What do YOU think Communism is?

[Felya]

If a coal company lost a miner, many more people could be found that could perform the task. If they lost a head geologist, the pool from which they would be able to replace the person would be significantly smaller.

You might find this very amusing, check how much a geologist makes. They don't make that much more and both pale in comparison to a CEO, who dictates his own pay, works less hours and performs tasks that can be replaced by workers voting. A CEO is not a position that needs to exist, because the workers can split the salary and than make the choices of how the business should move forward. This in fact is one of the main reasons why Germany in less than 25 years after the wall fell is one of the strongest countries in the world and has one of the highest status of living of middle class. They don't have so many CEOs as we do, but the workers make a hell of a lot more and thus spend a hell of a lot more. The workers make more money, spend more money on products, thus making the rich richer. Amazing system.........

[Feltima]

China is Communist-lite at best, it's certainly not pure communism because that's yet to exist in this world and even marx couldn't figure that one out. In terms of their policy at least economically speaking they've been steady moving to a mixed-market system like everyone else with both free-market elements and government controls. Either way your great bastion of "first world" communism is actually really only a developed/developing country along the coast. Much of the rest of the country is still extremely behind.

More importantly first world doesn't accurately describe the situation. The general terms now are developed, developing, and under developed. Developed being America, Canada and most of Europe while developing includes China and India. Under developed would be countries like Somalia or equally poor and low to no growth countries. First world is a cold-war term used to describe the American/Western European bloc of democratic society, while 2nd world consisted of Russa/communist countries, with third world being those unaffiliated with either.

Makes sense, agreed.

---------- Post added 2011-04-01 at 12:50 AM ----------

You might find this very amusing, check how much a geologist makes. They don't make that much more and both pale in comparison to a CEO, who dictates his own pay, works less hours and performs tasks that can be replaced by workers voting. A CEO is not a position that needs to exist, because the workers can split the salary and than make the choices of how the business should move forward. This in fact is one of the main reasons why Germany in less than 25 years after the wall fell is one of the strongest countries in the world and has one of the highest status of living of middle class. They don't have so many CEOs as we do, but the workers make a hell of a lot more and thus spend a hell of a lot more. The workers make more money, spend more money on products, thus making the rich richer. Amazing system.........

I wanna go to Germany dammit!

[Collegeguy]

It may not be Soviet Russia Communist but they ARE a communist government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China

scroll down to where it talks about their economy

[Feltima]

scroll down to where it talks about their economy

Already did, Shimerra also pointed that out, thanks though, silly me.

[Deleted]

1) How did he obtain this without money?
2) Once you eat these berries your wealth is gone? Give me one example of creating wealth alone. Please nothing ludicrous as saying picking up lint has made you more wealthy than before you picked up the lint.
3) The wast majority of wealth in the US is old money, as in people who inherited. People like Google, Microsoft, face book and apple are extremely rare and do not represent the majority of the very wealthy. The majority of the extremely wealthy are more like the Rockefeller, the Bushes, the DuPont. Fortunes made on raping America's natural resources hundreds of years ago.I am sorry, no all rich people are stupid and dot keep a cushion. They can afford to have a big cushion, that's what makes them rich. The risk occurs before they are rich. The risk is taken by the middle class in order to be rich. Once you are rich, a fall is far less difficult, because being rich means you have something to fall on. What does the worker fall on?
4) That does not answer my question at all. Who in a company dictates how much a CEO makes? It's not a difficult question to answer and it's pretty circular. Who decides on how much profit an owner keeps instead of paying these coal miners who are breaking their backs to make these people a fortune? The fact that there are more coal miners, doesn't somehow make the fact that they are breaking their backs to make a fortune for the owner is fair or just.
5) Now I need you to define wealth, because this is getting ridicules. Something that does not have value, because it is owned by everyone, cannot be wealth. Also, you can not accrue an abundance of anything, when everyone owns the same amount. Without value, wealth is just hording. Look up the meaning of wealth and hording if you still need to 'wtf' that....

I can't believe I'm answering these arguments/question but whatever...

1. WTF does that have to do with anything?
2. Just like when you have money and buy food with it, and then eat it the wealth is gone. Your point?
3. Most of wealth in america is not money. It's the goods that have been produced over years, and the companies that still produce the wealth.
4. Assume it's a rather large mining company. The CEO's job is the most important one (It doesn't matter much if one miner is bad, but if CEO is bad, the company will go into bankrupcy) so they will do anything to get the best CEO they can. There are only few good CEO's on the job market, so many companies will bid against eachother on who gets this CEO. This bidding can go to very high prices, as having one person who earns $1,000,000/year doesn't hurt the company much.
5. Wealth is anything that is of value. There can be little wealth (a potato) or enourmous wealth (100kg gold bar).

Can't really be bothered to write better responses ...

[Victoriaautmors]

communisim still has its uses, if there wasnt USSR the quality of life in the west would be much lower, like it was in the early 20th century and industrial age before that.

"The wast majority of wealth in the US is old money, as in people who inherited. People like Google, Microsoft, face book and apple are extremely rare and do not represent the majority of the very wealthy. The majority of the extremely wealthy are more like the Rockefeller, the Bushes, the DuPont. Fortunes made on raping America's natural resources hundreds of years ago."

This is true, for better or worse social mobility was much much bigger in communism. What this means is someone with a poor background becoming an university professor/CEO or a minister in a goverment was much more common in USSR and other communist countries then it ever was in the west.

Social mobility is a very good thing.

One of the problem is that succes of an individual was determined not by his skills or virtues but by how loyal to the party and its ideals he was ,which mean incompetent idiots who where good at licking communist party ass got into positions of power and effed up the economy.

[Felya]

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs?

They didn't do it alone. We, the people or the working class, bought windows and made Bill Gates fortune. If the middle class could not afford PCs or Windows, Bill gates would have failed. Without the middle class, Bill Gates would not have made a penny. Same goes for Steve Jobs... Warren Buffet, is an investor, who would not be wealthy if not for what he invested in. He literally needed something to invest in to be rich. None of them did it alone.

Is this a serious question? I mean, you really don't know the answer? It's the shareholders. Duh. They vote in a chairman who can decide who will be CEO. He makes that much more than a coal miner because the company thinks by having him they gain profit. Example, if we retain this CEO who will do a good job and maybe make us 50 million, but this other company wants him... how much should we compete to pay for him. The answer is simple, 49,999,999. That's what determines it. Do you think there is a secret cabal out there randomly giving people money so that they stay rich? Are people that delusional to think a company would knowingly take a loss ( besides the fact that for a corporation that's technically against the law) and make profit?

No, there is no secret cabal, but the CEO is who dictates how much they get payed. They are also the once who dictate how much everyone else gets payed. It is in their best interest to pay the self's the most, even if it costs employees jobs. In the end, just like with Enron and other failures recently, these very same CEOs are the once keeping records of their performance. In the end, the CEO still has the 49million and the worker in on the unemployment line. All this really happened... recently too...

[Deleted]

You might find this very amusing, check how much a geologist makes. They don't make that much more and both pale in comparison to a CEO, who dictates his own pay, works less hours and performs tasks that can be replaced by workers voting. A CEO is not a position that needs to exist, because the workers can split the salary and than make the choices of how the business should move forward. This in fact is one of the main reasons why Germany in less than 25 years after the wall fell is one of the strongest countries in the world and has one of the highest status of living of middle class. They don't have so many CEOs as we do, but the workers make a hell of a lot more and thus spend a hell of a lot more. The workers make more money, spend more money on products, thus making the rich richer. Amazing system.........

You really are the stereotype of a communist now aren't ya? Why do you think companies have CEO's? Oh yeah, because they're vital in leading the company. If they weren't, the stockholders wouldn't pay them huge salaries.

---------- Post added 2011-04-01 at 01:03 AM ----------

communisim still has its uses, if there wasnt USSR the quality of life in the west would be much lower, like it was in the early 20th century and industrial age before that.

I'd love to hear the explaination how USSR increased the quality of life in the west. All we did was to build shitloads of military equipment that doesn't improve our life one bit.

[Felya]

Can't really be bothered to write better responses ...

Than don't bother responding, but thanks for creating an excuse for the rubbish you keep posting. Thanks for the effort...

[TurdFerguson]

Because the republicans won't screw over the little guy at all right? I don't care if someone isn't helping me out of altruism, if they help me then great, I could care less why they did it. The reality is, this "I got mine, get your own" mentality is killing the country. We are literally cannibalizing our population by screwing each other over a buck. You may end up paying for some dead beat douche who shoots up dope all day but you also make sure that teen that could be the next Einstein doesn't die because he didn't wait till the last minute to get his tuberculosis checked out.

Libertarians like to denounce anything remotely socialist but there is one thing many of those evil socialists got right. They figured out that if you take care of your countrymen, your country will prosper. If you leave them to blow in the wind, they will kill each other and therefore the country. After all, what is a country? It's people, and if we don't realize that this selfish mentality that has swept the nation is stifling the country then the American empire will without a doubt fall. However, if we all can grit our teeth, deal with sharing a little bit of everyone's wealth by paying more than our current paltry tax rates (Taxes have never been this low in US history, we haven't been overtaxed in decades) then maybe we can get back on track. The top 1% of the US have more wealth than 50% of the nation yet we tax the poor folks heavier than we do the rich folks. Seems pretty backwards to me.[COLOR="red"]

I'm not saying let them blow in the wind, I was referring to the fact that no one had any say in the matter. Regardless, it's not like people can't invest for periods of down time. A country does need social programs, obviously. That being said, I always find it amusing that the same party that says "oh illegal immigrants take the jobs no one else wants" but at the same time hands out free healthcare to the citizens too lazy to do them. Kind of ridiculous huh? Yeah, we're hungry... but not THAT hungry... right?
The top 1% comment I hear all the time irks me because it's complete bullshit. We are taking their salaries more than the lower class, don't be ridiculous, the reason that stat gets brought up is because they're including the low taxing on investments in the mix ( which is a good thing!) . That means the money is reinvested into the economy into businesses, not poured out from a dump-truck into a poor neighbourhood where you probably will get no return on it. This translates overall into more jobs, of course, people have to be willing to do them.

[Felya]

Why do you think companies have CEO's? Oh yeah, because they're vital in leading the company. If they weren't, the stockholders wouldn't pay them huge salaries.

We have CEO's because corporations need financial leaders. The reason why a CEO makes as much as they do, because they dictate their own salary. The stockholders do not pay their salaries or dictate how much they get payed. They are not vital to the company, the worker is much more vital, but does not have a voice as loud. That's why corporations hate unions, they shift power closer to those who deserve it.

[TurdFerguson]

They didn't do it alone. We, the people or the working class, bought windows and made Bill Gates fortune. If the middle class could not afford PCs or Windows, Bill gates would have failed. Without the middle class, Bill Gates would not have made a penny. Same goes for Steve Jobs... Warren Buffet, is an investor, who would not be wealthy if not for what he invested in. He literally needed something to invest in to be rich. None of them did it alone.

No, there is no secret cabal, but the CEO is who dictates how much they get payed. They are also the once who dictate how much everyone else gets payed. It is in their best interest to pay the self's the most, even if it costs employees jobs. In the end, just like with Enron and other failures recently, these very same CEOs are the once keeping records of their performance. In the end, the CEO still has the 49million and the worker in on the unemployment line. All this really happened... recently too...

They did do it alone, if Windows were too expensive for people to afford then they would have charged less. It's called supply and demand, again, pretty damned simple concept. Warren Buffet was just smart, he saw opportunities and seized them, he doesn't owe you a damned thing. If he wants to spread his wealth, cool, since it is a good thing to do , but I don't get why you feel you have a right to take it because you may have bought a product from one of the companies Berkshire owns.

No, a CEO of a corporation does not dictate how much he gets paid unless he is also the majority share holder, meaning it's essentially his company. Otherwise , it's the shareholders, which is basically just people. CEO's cannot legally alter their performance records in terms of the companies performance anyway, as that would be against the law. We're not talking about criminal aspects here, that's a whole different topic.

Than don't bother responding, but thanks for creating an excuse for the rubbish you keep posting. Thanks for the effort...

I'm sorry, but he makes more sense than you... It seems you are unwilling to accept supply and demand or are interested in the workings of a corporation, rather, you'd rather insult something you don't understand.

[shimerra]

You might find this very amusing, check how much a geologist makes. They don't make that much more and both pale in comparison to a CEO, who dictates his own pay, works less hours and performs tasks that can be replaced by workers voting. A CEO is not a position that needs to exist, because the workers can split the salary and than make the choices of how the business should move forward. This in fact is one of the main reasons why Germany in less than 25 years after the wall fell is one of the strongest countries in the world and has one of the highest status of living of middle class. They don't have so many CEOs as we do, but the workers make a hell of a lot more and thus spend a hell of a lot more. The workers make more money, spend more money on products, thus making the rich richer. Amazing system.........

Oh there's plenty wrong with American corporate culture, but your understanding of why it's become the way it is is certainly incomplete. CEO's typically don't get to arbitrarily determine their own compensation(or at least most don't especially in the case of publicly owned companies), and this may come as a surprise to you but I don't think even if you collectively gathered every stewardess and airline pilot that just hoping workers combine together to make the choices is going to end well. I'm an economics major and one of my areas of interest just so happens to be CEO compensation, and there's quite a few cases where some CEO's are actually paid more than they contribute to the company if you ascribe all or most enhancements to growth to their leadership. It's also interesting that when the government mandated essentially the listing of CEO compensation in an attempt to shame them into more reasonable salaries CEO compensation sky rocketed instead.

I'm also highly suspect of the conclusions you've drawn. You say that Germany has less CEOs, argue that the Middle class is better off or at the very least progressing better than the American middle class because of this, and draw the conclusion that the position is therefore irrelevant and useless. It's more likely that Germany having less companies than America has more to do with it. Their system is not so different from ours at least fundamentally. America has arrived with a unique set of problems regarding the levels of ceo compensation and the legitimacy of our tax system because of political problems and a poorly designed tax system, not because the position of CEO itself is economically stupid or even because companies pay them too much.

[Victoriaautmors]

You really are the stereotype of a communist now aren't ya? Why do you think companies have CEO's? Oh yeah, because they're vital in leading the company. If they weren't, the stockholders wouldn't pay them huge salaries.

---------- Post added 2011-04-01 at 01:03 AM ----------

I'd love to hear the explaination how USSR increased the quality of life in the west. All we did was to build shitloads of military equipment that doesn't improve our life one bit.

1. Fear of a communist uprising after the 1917 revolution forced wester elites to improve rights of workers and social policies in order to keep the population happy and non-revolutionary.
2. Fear of a communist invasion boosted weapon production as you say and weapon manufacturin was one of the main engines of USA economic developement since WW1.

[Felya]

The middle class is a majority and CEO's are not middle class. The workers are the middle class and know what the middle class wants far more than a CEO would. Now why can't employees gather and dictate the direction of the company instead of the CEO? You can than spend the exorbitant salary of the CEO, on these workers, making the middle class be able to afford more of the crap your corporation is selling. Instead, CEO's get bonuses, while laying off employees. Those share holders you guys keep bringing up, did not seem to be very happy with that recently.

[LonesomeCrowdedWest-]

Something that looks good on paper, but hasn't been properly executed.
For the most part I think most westerners have a biased opinion of communism.

[dsk792]

i just wanted to say that i spent my senior year of High School in the US (I'm from Serbia, part of ex Yugoslavia which was communist after WW2) and the kids there are just being taught wrong about communist. But nvm, 90% of people over there are so dumb
Anyway there are few facts i dont agree with about communism but still imo communism > capitalism..
Stupid selfish US under jewish control stealing money from other countries. You have learned a lot from WW2 experience
I dont wanna go any further into hate towards the US so...

[Deleted]

I think that the general utopic idea of communism sounds great, but is, well, utopic, because of human greed.

Since this has been said on page one already, I'm just gonna add to the conversation that in Civ2, communism was the BEST (no corruption *cough*)

edit: *actively not deeming dsk792's post worth commenting*

[Victoriaautmors]

Something that looks good on paper, but hasn't been properly executed.
For the most part I think most westerners have a biased opinion of communism.

First of all communism was never implemented, only socialism. Basicly communism is impossible to implement in this point of human evolution and Marx himself said that.

Socialism was not as bad as people think, Yugoslavia was a mixed socialist/capitalist economy and our standard was pretty nice at that time. Besides this if there was not 1917 revolution Nazis would probably win WW2 and/or we would live in super-cruel hiper liberal capitalism,something like late 19th century Britain.

[TurdFerguson]

The middle class is a majority and CEO's are not middle class. The workers are the middle class and know what the middle class wants far more than a CEO would. Now why can't employees gather and dictate the direction of the company instead of the CEO? You can than spend the exorbitant salary of the CEO, on these workers, making the middle class be able to afford more of the crap your corporation is selling. Instead, CEO's get bonuses, while laying off employees. Those share holders you guys keep bringing up, did not seem to be very happy with that recently.

You know, you're free to do that then. Go gather up a couple of hundred people and go buy shares in the company so that your group has the majority. Now, you'll want to elect someone to make decisions on your group's behalf since you can't have 300 people shouting over each other. Now that guy will have to hire someone to run the day to day operations since he will be in charge of taking your group's input on the direction of the company ( via votes , basically if he f-'s up, you vote him out). Now he comes back and tells you there is this guy that can make you 50 million dollars, you can hire someone else, but you're not sure. Bear in mind, you sold your house to buy these shares, guess who you're going to hire, the sure thing, that's who... who also costs 49 million.

Now you were saying?