RE: Capitalism - the Ultimate Religion
October 18, 2010 at 10:36 am
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2010 at 10:56 am by Anomalocaris.)
Some factual corrections:
That was never strictly true in any soviet bloc state or china. In Cambodia, maybe, but combodian's atavistic agrarian communism is the complete reverse of notional fully industrialized Marxist state envisioned by communists elsewhere. In china today it is totally untrue.
Giving all your money to everyone else means you also get a share of all of everyone else's money, so relationship to working at 80 is not clear. In any case, it would be a systemic problem only if you think your contribution was of greater value than your what you got back. Otherwise you'd be happy with the windfall.
The soviet bloc communist states do in fact Give you back far more then the average share of money and perks if your skills and services are highly value, such as if you are a missile engineer, nuclear physicist, or olympic gymnast. In that case your pay can be 100 times average national salary and your perks are many, like cars, chauffeur, gated community living, subsidized luxury goods, even shopping trips abroad, etc.
Retirement benefits are usually excellent relative to general standard of living for most. You are not expected to work at 80. Communism mostly were not deficient in providing good social services relative to available standard of living, nor was it deficient in rewarding it's subjects for skills and services it value.
Where communism fell short in a critical way was in identifying which skills to value, and raising the general standards of living. It's the gap in standard of living with the west that ultimately discredited the soviet union in the eyes of it's citizens, not the burden of its collectivism pre se.
Communists think disagreeing with them is a crime. This is hardly unique to communists. Religious and moral conservatives think disagreeing with them ought to be a crime.
(October 18, 2010 at 6:41 am)Amethyst Wrote: Do you want a government telling you that you HAVE to be in a certain career all your life, regardless if you enjoy it or you're good at it? That's what Communist governments do. They say "you have to be a brick layer" and that's what you are. If that isn't authoritation, I don't know what is. I want a choice in what I do for a living. I want to be able to change jobs if I have a crappy boss, or careers if I decide to do something else for a living.
That was never strictly true in any soviet bloc state or china. In Cambodia, maybe, but combodian's atavistic agrarian communism is the complete reverse of notional fully industrialized Marxist state envisioned by communists elsewhere. In china today it is totally untrue.
(October 18, 2010 at 6:41 am)Amethyst Wrote: Do you want a government telling you that you MUST give ALL of your money to everyone else? In Communism, you don't get to pick a charity. You HAVE to get your wealth redistributed. If that isn't authoritation, I don't know what is. I don't want to be working at Walmart at age 80. I want to actually retire someday. The government redistributing everything I own, would make that not possible. And I don't want to be working at age 80. But if I have to work at age 80, I want a choice in what I can do to make money.
Giving all your money to everyone else means you also get a share of all of everyone else's money, so relationship to working at 80 is not clear. In any case, it would be a systemic problem only if you think your contribution was of greater value than your what you got back. Otherwise you'd be happy with the windfall.
The soviet bloc communist states do in fact Give you back far more then the average share of money and perks if your skills and services are highly value, such as if you are a missile engineer, nuclear physicist, or olympic gymnast. In that case your pay can be 100 times average national salary and your perks are many, like cars, chauffeur, gated community living, subsidized luxury goods, even shopping trips abroad, etc.
Retirement benefits are usually excellent relative to general standard of living for most. You are not expected to work at 80. Communism mostly were not deficient in providing good social services relative to available standard of living, nor was it deficient in rewarding it's subjects for skills and services it value.
Where communism fell short in a critical way was in identifying which skills to value, and raising the general standards of living. It's the gap in standard of living with the west that ultimately discredited the soviet union in the eyes of it's citizens, not the burden of its collectivism pre se.
(October 18, 2010 at 6:41 am)Amethyst Wrote: Communists also kill people who disagree with them. They also kill people based on a lot of other criteria that has nothing to do with whether a person ever actually committed a crime. Do you really want that? My guess is no.
Communists think disagreeing with them is a crime. This is hardly unique to communists. Religious and moral conservatives think disagreeing with them ought to be a crime.
