Modern arguments for communism?

In a communist society, what determines who is the invasive cardiologist and who works the weekend graveyard shifts cleaning toilets in the subway?

What does each worker get paid?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Communism is also based on the idea of state supremecy over individual, just as liberalism is (a natural result in the believe of the first precept).

[/ QUOTE ]

LOOOL. You have obviously read lots of Marx. In a true communist system there is no government at all not one iota. Dont say that Russia et al had massive state apparatus becuase you say "Based on the idea." Communism is no way based on the idea of government supremecy, quite the opposite.

The idea of communism is that when you have a true communist state there will be no need for government for ultimatley the only purpose of governement is to protect private property and protect the intrests of the capatalist class.

Of course there is an interim period of transition where dictators sneak in take controll and then make sure there is no trasnsiton to a governmentless system.

This has nothing to do with the ideas that communism is based on but is a massive flaw in the praxis results of actualy trying to carry out radical communist ideas in practise. At some stage you will need goverment by committee (even though according to the IDEA this is transitory). Of course once this happens you are fecked. Committees never vote themselves out of existance.

[The once and future king]

Why ultimately would it require more state to protect communal ownership than it would to protect private ownership?

One would think that ultimately communal ownership would require less because well everyone would have a stake in it and turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

The problem is that you need lots of State authority to transfer from one system of ownership to the other. It is here that communist systems allways feck up. They never get to the other side of the transiton, because of the reasons you mention in your post.

They are not enforcing equality though in anyway,(how could they be if they become patently more equal than any one else) that is just an ideological rhetoric to disguise the fact that they are merely enforcing there own rule. So it is not the enforcement of equality that leads to govenrment controll in "Communist" systems rather the enforcement of the revolutionary process which is kept at a stage to keep the enforcers in power.

[ QUOTE ]
(ultimately) the only purpose of (government) is to protect private property and protect the (interests) of the (capitalist) class.


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the fundamental role of government to provide law and order? Is law and order of no consequence to the "non-capitalist" class? (btw ive never heard of that class)

Does government not also provide a medium of exchange (money)? Otherwise, are you advocating a barter system? So when I need some aspirin for my headache, how do I get it since I can't pay money for it?

What about roads and bridges? Consumer protection? National defense from barbarian hordes? Are none of these of any consequence to the "non-capitalist" class?

[lehighguy]

lol

[lehighguy]

Marx also based his communist state on the idea that we had near unlimited resources and thus could always provide everything for everyone. We would just have automated machines doing all the work for us.

However, we by definition have limited resources. That's the real world.

[ QUOTE ]
To use this argument you are going to have to prove that humans are (inherently) selfish, which no one has yet to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think two examples can clear this up.

There is an unbelievably, stunningly beautiful woman, yourself (currently single), and another man in a room. By virtue of some magical entity, you have been given the choice to either date and/or marry this woman who will then fall in love with you and give you head every night for the rest of your life and if you tire of her, you can dump her and she disappears, or, you can pass and give this option to the other man, who is on his knees begging you to bless him so, but upon which you get nothing and go home. It is entirely your choice. Which option do you choose? Which option do you think most human males would choose?

Or to widen the scope...

Suddenly given the choice to continue living and have another human (unrelated to you) who lives the same general life as you be brutally killed, or to be brutally killed and save the life of that other human, which would you choose? What do you think the vast majority of human beings would choose?

Do you place a higher value on your own life than that of another unknown, unrelated man or woman?

[The once and future king]

1. I am explaining Marxist thought, dosnt mean I concurr with it.

2. Law and order = protecting private propery to a large extent.

3. How goods are exchanged exactly is left a bit hazy by Marx. However you wouldnt have to buy something you allready own. In a capatalist system you need money to facilitate transfer private ownership of some good from one individual to another. In a perfect communist system everyone owns everything so this function of money is rendered obsolete.

3. No idea how central planning for things such as road biulding would be done, thats Marx's fault not mine.
However there would be no need for defence needed as Marx allways envisiged that the communist revolution would be Global. Indeed he quite explicitly states that a succesfull communist revolution would be immpossible in a single country alone.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
"non-capitalist" class? (btw ive never heard of that class)

[/ QUOTE ]

To find out if you ae a member a non-capatilst class answer this question.

Could you live with out working off the capital you own? Could if invested your capital create enough returns to sustain you?

If yes = Member of Capatalist class.
If no = Member of some other class.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To use this argument you are going to have to prove that humans are (inherently) selfish, which no one has yet to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think two examples can clear this up.

There is an unbelievably, stunningly beautiful woman, yourself (currently single), and another man in a room. By virtue of some magical entity, you have been given the choice to either date and/or marry this woman who will then fall in love with you and give you head every night for the rest of your life and if you tire of her, you can dump her and she disappears, or, you can pass and give this option to the other man, who is on his knees begging you to bless him so, but upon which you get nothing and go home. It is entirely your choice. Which option do you choose? Which option do you think most human males would choose?

Or to widen the scope...

Suddenly given the choice to continue living and have another human (unrelated to you) who lives the same general life as you be brutally killed, or to be brutally killed and save the life of that other human, which would you choose? What do you think the vast majority of human beings would choose?

Do you place a higher value on your own life than that of another unknown, unrelated man or woman?

[/ QUOTE ]

Survival instinct shows nothing in terms of inherrent selffishness. Both of these situations are ridiculously specific andhave almost nothing to do with the situation at hand. In a capitalist system a selfish person gains at others expense. Either this is based on a power hungry issue, or a material wealth issue.