. I don't want to labour this way, so why should I? And you talk about the final way the Marx system is implemented.. At it's final way.. You really believe people could drop work as a farmer and do programming? I think a lot of people would find farming boring. Wouldn't that cause civil unrest, don't you think?

Another thing, I don't understand why this guild has to be about the implementation and not the ideal? Aren't all of these guilds representing either what one believes or something they think is fun?

You named yourself communists. Whether it's centred around Marxism isn't the issue.. It has distinct differences. And in the past I don't think many people have considered communism as fun.

Another thing I don't understand is why you say all of our civil liberties are constrained in a marxist society.

Read above. In any kind of civil unrest you will either get anarchy or the government controlling you.. I.e. fascism.. That's constraining your civil liberties. And believe me, because of the way humans are, you would get civil unrest. You get it now, you'd get it even worse in a Marxist society.

I think the problem is you're trying to hold Marxism to a standard MUCH higher than that of our own society. Of course it can't be perfect and won't solve all problems. It will solve economic equality, and invariably from there problems such as starvation, and not being able to get health care. I think if you looked around the world you'd see the vast majority of people without employment don't choose to live that way.

We bring up starvation again, eh? As mentioned in another post, Marxism isn't the only answer to cure starvation of people. Like I said, if everyone became vegetarians, you could stop starvation that way as the corn, etc you use to feed animals could be used to feed the many starving in Africa and Asia and heck even in our own societies.

I don't believe health care in a Marxist society would be stable. Why? Well, I stated before.. Because of psychological reasons.. If you feel your job has no worth, you start performing worse and worse.. as Maison said, you then get conformity were people around do the same thing, leading in a big circle to more government control and civil unrest.

And I've said this before, but at least people with unemployment in a capitalist society have a YMCA and things to go to.. I believe you said before in a Marxist society, if the person didn't want to work for the community, then that'd be their fault and they wouldn't get fed... I know you argue that Capitalism isn't entire democratic...(and it isn't) But that isn't either.. But hey, at least you can admit that it isn't perfect.. No system is.. However, I believe some systems are worse than others.. And I believe this one is a worser one than Capitalism, but that is pure political opinion.

Until the human race is perfect, you'll never acquire true perfection.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by NimaGraven
You're going to have pollution everywhere though.. Everything generates radiation, even a freaking table. Sure, it's small, but you still get pollution...

And capitalism does grow.. Even if it recesses it climbs again.

That's the thing, capitalism MUST continue to grow. Eventually that will be impossible.

[QUOTE][B]
As for consuming natural resources at an alarming rate. As stated before, science grows at alarming rate, too and we are finding new ways to provide for natural resources.

Hydroelectric power.. Wind power..

Those type of things have a hard time dying.. Besides, I'd be more concerned of global warming .
[QUOTE][B]

That's a good idea, throw up your hands and proclaim progress will resolve it all. As in natural resources not just fossil fuels but also the rate we are destroying forests and pollution destrying ecosystems. This is all in the name of "progress" and the pursuit of profits.

Last time I checked hydroelectric and wind power weren't very new, and couldn't create a lot of power either. That's why we need fossil fuels.

Whether you live in a capitalist society or a marxist one, you're going to conform anyway. However, in a marxist society, you have less freedom of choice on the job you want to do because you're utilising farming etc, stuff you need to survive. I don't want to be a farmer, I want to be a programmer. At least in capitalism, I have that choice.. In capitalism, I'm providing for my "community" in my way by giving them the choice of a luxury good. You also said that we could do that in our free time.. And you said we have to conform to working 9 to 5 in a capitalist society... If we all ended up in a marxist society, we'd probably work longer hours than 9 to 5.. Probably more like 6am to 7pm.. Especially if you're in agriculture. I don't want to labour this way, so why should I? And you talk about the final way the Marx system is implemented.. At it's final way.. You really believe people could drop work as a farmer and do programming? I think a lot of people would find farming boring. Wouldn't that cause civil unrest, don't you think?

If you look at my other post remember the point that not much labor needs to be done in order for our survival? That's the thing, we all put in our little bit of labor to maintain survival, and then the other time goes to working on other stuff. In capitalism you have a choice because you're rich. If you were born dirt poor in africa then you wouldn't have a chance to move up. I can't see how magically every person needs to work incredibly long hours in order to maintain themselves....Like I said above, a very small percentage of labor acutally goes to survival.

You named yourself communists. Whether it's centred around Marxism isn't the issue.. It has distinct differences. And in the past I don't think many people have considered communism as fun.

Yeah, the common opinion is a spectacular way to measure something's worth.....

Read above. In any kind of civil unrest you will either get anarchy or the government controlling you.. I.e. fascism.. That's constraining your civil liberties. And believe me, because of the way humans are, you would get civil unrest. You get it now, you'd get it even worse in a Marxist society.

Hate to break it to ya (actually I don't) but you are controlled by the government in a capitalist society as well....

We bring up starvation again, eh? As mentioned in another post, Marxism isn't the only answer to cure starvation of people. Like I said, if everyone became vegetarians, you could stop starvation that way as the corn, etc you use to feed animals could be used to feed the many starving in Africa and Asia and heck even in our own societies.

That's actually rather illogical as farm animals are used for food. So we feed them but in turn we get food. And even if there was enough food (which there is now) I doesn't get distributed to those who need it in capitalism.

I don't believe health care in a Marxist society would be stable. Why? Well, I stated before.. Because of psychological reasons.. If you feel your job has no worth, you start performing worse and worse.. as Maison said, you then get conformity were people around do the same thing, leading in a big circle to more government control and civil unrest.

Some countries have nationally controlled health care. It makes obvious sense that one who is working to cure people for the sake of curing people and that alone will care more than one in the pursuit of profits. The man working for money cares more about making money and less about the patients. Not that he doesn't care at all, but the assignment of monetary value degrades his work.

And I've said this before, but at least people with unemployment in a capitalist society have a YMCA and things to go to.. I believe you said before in a Marxist society, if the person didn't want to work for the community, then that'd be their fault and they wouldn't get fed... I know you argue that Capitalism isn't entire democratic...(and it isn't) But that isn't either.. But hey, at least you can admit that it isn't perfect.. No system is.. However, I believe some systems are worse than others.. And I believe this one is a worser one than Capitalism, but that is pure political opinion.

Maybe that have YMCA and those types of things in rich countries, but look around the rest of the world and that won't be the case. I actually don't know how not working would be considered in a Marxist society. But everyone would atleast have the opportunity to work. I can't single handedly perfect the means of implementation of the system, but with many bright minds we could. What does democracy have to do with working for the community? I think people have a wierd view of what democracy is....

Until the human race is perfect, you'll never acquire true perfection.

Yeah, and marxism wouldn't be perfect. But it'd be a big step up...

BTW, what country do you live in anyway?

[Nima D'Graven]

Originally posted by Xaenn
That's the thing, capitalism MUST continue to grow. Eventually that will be impossible.

That's what I keep saying. You reach a point in the trade cycle called a boom, then you get recession which is negative GROWTH, meaning that you don't grow, you LOSE growth.. Then you begin growing again when other businesses take over from the failed ones and you level out your interest rates! In capitalism, business doesn't completely collapse, it becomes reborn again...

And no, you don't HAVE to continue to grow. For example, companies that deal with exporting goods in a recession benefit more than they would in a boom! So in a capitalist society, not everything has to grow for everyone to make money.

If you look at my other post remember the point that not much labor needs to be done in order for our survival? That's the thing, we all put in our little bit of labor to maintain survival, and then the other time goes to working on other stuff. In capitalism you have a choice because you're rich. If you were born dirt poor in africa then you wouldn't have a chance to move up. I can't see how magically every person needs to work incredibly long hours in order to maintain themselves....Like I said above, a very small percentage of labor acutally goes to survival.

Yes, but the way you go on about Marxism and natural resouces.. You make it sound like some kind of cross between puritism and doomsday. And if you are born dirt poor in Africa that's why you have people trying to help them with charitable work in the first place.. How would Marxism help any of that? If you end up in "communities" of say 20 people and you feed YOUR community, how do you feed people in Africa?

Oh, baring in mind that Africa (and not only Africa) has infertile land and all...

Yeah, the common opinion is a spectacular way to measure something's worth.....

Common opinion?! You only have to look at the way the theory was manipulated and implemented wrongly to see the kind of disarray it brought. And what was it caused by? The same kind of attitudes a capitalist has. So if people do this when they implement a "perfect" theory to try and feed their avarice capitalist ways then what does that prove? I think it proves that humans are a tool of their own greed.

I mean, let me see. If they really wanted to make it work that way in the first place, they would have DONE it that way..

Hate to break it to ya (actually I don't) but you are controlled by the government in a capitalist society as well....

Oh nope. Have no problem with that. What I did say was in a left wing economic state, the government wants to have a lot more say in your life. Marxism and Communism is an extremely left wing economic ideal.. When it spirals out of control, you end up with more governmental control enforced upon you. Either that or you can live in an anarchy.

In a right wing economic government (no, i'm not talking fascism), it's more of an every man for himself ideal, correct? Well, in that case, you're not telling people to "stick together" in "communities", you're just letting them get on with their lives the way they want to..

That's actually rather illogical as farm animals are used for food. So we feed them but in turn we get food. And even if there was enough food (which there is now) I doesn't get distributed to those who need it in capitalism.

How is it illogical? If it takes so many tonnes of grain to fatten up a cow so that 10 people can be fed whereas that grain could feed 100, there's nothing illogical in that principle. And no, I'm not a vegetarian. As for enough food to go around, I suppose there is, but no one ISN'T helping the poor people or the starving.

Like I said above, if you work just for your "community" you're being just as selfish as the people in a capitalist society, if not more, because you only feed a set of say 20 people.. You're not going to be helping the starving in Africa.. So you still have a problem.

Some countries have nationally controlled health care. It makes obvious sense that one who is working to cure people for the sake of curing people and that alone will care more than one in the pursuit of profits. The man working for money cares more about making money and less about the patients. Not that he doesn't care at all, but the assignment of monetary value degrades his work.

My country does, but can you not see? Psychologically salary makes a BIG difference. If you suddenly don't receive that salary then you psychologically don't feel as inclined to do that job anymore. That's the way a capitalist society works and yes my country IS a capitalist society. Any doctor can turn around and say "I work so I can cure people" but he wouldn't carry on if he wasn't getting paid, that's for sure. And the only reason the doctor says this is because he's receiving a salary and feeling that he's being appreciated for his job.

As for a nationally controlled health service. It fails. It always does. Why? Because you have this problem where people don't want to become doctors.. nor nurses because they aren't paid enough.. In turn, you shut down hospitals.. The government tells you that the system is getting better, but it isn't. It's actually getting buried under bereaucracy.

A real life example. The Labour government in this country claims that NHS queues have dropped by half.. More hospitals are closing and more doctors are disastisfied with their jobs and leaving. They're for the most part, over worked and underpaid.. How many times do nurses have to get a pay rise, too? They threaten to leave and strike because they're overworked and underpaid.. I certainly don't see them claiming.. I done it because I'm helping people.

Heck, in this country we bring in nurses from foreign countries because you can pay them less and they won't complain. It's more than what they would receive in their countries.. So as for them working as a reason to help people, it's not working because that's the way people naturally are... They want to be appreciated for their work.

Someone receives a letter for an appointment.. Six months time. This is a typical NHS queue.. So you go there at the end of the queue in six months time.. You're told that the Doctor does not want to see you today.. And you receive another letter for an appointment in six months time.

Under a conservative government, NHS queues were a year long, right?

Under a labour one, they're still a year long... They're just using fancy beauracratics to claim that this kind of public/community health system works....

Maybe that have YMCA and those types of things in rich countries, but look around the rest of the world and that won't be the case.

Which is why you have charities. Why is it a flaw if charity starts at home? It doesn't mean that people aren't giving to abroad countries.

I actually don't know how not working would be considered in a Marxist society. But everyone would atleast have the opportunity to work. I can't single handedly perfect the means of implementation of the system, but with many bright minds we could. What does democracy have to do with working for the community?

Because if it breaks down, you end up with something that fails to be a democracy anymore.

I think people have a wierd view of what democracy is....

The true definition of a democracy (in a very basic form) is a country which has the power to vote out its leader.

That makes Iraq under Saddam Houssein's reign a democratic country. Sure you could either vote him or vote to "die" but it still had terms and a ballot paper.

Yeah, and marxism wouldn't be perfect. But it'd be a big step up...

BTW, what country do you live in anyway?

Well I disagree, and if you hadn't already guessed, the UK.

[Ifrit]

Originally posted by omni_rom
Idea: You should all try communism out by donating all ur gil to the government, maybe Ifrit, and then he can do the communist thing by distributing it equally among everyone in the clan. It would be pretty cool to see what clan was more prosperous, communism or capitalism.

That is actually a pretty good idea, are you in? Unfortunately i can't contribute with much myself since i kinda donated all my money to the EP government, MasJ

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by NimaGraven
That's what I keep saying. You reach a point in the trade cycle called a boom, then you get recession which is negative GROWTH, meaning that you don't grow, you LOSE growth.. Then you begin growing again when other businesses take over from the failed ones and you level out your interest rates! In capitalism, business doesn't completely collapse, it becomes reborn again...

A few problems here, even when the economy begins losing growth, it is still consuming resources much faster than they are created. Sustainable development is nearly impossible with the amount of competition in a capitalist system.

Secondly, after the recession is over the economy and production will become higher than they were before hand. It is obvious that production will always increase as the populations will continue to increase.

Yes, but the way you go on about Marxism and natural resouces.. You make it sound like some kind of cross between puritism and doomsday. And if you are born dirt poor in Africa that's why you have people trying to help them with charitable work in the first place.. How would Marxism help any of that? If you end up in "communities" of say 20 people and you feed YOUR community, how do you feed people in Africa?

There are some people trying to help in these poor countries, but they are very few and far between. I love how you make the assumption that if we had a Marxist system everyone who helps eachother now would suddenly stop...

I can't say exactly the size of these communities. But there would obviously be coordination between them as the society as a whole. When one community is having problems, then they receive help from the others.

Common opinion?! You only have to look at the way the theory was manipulated and implemented wrongly to see the kind of disarray it brought. And what was it caused by? The same kind of attitudes a capitalist has. So if people do this when they implement a "perfect" theory to try and feed their avarice capitalist ways then what does that prove? I think it proves that humans are a tool of their own greed.

I mean, let me see. If they really wanted to make it work that way in the first place, they would have DONE it that way..

You said it perfectly, the way the theory was manipulated...Not a problem with the theory. Of course people right now aren't ready to instantly move over to a no money marxist society. There would have to be transitions. I believe Marx suggested a socialist state and then a slow transition into communism.

If THEY really wanted to, that doesn't mean others don't want to. Plus you must look at the pressure they were receiving from rich capitalist countries. That would make it MUCH more difficult to try and follow the goals they had.

I suppose there is, but no one ISN'T helping the poor people or the starving.

No one isn't helping them? How about the corporations that abuse their labor for a few dollars a year (100-1000)? That sure isn't helping them stop starving. It gives them a job, but one they are hopelessly trapped in trying to support a family. If we were just to drop a few of our worthless industries (advertising perhaps?) then there would be MORE than enough extra money from that alone to feed.

Like I said above, if you work just for your "community" you're being just as selfish as the people in a capitalist society, if not more, because you only feed a set of say 20 people.. You're not going to be helping the starving in Africa.. So you still have a problem.

Working for the common good is a very selfish goal, I must admit....
See above on the next part. Another thing, why would your community be that damn small?

As for a nationally controlled health service. It fails. It always does. Why? Because you have this problem where people don't want to become doctors.. nor nurses because they aren't paid enough.. In turn, you shut down hospitals..

Yes, they aren't paid enough in a capitalist society. When there is no money that is not an issue.

And finally, we have fundamental disagreements on how people would act and what would motivate them. On that topic there is no point in arguing as if the root of your beliefs is different you cannot reach the same conclusion, or even accept an argument with different premises (get what I'm saying?)

[Dingy]

Originally posted by Maison
Ideology is great and all, but if the implementation is always going to fail, then the ideology isn�t very useful. The problem is that communism fails to address a couple of key issues.

So does that mean you agree that the communist ideology is great? Because I firmly believe in that and who says that implementation is always going to fail?

Originally posted by Maison
One, if everyone is earning the same amount of money, what incentive is there to work harder than anyone else? There is none. You�ll be paid the same no matter what kind of effort you put into your work. If someone else decides to work less hard than you, then you�ll have no reason to keep working as hard either. Pretty soon everyone will work less and less hard, until people are barely working at all, i.e. the economy collapses.

That's a good point you have there but you seem to have missed the pith of the matter...communism isn't about competition, it's about co-operation, and once you cooperate with fellow workers, then you learn to compete with yourself and once you master your best, you are at a level where everyone has improved. Capitalism lacks cooperation, in the most vital relationship in the workplace-between the worker and the manager.
The worker has no say in the management, output/pricing policies. Unions have limited power if miraculously they are allowed to exist.
The incentive is, that you will always grow at what you are doing because you need it..."Each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Tell me what kind of incentive is there in a capitalist market to a worker that sweats 18 hours a day to get the minimum wage so he can produce a comfortable couch for some richie rich? Is he getting a decent pay-no! Is he getting good working conditions+hours-no! Is he getting "equal pay for equal work"-no! The only incentive is a promotion which means nothing except for a societal raise, and it only makes them more greedy if you incite them with money, which I think is superficial. Because atleast in communism, the proletariat is one! It can make it's claims more hearable.

Originally posted by Maison
Two, not all jobs are created equal. Some jobs just aren�t desirable no matter what you try to do to make them so. Do any of you actually want to spend your life cleaning bathrooms? How about trash collecting? Inspecting sewers? These are jobs that need to be done, but which people don�t wish to do. Kids don�t say �I wish I could be a garbage man when I grow up!� People need an incentive to do their work, and the lower on the food chain the job is the more in need it is of having a monetary incentive.

When you have an empty stomach, you'll do anything, even sell yourself for it. I wouldn't call it an incentive, instead a reason to do a certain job, which might be a liking/compulsion.
And the very same reasons exist in communism as well. If you don't have money for an education, you pick garbage/or if you enjoy picking garbage, you do it. But I think it's only fair that a garbage man picking the dirt of a mendicant should recieve the same wages as one who picks the trash of a politician.

You all seem to think that everyone will love the job they end up doing. However, in all societies a significant portion of people hate their job. Communism doesn�t fix the problem, if anything it worsens it. At least with capitalism they have a reason to put some amount of effort into their work. Capitalism works because it feeds off of our own selfish desires. Communism fails for this same reason.

In this world full of vices today, what does one need more than power? Power today can get you anywhere, take for eg. this very forum, an admin like you would know the advantages of being in power.
Now give this power to the workers (who constitute a majority of the population) and ask them if they're happy.
That's they're incentive, atleast here, they are satisfied with their work in a way that they are free of greed, lust and gluttony. (lol, I'm sounding like the bible) anyway, here, they can all go to bed at night and feel happy about they're contribution and be satisfied with what they have instead of constantly wanting more.
And can I just point one thing out...in 1929 while the great depression hit almost every country of the world, Russia was the only country which was unaffected by it. Even during the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, Russia could afford to follow the "scorched earth" policy, unlike every other country that was starving and still facing the brunt of the economic recession.
That goes to prove that Lenin's NEP worked and the ideology was perfect if it could battle and survive a depression of that magnitude. It was only when Stalin came and misused his seat that things went wrong, and I still do believe that if Khrushchev and the others hadn't lashed out on the east European countries then Russia would still be a blooming communist country along with many e.Euro countries.
The only flaw in communism is that it needs an affective checks-and-balances system and a stringent machinery to check corruption within the bureaucracy, and something which is far from the likes of the KGB.

Originally posted by meridian
Some may argue that Communism can have some major capitalistic/modern influences, but would the government still be communist then? No. Look at Marx's Communist Manifesto.

TRUE COMMUNISM IS IMPOSSIBLE!
-as long as there's a leader, just ONE, that is above the others, then it is a 2 tier class system. And in Communism, it's only one force. If this utopian society was achieved, there would be no need for government, as perfect class equality would be achieved, undermining communism itself.

Now, the "Communist", "Axis Of Evil" countries e.g. North Korea are actually socialist, and are divided into the: intellectuals, farmers, and military. The intellectuals get the best treatment, in the cities, while the farmers starve in the fields.

Sounds like a bourgeoise, the one Marx kept on talking about.

Their economy is in shambles too, so is their infrastructure... did you hear about that massive train explosion there? Look at Cuba... their citizens flee to Florida all the time.

Look at the U.S.S.R, we all know what happened to them.

- Hope you all have fun loving the "motherland Russia" and the Bolsheviks.

True communism is possible Meridian, as much as that disappoints you, I just might be able to balance the situation out for you. Marx's ideal of classless/exploitationless/religionless/stateless might still be a nebulous dream, but atleast Russia, tried it out and succeeded, because Lenin dealt with communism pretty well. You know it's not easy to kill the czar, a whole royal family, change the entire political system that has existed since time immemorial and then chose the vanguard of the proletariat and revolt and simply "become communist". It took alot and for a nascent country, that Russia was in October 1917, it wasn't easy. But they did it, and quite well. Dealt with the great depression, etc.
I beg to differ when you imply that communism is devoid of incentive, it is a more moral incentive than what is laid down by capitalism, but it is one. And Lenin achieved what is thought to be monumental by many great historians and philosophers--
1)peace-took Russia out of the war and requested every nation to do the same without annexation or indemnities.
2)land to the tiller-confiscated church&czar land
3)self determination to non-Russian nationalities- they had the right to leave the Russian empire or the choice to stay

And soon after there was some stability, there was the civil war and the attack of the allies. But Russia survived, there must've been some sense, some latent victory in that doctrine that got Russia to where it was and it was so successful that it even threatened America , it was like when France became democratic in the 17th century and all the countries were terrified of the possibility of revolutions in their countries as well.
There must've been some success in this ideology and it's practice in Russia that it got powers like America and Japan shaking in their shoes. And thus, Meridian...communism is possible, because it has been in the past.
Obviously, some changes will have to be made, because as society changes/progresses ideologies must change, or else they will become redundant.

Hasn't democracy changed since it started out after the glorious revolution and the declaration of independence? Is it democratic of bush to invade a country and depose its ruler without the preponderance of evidence backing his reason? Is is democratic of America to thrust another type of govt. which is against popular will (as in Vietnam)? So I think if we all have accepted the "coming in" of such changes in a capitalist country then I am sure changes in China like the entry of MNCs will be viewed as aposite (more so because it's helping the American economy).

I agree with Workers Unite that you can't blame communism for what is happening in N.Korea, I think it's miraculous that there are still prominent vestiges of communism even though a super-power like America has tried it's best to eradicate the philosophy.

And please, don't even get me started on Cuba, get those damn CIA agents out of there, and then we'll see if Cubans flee to Florida or not.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by Dingy

Tell me what kind of incentive is there in a capitalist market to a worker that sweats 18 hours a day to get the minimum wage so he can produce a comfortable couch for some richie rich? Is he getting a decent pay-no! Is he getting good working conditions+hours-no! Is he getting "equal pay for equal work"-no!

*Claps*

That's the point I've been trying to make. One's who are very priveledged might not think capitalism is so bad, but then you are denying the rest (the majority) of the world equal opportunity.