But that's the point: just because they explicitly decalred themselves communist states doesn't mean they were communist states: any more than Zimbabwe is a democracy. MUgabe was 'elected' in a 'democratic process'.....except that we all know the election was rigged and there's no such thing as democracy in Zimbabwe. So shal we point to it and say yes, but they say they're democratic therefore they are and as such we can see that democracy is obviously evil?

Whose 'pet project' do you think they were? They were the pet project of murderous dictators and powermongers. They weren't communism.

Yes....because they weren't communists they were vicious dictators.

Nobody is saying Stalin was right. Nobody is saying that those who suffered in Russia and China and Cambodia and elsewhere deserved their fate. Of course if that had been actual communism then we could say that communism is evil. Just because someone claims their administration is communist, doesn't mean they are.

It's like someone committing a crime and loudly claiming that they heard God telling them to kill... we do not conclude from that that God did tell them to kill and is in fact a cold hearted murderer...we conclude from that that they are insane. We draw conclusions about them as they are...not as they claim to be.

I bet the Canaanites feel much better now.

I am not sure I understand your point rk? Are you suggesting that we should accept that God ordered many deaths?

You are saying that god justified it makes them insane. I say you are right, in ALL cases.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...od-v-satan.png

I see *nods*

This discussion has drifted into the pros and cons of communism :P So at the risk of continuing that drift...


One of the things to remember about Russia, is that it was a totalitarian state before the revolution and after the revolution. The Tsar of Russia was the last of the truly Absolute European monarchs. As a primarily agrarian economy, most of its inhabitants were farmers and most of those were peasants. Within living memory of those peasants their status had been changed from property to person (they were chattel, tied to the land). They were subject to the vagaries and whims of the petty lords to whom they owed their rent and allegiance and had no right of movement without permission. In many areas peasants were still expected to seek permission from their lords in order to marry or engage in ther occupation beyond their farming.

Even in the cities, where industrialisation was slowly taking hold, there were few freedoms. A vast buraecracy and judiciary oversaw an oppressive governmental machine. There was no right to free speech, no right to assembly. Any published material had to be submitted to the censor who would either approve it or deny it. Striking workers or protesters against food shortages faced mounted soldiers with bayonets, and were on several occasions massacred.

Russia was a totalitarian state prior to the revolution and it was a totalitarian state after the revolution. There are those who suggest that Russia is once again heading towards totalitarianism this time under the name of democracy.

Soviet Russia was not totalitarian because it was a communist state, it was totalitarian because it was Russia. It was totalitarian because the revolution failed to undo the totalitarian nature of the state: instead they adapted many of the systems and mechanisms of the previous state and incorporated them into their 'communist' vision.

China also was a totalitarian state prior to its revolution.

Someone has already mentioned that Revolution is not the way to achieve democracy. Communism is a form of democracy (i.e the theory is based upon widening the democratic participation to include all citizens) therefore it can only truly exist if it has been arrived at through the building of consensus. In Russia that consensus was not built. Instead a relatively small number of people (the so-called 'vanguard') attempted to force the pace of change and speed up their progression towards what they believed was an inevitabe revolution (this idea that revolution is the inevitable consequence of capitalism and industrialisation was one of the many things they got wrong).

The revolutionaries attempted to force a top-down revolution with a middle class intellectual elite at it's head. In doing so they singularly failed to create a truly communist (and therefore democratic) state. All they did was swap one brand of totalitarian oppression for another.

Because they claimed themselves a communist state does not mean that they were a communist state.

The essence of Christian faith is a belief both in God and in Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again. If I said to you " I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I do not believe that Jesus was his son" you would have a strong case for telling me I am mistaken in believing myself to be a Christian.

You present a claim that Russia was, is, and will (likely) be a totalitarian state, as though there is something in her people's makeup that causes it. However, what you wrote could equally be applied to every European country at that time; in fact, Russia in the 19th century was a leader in social reform. Debtor's prison was abolished and debts forgiven. Tax arrears for the poor were cancelled. In 1857, on Alexander II's birthday, he wished to release prisoners from prison, and there were no prisoners found in the fortress of Peter and Paul.

Serfdom wasn't an integral part of Russian culture; it didn't arrive until the 17th century, most likely from contact with European countries. Serfs could own their own land and sell things from it, and keep the profit. They were tied to the land, not to the owner. This doesn't justify the practice, but it was far less oppressive in Russia than in European countries. The imposition by Peter the 'Great' of a head tax on the male population that landlords, rather than the serfs, had to pay led to the practice of obrok wherein the serf paid the landlord his portion of head tax and was free to pursue other employment elsewhere.

From the end of the 18th century onwards, a movement had grown up to free the serfs. Many nobles unilaterally freed them, and in 1858 Tsar Alexander II emancipated the rest - without a civil war, and without a revolution.

Communism in Russia was certainly totalitarian. We disagree about the nature of communism, obviously. In every large-scale experiment, it has led to dictatorship and oppression. Given the absolute power of a centralized government that owns all wealth and redistributes it at will, and plans for the entire population, oppression will happen. The arguments against absolute monarchy run the same way. In theory, with a wise, just, compassionate monarch who chooses wise advisors, it would be a great system. In practice we've seen what happens when you add human nature to the equation. So, have we never seen an example of 'true' absolute monarchy? Perhaps, but we're not all clamoring to keep trying it, sure that next time it'll work. We've seen the pitfalls and they can't be overcome. I say the same about communism.



This is a pretty insulting statement, and not true. Is it in human nature to desire oppression and dictatorship? Does the individual long to be the pawn and slave of the government? Russia embraced monarchy, as did European countries.


You have claimed repeatedly that communism is a form of democracy. Is there a statement or set of writings that explicitly declare this? For a Christian, the Nicene Creed summarizes the basic beliefs of the faith. You would indeed be able to tell me whether I was in agreement with the Statement of Faith. But communism doesn't seem as well defined. Could it be that you are wrong in thinking it's an essentially democratic process? The workers' committees and local participation that went on in Russia were the 'theory' of communism. They did exist. But the dictators that you deplore were actually necessary to implement the centralized power that communism requires. There's no other way that a central power could own everything, take everything, distribute everything, and control everything, always on behalf of 'the people'. Do you really think that intelligent people will vote for a regime that does this to them?

Addendum
 

I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.

I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible. We can work to address the injustices we see, and be as compassionate and helpful as we are able, but a centrally planned ideal society is not possible. Leaving freedom to the individual allows for more of both good and bad; but at least the individual retains the ability and choice to pursue the one and address the other.

Very well expressed.

I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.
If you invent something, it is yours.
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.
The idea of communism is stupid.

Funny, I see conservatives as the repressive ones. Sure, there have been authoritarian regimes, both on the left and the right. But I don't think you can call Sweden, about as close to a socialist state as you can get, repressive. Northern Europe is described as wefare-states, and they are not repressive at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to tell:

a woman what she can do with her own body
what gender you can marry
who you can have sex with
when you can pull the plug on your wife who is in a consistent vegative state
you that you have to continue to live when you don't want to
you that you are not allowed to buy sex toys
you that you can't get high
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you have to pray in school (to their god)

Those are a lot of individual freedoms that they want to supress.

Well now I have to use the ridiculous, horrible, and totally unfair phrase "people like you". I apologize in advance.


Dana. This whole notion of "but they weren't Communist" would hold a lot more water with me if people like you had said it just once before 1989.

All during the preceding 7 decades, people like you were holding up the U.S.S.R. as a model for a fine, functioning Communist society.

People like you went there, were taken on official government tours and came back raving about how much better their Communist system was. They have a great educational system! They have zero unemployment! There is no homelessness! The people seem happier there!

Only after glasnost and the opening of the society did it come out... that Stalin had effectively murdered and starved and purged so many people, that nobody could tell whether it was 20 million or 30 million. It was the only way he could keep his country, it turned out. The shit had been hitting the fan all along.

Meanwhile China was figuring it out. Maybe it was the experience of having capitalist Hong Kong boom right before their eyes. The Communists implemented free market systems and wham, they started booming. The Indians denationalized their farm system and suddenly they had enough food. South Korea outgrew North Korea by double every year. Until it was way too obvious... Communism always was an abject failure resulting in the deaths of millions. And it still is. You can't provide us with a single example of its overall success. Where it is implemented, people usually end up dying.

Meanwhile one of the biggest problems in free market nations is obesity amongst the poor. I repeat, the poor are obese. If Marx had foreseen that, which of course he totally didn't, he would have thrown away his writer's quill and taken up accounting.

The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.

But I knew, in 1989, that people like you would start to say that this wasn't Communism. It was too much for the minds of people like you to face the total and obvious evidence. Nobody ever says "well that's it, I was wrong all along." There had to be another explanation. Up until 1989, those countries said they were Communist, you said they were Communist, we said they were Communist, everybody said they were Communist. The tag was proudly waved around and understood. So what the hell changed?

How about a woman who marries a guy, has two kids with him, and leaves him because he beat her repeatedly. The argument for capitalism is always to point out the lazy people who would take advantage of the system. If the least able, or laziest people are provide a mere subsistence lifestyle, who would choose to live like that voluntarily?

Not in corporate America. Most companies force you to sign away the rights to anything you invent, while you are employed by that company. They own your invention.

Steal? Socialists don't steal. It's like living in a family. If your mother sat on her ass, and there's a storm, would she have to steal your wood, or would you offer it to her? Show some love.

The "idea" is not stupid, IMHO. The execution has been poor. I'm not one of those people who have to "have it all". There's a point where a comfortable life is enough - there no need for private jets and islands. After a comfortable lifestyle, I would forfeit my excess wealth to those who were truly in need.

rk, you, more than anyone, should feel that we are all one. Those in need suffering is the same as you suffering.

That and people have a different idea of what is a theoretical perfect political system as shown here with libertarianism and social libertarianism.

The free market beat a heavily influenced state capitalist system, not a communist system. And communist system won't win a GDP contest with a free market system anyways, it focuses in other issues in the socio-economic spectrum that free market lacks.

That doesn't determine that the free market will win every time with economy either. I know a lot of people here don't like Venezuela, but their welfare state (social democracy) worked very well to keep their oil money in Venezuela so private enterprise could flourish. They might be moving towards democratic socialism if a change in the constitution get passed and that will be interesting to see what happens.

Only if you chose to sign the agreement in the first place for that job.
I have been working on an invention now. Some of it are registered now. Once it is done all of it will be mine. Why would I give it to anyone else?
I am the only person who invented it.
If I give that is one thing. If someone takes without your permission it is stealing.

You really don't know the difference between can't and won't?

I am not ok saying that to someone else.
If they generate the income I am not ok stealing it. I am not ok dictating to others what is their level of "enough". My ego/hubris is not that large/complete.
To say "you only get what you need, fuck-off". This is why communist nations have to be prisons.
It is great that you would give what you don't need to others. I have always given a great deal of my time and much more percentage than the average of my income to charity. What I will never do is tell others that they HAVE to do it.
I believe in a flat-tax and some governmental regulation for those who CANNOT do for themselves.
For those who will not... nothing.

You answered your own question, what changed was our knowledge of what the system was like. They took communist foreigners on official government tours, through pretend neighborhoods and parts of moscow that were constructed and occupied by, effectively, actors. I've got Polaroids of them at my parents' house.

The borders of Russia were incredibly tight and hid their dirty laundry for decades. 'People like that' didn't know what it was really like before they started saying it wasn't communism. The kremlin simply tricked the rest of the world into thinking they were something else.

I was young, but when I lived in Berlin, my pops would bring some Russian military members around (he worked with the whole nuclear drawdown) and these people were amazed that we had more than one kind of coffee in the states. They were like kids in a candy shop. That, I think, was the first time it occured to many people that maybe it wasn't so great over there, because it was the first time anyone got a real look inside the borders.

Depends on what you mean by 'won.' We made the most money, drive the most cars, and have the most guns. If that's the important thing than fuck yeah we won. But if you're more worried about the increasing wealth gap, if you're worried about the urban decay in a lot of major cities, if you're worried about consolidation of media, etc. I would say we defeated the enemy, but maybe we didn't 'win.'

Final point: Communism and socialism aren't going to happen by revolution and they're certainly not going to happen in a barely industrialized nation like early 20th century Russia (Which, I think, was Dana's point, not some ridiculous idea that the Russian people can't live free... that's something someone would use as an excuse to... maybe leave Iraq?). I think it's going to happen in a slow slide. In fact, the western world has been getting more and more welfare-ish and socialized this entire century. It's just that the US is a little further behind. I think it boils down to a 'me and mine' centered opinion that the states glorifies versus the 'everyone' mentality that is necessary for socialism.

And stop saying 'it's just human nature.' It's also just human nature to kill your opponents and take whatever woman you find most suitable. We've got strong evolutionary drives, but we can ignore/overpower them with enough practice. (and hey! in evolution, if we do that long enough, it won't be our nature any longer!) Saying 'oh, well, it's a nice idea but it's just not in keeping with our bad sides.' is maintaining the status quo. If we're not trying to build a better mousetrap every time, and trying to flaunt our good sides, why bother?

Humans basically lived in a communal system for all of our history besides the past 10,000 years. Hunter-gatherer tribes isn't communism because there is a hierarchy, but it was much closer to communism than anything else we've seen since we've left that way of living.

And to avoid a smartass comment, the early agricultural lifestyle was much harder and harsher than the hunter-gather lifestyle so it wasn't a progression, just a different way of living. We can still live that way without problems.

Human culture seemed to have worked well in small groups, so that each person could be personally aquainted with all members of the community. In fact, I wonder if our way of thinking isn't hard-wired into this kind of situation, so that our present lifestyle doesn't even make sense to ourselves.

In a smaller, intimate group, surely you are inclined to share with your extended family, in order to ensure the survival of those close to you. Of course, just across the horizon are "the others" and therein lies the ingrained "us versus them" mentality. Maybe larger societies attempt to overcome this through creating a large, homogenous family. But, it's anonymous; A merit-based leadership becomes harder to achieve in such large numbers. [/tangent]

It is more about the fact that 100% employment is a goal that has yet to be proved attainable in a capitalist economy and therefore those that cannot, or even would rather not, work are those best suited to be without work. (It would seem to cost more in health care and law enforcement if those that are unemployed are unhappily so).
It is more about asking whose work is more "valuable" the hospital manager or the hospital cleaner.
It is more about who "generates" the wealth, the guy putting in the mental effort in planning, or the guy putting in the physical effort in production.
And I repeat that as I understand it communism included a striing towards a "withering away of the state", via centralisation of the economy. I'm not saying that was the right path, but that was the intention, I believe.

Depends on how you define value.
Supply and demand and bang for your buck makes the manager the clear winner here.
A better manager is going to give you far more profit and make your hospital far more valuable than just one good cleaner.
You can replace that one cleaner far more easily and one good cleaner will generate far less positive change than one good manager.
It has always bothered me when envious people gripe about CEO and sports figure's salaries.
Those salaries are a fraction of what they bring in profits to the business, if they do their job well they deserve it.
If the inventors and managers did not do their jobs well the laborers would not have jobs at all. Just because they put their hands on the end product does not mean they do the most "valuable" work.
Let them run the company for a month and see what happens, then get back to me.
Edit:
BTW, I have been on both sides and know it from both views... management deserves to make more money most of the time.

I'm curious.
If you do not pay management differently?
How do you motivate people to do the job for the same pay?
I would not go to school the extra time, do the extra continuing ed, do the extra hours per week, take on the extra stress, work from home, get called in, etc, etc, etc, for the same pay as a laborer who learned his skill in six-months to a year.
My answer to that would be fuck-you.
If told to do it... still would be fuck-you.
If told in grade school "you have aptitude for leadership we are going to put you in management training"... fuck-you.

That sounds just like my response to being put in management, no matter how much it would pay. I don't want to be a baby-sitter.

I apologise Orthodoc, I made the point badly: It wasn't the people of Russia that led it to be a totalitarian state. The reason I say it was because it was Russia was because the Russian Empire (and later Soviet Russia) tried to combine a central authority with a vast landmass. That (imo) creates a need either for a significant move of power outwards into more hands, or extreme, central control. Totalitarianism wasn't the only way Russia could go, but with a starting point of a single ruler and vast landmass it was highly likely. I also think there are aspects of Russian culture which lends itself easily to personality cults, due to their seeming fondness for 'Strong Men' leaders. Of course, I am basing that purely on the bits I've read and am happy to accept that may not be the case.

[eta) Orthodoc, you asked if there was anything specific in his writings that stated explicitly that Communism was democratic. I would say that if you look at the theoretical structures its intent is to widen participation rather than delimit it. Also, in terms of the totalitarian question: Marx predicted/warned about the route to dictatorship in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). In the Communist Manifesto, envisoned a system in which all Commune officials were elected and subject to recall.

Also from the Communist Manifesto:

Marx was not seeking a totalitarian system, nor were the majority of communists of the day (Many, many people in Europe counted themselves communist at that time) they sought instead to overturn oppression. The problem with Marx's analysis as with many of his contemporaries was the idea of Revolution as the means of achieving this ideal.

With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy for us to see the political and economic progression that brought a society with such extremes of poverty and wealth into an age where even the poor have luxuries that Marx's contemporaries couldn't dream of. In the 19th Century this did not look so clear. We know, because we have the benefit of that hindsight, that the rights, freedoms and higher living standards which we now enjoy, didn't need a revolution to be achieved.

We also have the knowledge of just how devastatingly wrong a system born of revolution can go. What did they have to go on? The Terror in France? Big, but we're not exactly talking the same scale as the Gulags.

That's the other key factor I think, along with the scale of Russia. Violent revolution doesn't build consensus...true communism is absolutely dependant upon the building of consensus.

I would like to see true Communism; however, I do not believe in Revolution, unless there is no other outlet for democratic expression.

Here's a question for you, not really about whether socialism is good or bad, but along the same lines:

Imagine a society, if you will, where everyone makes the same wage based on 'tiers' so to speak. Based on your experience, and certain evaluations (in which education, job performance, etc are factored), you can move up a 'tier,' and make more money. You make the same money as others in your tier, regardless of birth, raising, skin color etc. Certain jobs would get more money if they're less desirable or are more taxing, but for the most part it's even.

Now, regardless of which tier you're in, EVERYONE in the society gets full health care, money for housing and sustenance based on the cost of living in the surrounding areas, and money based on whether you are single of have dependents, and everyone works.

Two questions about this society:

One, is this a good idea for a society? You DO make more money if you work harder, but no one can live off of the system. You stay in the same job, but you can change jobs if you're up to snuff, it just takes some paperwork.

Two, is there something ironic or even wrong if this society (which is undeniably socialist) has the single job of defending another society who detests socialism? I'm of course, talking about the US military, but I'm starting to think that with some tweaking this could be a system of governance (if you eliminate the whole absolute rank thing).

What if I want to move to Montana and raise dental floss?

I just remembered to reference where I got this image:

That's an interesting one. I would do it for the job satisfaction and prestige, I think.

In the society I live in now, I would expect financial reward commensurate with my experience, training and seniority. But that's because I know this is how my society indicates value. If it was the norm that people be paid at the same rate and respect, validation and recognition was expressed in a different way then that'd be fine by me. As long as I have a reasonably comfortable house, enough money to eat reasonably and go out for a drink with my friends a couple of times a week and a basic model TV, radio and Computer I don't really have much need of a large income. If I have those things, it doesn't matter me that someone else has them and had to work less. I have them, that's all I need to know.

Queeq... that is a caste system, or class system.
I thought the idea was that the two jobs were equal?
I would not work more, more often and harder for the same, or less, than others. That is ridiculous.

That's where we differ, I think. I like to have a job that facilitates a lifestyle I want.
I did the $100,000/p.a management-thang to earn enough to buy a house where I want to live. I then did (and preferred) the $22,500/p.a job (care assistant in an old folks' home) to pay the bills here. I now sell soap for a living, which pays a little better than that; but if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than doing what I'm doing now.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?

Maybe not, but as an institution it remained in place until 1861. My point wan't that they were still serfs, but that for some at the time of the revolution, serfdom was in living memory.

The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.

I don't know about glorious... who is going to choose to be a garbageman?

Someone who doesn't have the skills (or doesn't want a job that requires them to invest heavily of themselves) to do more skilled work but who wishes to be a productive member of society.

True story: when I was teaching adult lit last year I had a student (Ronnie) with learning difficulties. As well as the literacy and numeracy lessons (and the 'skills for life' such as how to cook a meal, how to read a timetable, how to access dental care etc etc) we were supposed to try and get this guy into a job. I asked him what he wanted to try for. The one thing he really, really wanted to do...and I had difficulty getting my head around this if I am honest, all he wanted to do was work at the municipal dump. Seriously. That's what he wanted. I tried to get him a work placement, but they didn't have enough supervisors to be able to take on someone with his support needs. He was gutted. I tried to figure something else out that he might like to do...I eventually got him into a food packing factory. Nice clean factory, variety of jobs, good supervisors. He went for it and made the best of it...but he was still adamant that he wanted to work in the dump and I had to promise him that i would keep phoning them up from time to time to see if the situation had changed so I could let him know.

Another of my students had a deep desire to be an exterminator (as in vermin).

I rather like queeq's idea of offering a small increase in wages for the worst jobs, rather than the best. If you are motivated by a desire for money you'd go fo rthe dirty, nasty jobs. If you want are in a job you enjoy then you don't need the high wages to compensate you for your time. Just a playful thought.

True enough, but didn't Alexander III turn the clock back on a lot of those reforms?

Tied to land still meant that they could be bought and sold with the land surely? Also, unless I am mixing up the condition of russian serfs with earlier european models, didn't the lord have rights of permission when it came to marriages?

As to European countries, I have been guilty of a wide sweep in my earlier post. Most of western europe had ended serfdom by then I think. Certainly most of the major players had reformed it away.

I certainly wouldn't say that Russia was more oppressive than european nations, merely that it was more totalitarian, given that most of the major monarchies had by then moved to a 'mixed monarchy' system rather than divine right absolutism.

When Russia changed to a communist state it didn't go from 'freedom' as we wold understand it in the modern era, to dictatorship. It moved from one form of highly centralised control to another and exchanged one form of oppression for another (admittedly more violent) form of oppression.

What is utterly tragic, is that at the point that the revolutionaries actually made their move, they did so against a Tsar who was genuinely motivated towards reform and had they been able to see ahead to what was going to happen in the other industrialising nations over the next hundred years they'd have seen that there was another way to achieve many of their goals.


What we haven't seen is a monarch who was truly God's appointed which was what they claimed to be. In practice, actually, very few 'absolute' monarchs were indeed absolute. They relied on the compliance and support of their aristocracy and the acceptance of the populace.

I still contend that Communism does not require totalitarianism, in fact totalitarianism runs entirely contrary to the spirit and form of the communist ideal. Unfortunately, after the Russian revolution, other countries took the Russian system as the base model for communism. Consequently most other attempts at bringing about a communist state have followed similar patterns. But that wasn't inherent in the idea of communism.

It's not a caste system if you're capable of moving freely through the different castes.

And bruce, that is the one main problem with any socialist system is that it does require a job to be had. The life I live (or have lived) is semi-nomadic, so it's a little hard for me to accept... but living in a capitalist society you can't really get by without a job either...

Shush, you're messing with my livelyhood.

You do realize that there are many jobs out there that require so much extra effort and sacrifice that you'd practically need to make public alters to them in order to justify it, right? I could, conceivably, go along with a system that requires everyone to work exactly the same hours, gives everyone exactly the same amount of time off, and requires the same amount of accountability from everyone. So basically I would not be required to work a minute longer to be a doctor then to be a garbageman. This would be fair. However, our life spans are not long enough to get through med school like that. Big oops there, kind of hard to provide universal healthcare if you can't train docs. :3eye:

You can't get by without enough wealth to provide for your needs, which usually means a job.

The difference is that you can look for any type job, anywhere you wish. The constraints are only there being a job you're qualified for, where you wish to live.
I'd prefer that to having to live where the government feels I'm (my skills) are needed.

Got*da*yum this is some good stuff!
And to think I first came here for the funny pictures and goofy videos. Talk about your mental floss, whew.
Let me throw this in the mix...
Being civilized means to move past our nature.
Communication is the key to civilization,
and the Internet will be our saving grace.

The skilled person's added value comes from the fact that they are more difficult to replace. Think about it in terms of widgets. Harder to find, more complex widgets cost more than the simplest widgets.

I understand that Perry, but that only holds true if you are applying a supply and demand model.

That raises a good point - that in a communist society people are reduced to a set of skills - the person is not important, just what he/she can bring to the State. Not many people want to be regarded as a moveable, disposable commodity - a pair of hands with particular skills that are to be used to benefit an abstraction.

@Dana - sorry, I've been unable to sit down to answer your posts and likely won't get back to the computer for a couple of days. But thanks for the apology (I appreciate the clarification) and the thoughtful replies.

Morality for me isn't dictated by government nor religion.
That bad ass biker might have more of a moral base than the self righteous.


I found this quote that sums it up good enough for me.

"Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]

The reason I chose the phrase I chose in my first post, is because my moral code is based primarily on my understanding of fairness and justice. I try, as much as possible, not to be unfair towards my fellows. 'Do onto others as you would be done by' might equally apply.

Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.

You may notice that many of your points relate to the morality of harming others. Do you feel that it should be an individual freedom to harm others? If I wanted to generalize, I could say that liberals want to tell:

a woman that she is free, at her whim, to kill another genetically distinct human being
husbands they can kill their wives who are mortally ill, even though the wife's parents are willing to care for her, so that the husband can carry on with his new lady-love and make off with all the insurance money
doctors that they must kill their patients when it's demanded (nice opening for relatives who don't want their inheritances used up on medical care, and for insurance (including, especially, government insurance in the case of universal health insurance) companies to cut their costs)
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you can have sex with anyone, even children (what else is prohibited??)
you that you can ruin the lives of those around you through drug use
you that your child must adopt (as a way of 'learning') the religious practices, and pray to the gods of (in certain California districts), any religion with the one exception of Christianity

as for the others, tossing out the definition of the most important legal relationship in our society shouldn't be done by activist judges; if it's done, it should be through the democratic process;
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??

But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.

Now we have a point of agreement, Dana! (I do know that this concept is found in many religions and philosophies.) We just differ on the means of implementing it ... ;)

Supply and demand is not just a "model", it applies to everything on this earth, as if it were a natural law. You can either work with it or against it. If you work against it you will eventually fail. You can create a differing "model" but eventually the cracks in your model will be due to economic rules that have more power than you do.

By the end of the USSR, a third of the food produced was sold illegally on black markets.

But notice how almost every single one of those is 'you are free to...' or 'you can...'
Erring on the side of freedom is always, always better than erring on the side of authority.

Free to kill? Free to rape? I disagree that that's a better thing.

Edit: I more than just 'disagree' - will sit down later to discuss the problems with anarchist philosophy. :headshake

More demeaning language from a conservative - what a surprise.

Nice generalization in your first post, then denial in your second one.

'Stupid' referred to lists like that and their use; they reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification.

It was a similar laundry list that wouldn't be fair to aim at liberals - that's what I pointed out. Guess I could have just pointed it out. :p

Obviously, I do to. But again, it is still better to err on the side of freedom than on the side of authority.
For example...
It's not better to make murder okay...
but it is better to let a murderer go free than put an innocent man in jail.

This
is a generalization.


Then say what you mean. "Stupid" does not mean "reduce important issues to inaccuracy and useless oversimplification".

BTW, much of that list is the platform of the repubican party, the self-professed "conservative" party. I think it pretty closely reflects "conservative values".

The thought question attached to this is that if I let all accused murderers go, I could truthfully claim that I had never once put an innocent man in jail. There is always a degree of doubt in regards to innocence or guilt in court.

I would also say that any system that attempts to totally eradicate success of the fittest as well as environmental pressures will eventually crumble. We are subject to the laws of nature as well.

Not to bring Orwell into this, but it is quite funny, ironic really, that ultimate freedom is the same thing as authority. If everyone has ultimate freedom, someone is going to start to taking away other people's freedoms and then we will go back to an authoritarian state. And if you look at it, even authority is ultimate freedom because the authority is free to do whatever they want.

A balance between the two is needed. A system that allows someone to have as much freedom as they can without taking away other people's freedom. A loose authority can do this but preferably a society can reach equilibrium and enforce it themselves without the need for a strong central power.

You are taking it out of context.
Freedom is not free to harm others.
Freedom is not to infringe on the freedom of others.
Anarchy is a silly concept it ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism.

Actually that sounds like hell to me. What do you do with the jobs no one wants to do?
What do you do with artists and inventors? Steal their products? They don't get to say what the value of their inventions are?

And how, exactly, do you do that?

I can't help but see the denial of freedom as an illness. It is against nature.

If communism is so awesome someone would actually be doing it and people would be in line waiting to get into that nation, end of story.

The jobs that "no-one" wants to do - you mean like washing faeces off a person who has no control over their bowels and suffered diarrhoea in the night? That is [part of] what I meant by "providing personal care". I can't say I relished that part of the job, but I accepted that it was part of what I should expect. Others would, and do, of course, refuse to consider such employment precisely because it can involve that sort of task. See also what DanaC said about her client who wanted to work at the town rubbish dump.

I also create hand-knit items. I have one for sale in a local shop. I don't get a say in what it's worth - the "market" values my skilled labour at around $2/hour, if that. No, of course, I have a "say" - sell it at that price or give it away ... :yelsick:

I repeat that communism is a great idea, but probably unworkable because of human greed. Doesn't mean I can't have a dream, does it?

Do you have to make everything about you?
Inventions and fine art have real value.
There are jobs far worse than taking care of people. Try cleaning out the bottom of a still full of one inch maggots and rotten mash. Risking your life while doing it, CO2 pockets (I have done this job and was paid well to do so).
What would be the point of doing that if you are going to get the same pay as doing something else, sitting on your ass watching a computer screen?
You keep saying it is a great idea, but have yet to SHOW it.

In many states it is technically illegal to buy or sell "sex toys." Texas is one of them. However, you may buy both "marital aids" and "novelty toys" without a problem. They're laws that just haven't bothered to come off the books.