A communisim parodox

PPOR. You have yet to show how the differences you cite make my argument wrong. You simply say that they exist and make me wrong.

Ok, I'm not going to argue the point. If you think the Chilean and USA economies are similar, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

And I am pointing out that they do specialize and become skilled workers, but in a different way than in the US. Their high schools are more of a cross between a US or European high school and a technical school, teaching a trade.

I'm talking about the majority of the people in the economy. Most are unskilled manual workers.

I don't know where you are getting your data from. Like I said, I have worked extensively with people from South America.

"My friend..." arguments are un-evidenced and stupid. No place in a debate.

No, US companies don't always pay higher than median in foreign countries, any more than they always pay higher than median in the US. However, the fact remains that they do tend have the most sought after jobs and better paying jobs. (At least in South America, the only part of the world I have looked at in-depth on this. It could be different elsewhere.)

PPOR. And not just one South American country.

PPOR that it is money "only for survival".

You said they pay at least the median wage (false in itself, but whatever), which would imply that they pay around the median wage. In a South American country, the median wage is only just about enough to survive. How many people do you see, in South America, living in huge houses?

US companies can face prosecution in the US for using sweatshops, even if they are legal in the country where they are located.

Have you heard the word Nike? Jesus.

Win-win is not where "employees got fantastically rich in tandem with the bosses". It is where both sides get what they wanted out of a deal.

Correct! The EMPLOYERS get what they WANT (cheap labour), but the EMPLOYEES only get what they NEED (money for food, water, etc.). This is a win-lose(but survive) situation.

- Scarlet.

 

Great thread people.

TSB: "I'm a first year at Exeter College, Oxford Uni."

I knew it! One of my professors is a graduate of medievel and Shakespearian studies at Oxford.

Great for you. One of the interesting things about Oxford is people assume it's one big university. It's a town with several colleges in it that comprises Oxford Univ. It's not like most universities here in the states, although Harvard and the Ivy League schools do share some of the same design similiarities.


Treecave: The first rule of Fight Club is....

TC said: "My first thought was "why should international institutions be enforcing anyway - it would be up to us to enforce such a law on our own companies". But perhaps this is too big a job for the US. What would be involved?

Pretty radical stuff that unfortunately most of the world is not prepared for: World Federalism.

TC: "I mean, either a company can show you its alleged plant in Wisconsin, or it can't, and if it can't, we know there's something wrong and fine them to kingdom come. No, it can't be that simple, but exactly what WOULD make it do unenforceable?"

There are many things that need to happen. Some are quite simple like making the meetings of the World Bank, WTO, and IMF more open to the media and the public. Another is some sort of mechanism, either like a vote of no-confidence, or some sort of instrument the public can use.

But before that, first these international institutions need to become more open and transparent with their information.

Another thing is we need clearly defined authority for these institutions and new institutions to use for oversight. Give tham and the public clearly-defined responsibilities and power. But this is not yet possible. Right now global corporate power is outpacing global democracy.

Lovers of free-markets need to be careful we don't fall for the backwards neo-mercantilist corporations.

Free banking is also something to look into.

You said TC you lived in California. That is one of the best places as far as work is concerned. I lived and worked there for 2 years.

 

I knew it! One of my professors is a graduate of medievel and Shakespearian studies at Oxford.

Really? Which college?

Great for you. One of the interesting things about Oxford is people assume it's one big university.

I know. They're like "I've never seen the Oxford campus. Where is it?" And you kind of have to explain that there are 39 colleges and 6 permanent private halls, each with anywhere from a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand students, spread all the way around Oxford.

- Scarlet.

 

"Really? Which college?"

I've never asked. Let me see. He helped start the "Tony Award Winning-Utah Shakespearian Festival" in Cedar City, Utah. Don't know if you've ever heard of it. Written many books too. Smart, very smart person.

 

Now, no matter what your opinion of Georgie boy, it is quite hard to imagine him ever making the same position were his grandfather not who he was, and his father not who he was.

I don't say this to offend Bush fans, but the reality is that W. has never actually been "employed" by anyone. People born in his station in life don't have to be, yet, hypocritically, they command more respect from working and middle class Americans who take such pride in their own jobs. We are a nation of people defining ourselves entirely by our jobs (rather than our accomplishments, relationships, parenting, etc.), yet 48% of the voters chose a man who probably doesn't have the temperment to BE employed in a 40 hour a week factory job. (Not an insult - I don't have that temperment, either, because I somehow have the self-esteem of rich people despite my poor background.)

It is kind of cheap to say that people who own a paltry number of shares are therefore capitalists. They no more control the means of production than the workers.

In publicly owned companies, it seems to me that the shareholders and their stupid ill-informed whims wield all the power. I've seen company after company bow to the desires of a bunch of investors who would dump their stocks at a moment's notice and don't even really understand what the company does. I never understood how that fit any theory of smart bussiness management. But I ain't been to business school, so maybe I is just real dumb-like.

I agree entirely with all your points (well debated), but this is a curious expression. Do you not think slaves were human, or are you talking in the context of the time (i.e., people believed back then that they weren't)?

I was trying to be droll and ironic. I meant that American white men, like our overly-hallowed forefathers, recognized the need for enfranchisement of ANY male ahead of the women they'd shared their lives and families with. To some extent, NOT recognizing the need for enfranchisement in a representative democracy IS denying someone's humanity. I just find it very telling they overcame their prejudice against black males 60 years before overcoming their prejudices against their wives, sisters and daughters.

Firstly the US is .7 percent under our full employment rate.

I take issue with current unemployment stats. Many people who deserve unemployment don't file out of a belief it's like welfare. Others file but are denied or delayed for very weird reasons, all because the state handling their claim is desperate to keep their stats nice.

I'm not arguing we don't have a better employment rate than a lot of places, though. Just not Switzerland and a few others. They are better off than we are, and for about the same taxes.

On the other hand, places like West Virginia have a lower "cost of living". You don't need as much money to survive there, so wages are also lower.

But the gap between income and cost of living is WORSE in WV. Your parents couldn't live there if their living depended on them earning livings IN WV. Trust me - not only do I have family there, but I recently moved away from Los Angeles for the same reason, and my wages elsewhere were SO much lower, and the cost of living was not much lower at all, so I wound up back in LA, where I at least have some hope.

Although they will always occur, it's important to minimize the effect of economic slumps like this (*coughbanpresidentswhooverhypeeconomycough* wink.gif ).

Really? I hope you never find out what it's like to go through 2 years of pure hell like I have. I'm OVERQUALIFIED for every decent job in my area, so I can't get employed because I'm too good. You can call it disillusioning if you want, but you should go through it yourself sometime if you really want to know. It's system failure, pure and simple. I couldn't get hired because I was too good. Is that not the stupidest thing you've ever heard? And it's hardly a new phenomenon in the US - this has been going on since the 80'

 

Oops! TSB, he graduated with a doctorate in PHILOSOPHY from Oxford, not medievel and Shakespearian studies. He does have a Masters in Lit from Middlebury College. That's where his Shakespearian and medievel emphasis was, not Oxford.

Don't know the college yet at Oxford though.

 

I know that Magdalen and Brasenose Colleges both do good philosophy degrees.

Can't say I've heard of the award, though.

- Scarlet.

 

"My friend..." arguments are un-evidenced and stupid. No place in a debate.

I have letters in my possession that contain parts of our conversations. What do you expect me to do? Scan them all (including the unrelated, personal parts) and give you links? I'm not going to do that with my personal correspondance just to satisfy you. (Even standard citations only require that you state that your source is personal correspondance.)

PPOR. And not just one South American country.

Let's look at the Dominican Republic. According to one article, the median income is about $2000/yr. According to another article, factory owners for unskilled labor pay about $1.53/hr in the Dominican Republic. At 40hr/week and 50 weeks/yr (allowing 2 weeks off), that gives an income of about $3060/yr., or about 50% above the median.

In El Salvador, the median income is about $1500/yr and the wage offered by foreign factories is about $1.59/hr (according to the previous article). That yields an income of about $3180/yr, about twice the median income.

Admittedly, these are Central American countries, but they are the best I can find right now. I will try to find better data for you.

You said they pay at least the median wage (false in itself, but whatever), which would imply that they pay around the median wage. In a South American country, the median wage is only just about enough to survive. How many people do you see, in South America, living in huge houses?

That's funny, the United Nations defines the poverty line as 50% of the median income (see footnote 1 in my link). The poverty line is essentially the survival point, not the median income.

Have you heard the word Nike? Jesus.

And they can face charges in the US. Unfortunately, the government doesn't always prosecute those cases. In the same way, US companies CAN be prosecuted for bribing foreign officials but they are not always brought up on charges.

Correct! The EMPLOYERS get what they WANT (cheap labour), but the EMPLOYEES only get what they NEED (money for food, water, etc.). This is a win-lose(but survive) situation.

Again, you are using the wrong standard for "survival". The workers tend to get higher wages (50-100% above the median income, or 3-4 times the poverty level). That would be the equivalent of $60,000-$80,000 in the US. (Estimating the US median income at $40,000. It is actually about $42,000.) Would you consider a $60,000 job "surviving"? How about $80,000? To give you a bit of comparison, $60,000 is about what a Commander (or Lt. Colonel) in the military makes. While median income is not the only indicator, it can provide a reference line for comparing two countries (and as the basis of the poverty line).

Kimball Kinnison

 

I have letters in my possession that contain parts of our conversations. What do you expect me to do? Scan them all (including the unrelated, personal parts) and give you links? I'm not going to do that with my personal correspondance just to satisfy you. (Even standard citations only require that you state that your source is personal correspondance.)

No. But stories from friends don't count as evidence in debates such as this. Facts and figures, quantitative evidence, does.

Let's look at the Dominican Republic. According to one article, the median income is about $2000/yr. According to another article, factory owners for unskilled labor pay about $1.53/hr in the Dominican Republic. At 40hr/week and 50 weeks/yr (allowing 2 weeks off), that gives an income of about $3060/yr., or about 50% above the median.

Since when is this US companies?

In El Salvador, the median income is about $1500/yr and the wage offered by foreign factories is about $1.59/hr (according to the previous article). That yields an income of about $3180/yr, about twice the median income.

Ok.

Admittedly, these are Central American countries, but they are the best I can find right now. I will try to find better data for you.

I'd be interested in African and Far Eastern countries, too.

Again, you are using the wrong standard for "survival". The workers tend to get higher wages (50-100% above the median income, or 3-4 times the poverty level).

Many people earn 3-4 times the poverty level in our own countries and still don't exactly have enough to splash around on, do they?

- Scarlet.

 

Since when is this US companies?

If you look at the article paragraph where I got the data, it is referring to foreign owned (principally US-owned) factories paying that wage.

They give an hourly wage of $1.19 for Indonesia (in foreign-owned non-skilled factories). That comes to a median income of $2380. I can't find a clear figure for the median income for Indonesia, but I could find the monthly figure for different provinces. Using the highest figure ($66.21/month in Jakarta in 2002, estimated), you get a maximum yearly rate of almost $800 a year.

I hope that helps with figures for Asia.

Many people earn 3-4 times the poverty level in our own countries and still don't exactly have enough to splash around on, do they?

No, but they have enough to live comfortably. They may not own 3 cars, 2 houses, and the like, but they are not just barely surviving. There has been a great trend in the US (and other countries) over the last 20 years of living beyond your means, going into debt to buy things that are not essential. While sometimes debt may be unavoidable (such as TreeCave's example), much of it is not. My family did fine on an officer's salary that was less than 3 times the poverty level (and that was a family of 6, not a family of 4). Our house isn't the biggest, nor our cars the nicest, but they are sufficient for our needs.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If you look at the article paragraph where I got the data, it is referring to foreign owned (principally US-owned) factories paying that wage.

Okay. This might seem like nitpicking, but what about US companies in particular?

They give an hourly wage of $1.19 for Indonesia (in foreign-owned non-skilled factories). That comes to a median income of $2380. I can't find a clear figure for the median income for Indonesia, but I could find the monthly figure for different provinces.

Well, yeah, a basis for comparison would be cool. But make sure you also find the median wage for that province. It wouldn't do to look at the poorest province, take that as the median wage, then compare that to the median wage payed by the companies.

No, but they have enough to live comfortably.

Well, that's quite funny, considering that 30% of US citizens live below the poverty line, and 10% actually identify themselves as 'hungry.'

(Source: "Bring Home the Revolution," Jonathan Freedland, 1998)

And, as you say, 'sufficient for your needs,' not 'sufficient for your wants.' Needs do not constitute a win. They constitute human rights. Wants constitute a win.

- Scarlet.

 

Okay. This might seem like nitpicking, but what about US companies in particular?

I have not been able to find data specifically for US companies because most people lump all foreign companies into one category. However, most of the companies that have been mentioned have been US companies. I doubt that you will see that much of a difference.

Well, yeah, a basis for comparison would be cool. But make sure you also find the median wage for that province. It wouldn't do to look at the poorest province, take that as the median wage, then compare that to the median wage payed by the companies.

I actually used the data from Jakarta, which had the highest income. The table I got it from is available on page 6 of this paper. (Actually, looking at the page again, I see that it is referring to minimum wage, not median. I apologize and will keep looking for the median income.)

One of the problems with trying to find the median income for Indonesia is that their economy and currency have been so erratic that it is difficult to find an accurrate baseline for it. I will keep looking, though.

Well, that's quite funny, considering that 30% of US citizens live below the poverty line, and 10% actually identify themselves as 'hungry.'

I find your numbers to be a bit strange and unbelievable, considering that the US Census Bureau shows a poverty rate in 2001 of about 11.7% (up from 11.3% in 2000).

And, as you say, 'sufficient for your needs,' not 'sufficient for your wants.' Needs do not constitute a win. They constitute human rights. Wants constitute a win.

Look again at what I wrote. Yes, they are sufficient for our needs and they are enough to live comfortably. Again, our cars are not the newest or the nicest, nor is our house all that big. It is about average for this area. We have enough for our needs and then some, even though we can't afford a Porche for each family member and monthly trips around the world, we are far more than just "surviving". I'd call that a win any day.

Kimball Kinnison

 

What about those in trailer parks?

But that's off the point. We were discussing the Third World. Despite the fact that business do exploit foreign labour (we're squabbling about the extent), and foreign workers (see Nike), capitalism has utterly failed to do anything for most of the world except for the major industrialised nations - Germany, Japan, USA, UK, France, Canada, Australian, etc.

- Scarlet.

 

I lived near the Nike headquarters in Portland OR for the crappiest year of my existence. I was warned away from them repeatedly by temp agencies, friends, locals and Nike employees themselves. They put the HQ in OR specifically because they felt they could pay Oregonians nothing. Of course, they move the executives in from out of town colleges and other companies - you wouldn't want native Oregonians running a company like Nike. Reason being, as any employer in OR will tell you, Oregonians have the worst work ethic around. They just don't show up, they go out of town and call from other states to let the boss know they won't be in, etc. I did a temp job where the girl had disappeared off the face of the earth, and *I* was the only one who thought, "Did anyone think of calling the police in case something actually happened to her?" My boss said, "No, people just do this here." He was from NY. In the end, he got to thinking and he did call her landlord - no one ever found out where she went, but her stuff was still in her rented house.

My point is, if Nike is willing to take on workers like that just to cut costs, that shows: (A) They consider employees liabilities, not assets to cultivate, (B) they don't care about actually producing anything and (C) they think all non-executive workers are the same.

Cheap labor generally equals crappy production. West Virginia is a rare exception, where many of the workers there work like slaves and are loyal to terrible companies for reasons I can't get them to see through. China is cheap and crappy. Oregon is cheap and crappy. At home or abroad, Nike would be the first company to buy a fleet of slaves if it were legal, and have no qualms about it whatsoever.

The fact that most companies see employees as liabilities instead of assets could be disastrous for our capitalist nation. It will erode the work ethic beyond redemption, because even I (with my insane WV work ethic) have learned not to care about how I do my job when a company clearly doesn't care about me. And once enough workers are disenfranchised, and realize the companies see them as the enemy, Marx's revolution WILL be inevitable. It's already in the works.

 

Oregonians just don't show up either? That's the way it's here in So. Utah. You either have people no-show and don't call to tell you, or they don't show and you call them and get their answering machine. Meanwhile, another woman drives by in her HUGE, and I mean HUGE, SUV while talkinf on the cellphone. What is going on?

 

TheScarletBanner: I know it is. As are the similar comments about the USSR and 'human nature' to indict Communism. In THEORY, there is little wrong with both systems.

Weeeeeelll ...


Do you know the meaning of this phrase? It means they can't exist with each other. How on EARTH you can say this befuddles me. Capitalism has been the cause of SO MUCH exploitation since its implementation. Capitalism CAN be correctly implemented and exploitation still occur, due to the very nature of the systemic exploitation.

Do you know what the beauty of the free market is? The beauty of the free market is that it occurs naturally. People simply have purchase what they think they need at the best price possible, and the market works. Of course, when you have anarchy, people will soon begin exploiting others in attempts to further their own gains.
Capitalism tries to stall these attempts at exploitation. It seeks to control and minimize injustice in economic dealings, to make each and every economic encounter a win-win proposition (monopolies, an anathema in Capitalism, are a good example). In this sense, Capitalism and exploitation are very much mutually exclusive because exploitation stands in stark opposition to Capitalism's win-win ideal. I can pretty much guarantee that someone else somewhere else has a different definition of Capitalism, but this one seems efficient.


No one denies this. He is just stating that the vast majority of it is in the hands of the few, which means that it can be produced more readily by them. One must BECOME 'one of the few' in order to gain capital, and must have capital in order to be one of the few. Which kills social mobility.

1: Tell that to Bill Gates.
2: It's misleading to say that the wealthy "have" the capital. Bill Gates' billions aren't stagnating in some bank account. He'd have a difficult time getting any substantial amount of the money, because his wealth is not money, but the stock he owns in Microsoft. You could correctly say that his wealth is helping to fuel an entire industry, and industry which promises to be the most influential for many years to come (a remarkably singular industry too--value is placed purely on ideas, and any moron with a book and a compiler can realize his ideas and create wealth). How is this killing "social mobility"?


They do attempt to concentrate and keep it out of the hands of the many ("Good business!").

You've COMPLETELY lost me. Please explain.


No need to PPOR. It's common sense.

If I don't work, I starve. Simple.

Thus, I am made to sell my labour, in order to eat.

I was PPORing Na Wibo's ascertation that a right to survival existed.


[SF]Would you have people pay for the expense of an item, rather than the worth of it?

[TSB] Where labour is concerned? YES, and yes again! It is NECESSARY TO SURVIVAL. **** huge wealth generation, paying a decent wage is more important.

I despair.

The free market is economic's form of evolution. The weak companies, the companies that can't turn a profit or don't create quality products, just don't survive.
But what would happen if we subsidized these weak companies by paying them for the cost of their labor rather than the value of their product? We create a bloated, sluggish economy. I guarantee that depression or recession would hit. And why do I say that?
Because you're paying people to lose money. That's not just a lose-lose situation, that's an emphatic, big-time LOSE-LOSE situation.


TreeCave: Really? I hope you never find out what it's like to go through 2 years of pure hell like I have. I'm OVERQUALIFIED for every decent job in my area, so I can't get employed because I'm too good. You can call it disillusioning if you want, but you should go through it yourself sometime if you really want to know.

I'd think it was funny that you couldn't get a job because you're overqualified, but I know someone who's in the exact same situation and I have a good idea of how frustrati

 

Good post, StarFire.

 

Dang, a lot of reading since the last time I visited this thread. Some good, some pretty iffy.

I would disagree with how the word "exploit" or any if its derivatives is sometimes used in here. How is it exploitative to provide a job for someone, or how is it exploitative to not provide a job for someone?

 

Oregonians just don't show up either? That's the way it's here in So. Utah. You either have people no-show and don't call to tell you, or they don't show and you call them and get their answering machine. Meanwhile, another woman drives by in her HUGE, and I mean HUGE, SUV while talkinf on the cellphone. What is going on?

What's the relevance of the woman on the cell phone? As for the work ethic, I mean, I've seen lazy people everywhere, and there are always a few. Employees have stolen at every place I've ever worked, too. But I had just never seen anything like OR - it's perfectly customary for an employee not to show up, and the employer to wonder whether to terminate them or fear being sued for doing so.

By the way, we need to get back to where employers can fire people for being unreliable, not doing anything, etc. I understand not letting employers fire people for disciminatory reasons, but discriminating between people who work and people who collect a check for nothing is a good thing.

Starfire said: The beauty of the free market is that it occurs naturally. People simply have purchase what they think they need at the best price possible, and the market works.

This assumes ownership ("purchase what they think they need") is a natural human concept. The Scots and the aboriginal tribes of the Americas prove this isn't true, at least not for all members of our species.

was PPORing Na Wibo's ascertation that a right to survival existed.

It's hard to prove, but Thomas Jefferson believed it. Right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Surely a document on which the US is founded can be considered a proper source for a debate on capitalism.

I know someone who's in the exact same situation and I have a good idea of how frustrating it can be.

Well, the other issue here is discrimination: of all the things an employer can't discriminate against, they can still discriminate because they feel you're too smart or good at what you do. I've only ever been able to get hired by people who excel themselves and are secure. That's a minority of Americans, since low-self-esteem is our national hobby. Honestly, L.A. is full of Europeans, so I know the rest of the world is not so hung up on themselves. It's sad.

It would be impossible to employ everyone, even under Communism, because you'd end up with more people than you could pay--sort of like butter scraped over too much bread. When you purposefully employ too many people, there will simply not be enough to go around, which means that EVERYONE will suffer.

Where are you getting this? You seem to be presuming a ratio that I'm not seeing - a ratio of useful human labor to actual human beings. There are a lot more variables than that. The creation of industrialized machinery and later computers, for example, has really reduced the number of people needed to labor so that people have what they need. And yet, in actuality, those needs are not being met much better than they were before the industrial revolution.

Furthermore, the whole point of labor is not for people to get paid, it's for the human race as a whole to have its needs met. THAT is product. When the issue of employment itself prevents some from getting their needs met, that is an inherently bad system. We have more than enough resources for the whole population of earth to be fed, sheltered, and healthy, and yet we all mindlessly accept that "some people must be sacrificed for the good of everyone else". That's a "survival of the fittest" argument, not an argument based on the potential of humans to provide for themselves as a group.

 

Do you know what the beauty of the free market is? The beauty of the free market is that it occurs naturally. People simply have purchase what they think they need at the best price possible, and the market works. Of course, when you have anarchy, people will soon begin exploiting others in attempts to further their own gains.

This is a childish view of anarchy. Anarchy is simply the state of no Government, not the state of no order. Order can be imposed socially by people of equal stature as yourself.

Capitalism tries to stall these attempts at exploitation. It seeks to control and minimize injustice in economic dealings, to make each and every economic encounter a win-win proposition (monopolies, an anathema in Capitalism, are a good example). In this sense, Capitalism and exploitation are very much mutually exclusive because exploitation stands in stark opposition to Capitalism's win-win ideal.

Capitalism may espouse a win-win ideal, but by the very nature of its theory it's always going to be win-lose(but survive, maybe), where the winners are the capitalists and the losers are the workers.

I can pretty much guarantee that someone else somewhere else has a different definition of Capitalism, but this one seems efficient.

Strictly speaking, we're talking about free-market capitalism.

1: Tell that to Bill Gates.

Bill Gates attended Harvard. He also did numerous things which are at the best unethical and at the worst completely illegal to get where he did.

pu[2: It's misleading to say that the wealthy "have" the capital. Bill Gates' billions aren't stagnating in some bank account.[/i]

No, they're probably invested in assets.

You've COMPLETELY lost me. Please explain.

Capitalism is about self-interest. Adam Smith said this in his Wealth of Nations. He argued that it benefitted society, but he said that the very BASIS of capitalism was self-acquisition. Self-acquisiton requires one to not give a crap about society, but to hoard wealth.

I was PPORing Na Wibo's ascertation that a right to survival existed.

Well, if the right to survival doesn't exist, then NO right exists.


[SF]Would you have people pay for the expense of an item, rather than the worth of it?

[TSB] Where labour is concerned? YES, and yes again! It is NECESSARY TO SURVIVAL. **** huge wealth generation, paying a decent wage is more important.

I despair.

Why? I don't disagree paying for an items worth, but labour is not an item. It is a human process, and should be treated as such, not as some base commodity.

No, actually. An efficient, healthy free market economy virtually requires (even ensures) that a small percentage of the population is unemployed. This keeps the economy from growing sluggish because there are always people to take up the slack and to fill new industries.

CORRECT. This was another point. Capitalism keeps people PERPETUALLY, systemically, unemployed. For the reason above, surely, but also for the reason of making a threat - if people are unemployed, you're not exactly going to do anything that would lose you your job, are you?

It would be impossible to employ everyone, even under Communism, because you'd end up with more people than you could pay--sort of like butter scraped over too much bread.

Nice LoTR quote...

But nobody is being "paid" in Communism. There is no employer.

And again I'll ask, what kind of government exists under Communism? Is there ideally any government at all? I've posted this question before, and I've seen others ask it, and I don't believe for a second it was mistakenly passed over. I believe an answer on this matter is crucial to the debate.

I gave the answer earlier in the thread.

There are differing views of this throughout Communist. Marxist-Communism, or pure Communism, says that there is no Government. There may be regional, democratically-elected councils to oversee minor things like waste collection, trade, and so on, but the 'teeth' of the Government, i.

 

In the tribal peoples I keep bringing up as examples of "natural communism", most had elders, respected mature members of the group who had survived a few decades and exhibited common sense. They came to elders for advice. The elders did not issue laws and throw people in jail for breaking them. This is leadership without government. Make sense?

Some tribes did have leaders who made decisions for the group. So that would be a form of communism with some sort of government.

Government is not the only form of leadership. Government is dictates, laws, and punishments for those who don't follow. Leadership is more about guidance, like a parent gives a nearly adult child.

 

/nods.

Those regional councils would be made up of leaders, not governors. Aside from the fact they'd actually have no power to govern, the scope of what they could do what not extend to passing laws and dictums and so on.

- Scarlet.

 

Aside from the fact they'd actually have no power to govern

So, how would these leaders actually govern without authority?

I think people have a tendency not to follow leaders who don't have any authority. Don't you? If your teachers didn't give grades for the material covered and had no authority and just said come to class and there were no consequences if you did not, how many people do you think would show up? Some would, some would not.

Lawless societies would lead to total chaos. Societal norms themselves cannot govern people, as the whims of society change often. If society was able to work without government, don't you think people would have implemented that system? How would society punish one who goes against it's rules without laws? Would the rules be defined? Who would make them?

No society on Earth on a national scale has survived without authoritative laws.

 

They don't need to lead or govern or hand down authority.

They are a council to organise the amenities of society. There is no need for them to make laws. It doesn't take a law to set a time for garbage collectors to pick up your refuse. It doesn't take a law for the council to talk to another council and arrange trade.

The fact is, there is not chaos without Government. There have been many societies without Governments, now and in the past, that have functioned just as well as any other.

Does this answer your question?

Thank you, at long bloody last, for coming up with a reasonable, thoughtful reply.

- Scarlet.

 

There have been many societies without Governments, now and in the past, that have functioned just as well as any other.

Give me an example of one that exists now in a national scale that runs without a government or laws and relies on a sort of "council" without legal authority. The only example I can think of is native peoples living in the woods.

Although I am by no means a fan of big government, it is a necessary evil so to speak.

Thank you, at long bloody last, for coming up with a reasonable, thoughtful reply.

I just know how to push your buttons, that's all.