Modern arguments for communism?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me. Basically the arguments for communism are the same today as they were when marx wrote em down. The working class is in no better situation (even though the upper classes trick them into thinking they are).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please add content to your next post.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Umm. The working class is much better off than they were in the 1840s, in terms of life expectancy, real wages, access to education, personal savings, workplace safety, political influence, right to unionize, social safety net, etc.

Better? Could you not guess that that's what I meant when I said your previous statement was not true?

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
egalitarian

adj : favoring social equality; "a classless society" [syn: classless] n : a person who believes in the equality of all people [syn: equalitarian] [ant: elitist]

you do not only benefit from your labor right now. Unless you are teh owner of your own bussiness there are many others profiting from your labor (they are called the booses/owners). Your selfish assertion that you want your labor to benefit you and you alone is impossible. If you want it to be so you can go live in the woods and become a subsistence farmer. Right now society is bulit around working together to acomplish goals. The only difference in a communist system is that your labor is valued at its actual value, and you are not paid in money, but rather in returned labor from other members of society.

Yes, socialism is a hell of a lot closer to and egalitarian society than this capitalist "democracy" I live in now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that business owners, ect... are profiting from their labor. They are responsible for allocating resources and taking risks. Whether their ability to do this stems from talent, experiance, or education, they provide a valuable service. Centralized control of production has a major problem with information.

John

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I'm almost positive that this (the inequality part) has been antropologically proven false.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think everyone is exactly the same? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. there was a time when humans lived in groups as equals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% positive this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please dont play dumb. In this conversation "equal" is referring to a social position, not to actual genetic or whatever equality.

from wikipedia: "Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social structures, but this is not always the case"

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not at all obvious to me. People have many genetic advantages and disadvantages(mental, physical, social aptitude, appearance, ect...) And these things have a place in this debate since these things are all resources that must be allocated either through the market or otehrwise.

John

[ QUOTE ]
Communism and egalitarianism both revolve around ignoring the indisputable fact that people at their heart are a)inherently inequal and b) inherently selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of a certain conservative ideology believe that, but socialists wouldn't. Altruistic behaviour in humans suggest that your statement isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
Thoe of a certain conservative ideology believe that, but socialists wouldn't. Altruistic behaviour in humans suggest that your statement isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of altruistic. It's easily argued that no act is truly selfless.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thoe of a certain conservative ideology believe that, but socialists wouldn't. Altruistic behaviour in humans suggest that your statement isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of altruistic. It's easily argued that no act is truly selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course seemingly selfless acts are perhaps done as the person doing them expects to gain something in return. That seems as much as an argument for communism as it is against.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure communism relies on everyone working as hard as they can,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great reason why it doesn't work.
Slackers. (and selfish slackers at that)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
a communist state says nothing about mediocrity, this is always added by anti commusinsts. In a true communist state there is great incentive to excell in order to improve your community and your fellow man.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this widespread incentive existed ANYWHERE society would be wonderful. If all American capitalists were working to improve community and help their fellow man, we'd all be happy sappy hippies dancing around the maypole and everything would be wonderful.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
mainly the inherrently selfish part, but if you could also prove that humans have forever been inequal I'd love to hear it as well. Although I'm almost positive that this (the inequality part) has been antropologically proven false. i.e. there was a time when humans lived in groups as equals.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% false. Humans never lived together as equals. Just because they didn't have a government as we see it does NOT meant there was not a hierarchy.
Think about the great apes. Definite hierarchy there too and they don't have a government.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thoe of a certain conservative ideology believe that, but socialists wouldn't. Altruistic behaviour in humans suggest that your statement isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of altruistic. It's easily argued that no act is truly selfless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course seemingly selfless acts are perhaps done as the person doing them expects to gain something in return. That seems as much as an argument for communism as it is against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't arguing for or against communism with this statement. I was saying that your use of altruistic acts to prove people aren't inherently selfish doesn't work.