NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, all. This is the second part of the "When choosing a career..." survey thingy. The first part can be found here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450910

Anyway, the reason that I started this thread is to make a political point, so I will get to that.

When choosing a career, which is more important to you? Order these in the order that they are most important to you, from most to least important. Then answer the poll question. Thank you.

Job security.
Doing something that means something to you.
Making enough to live comfortably.
Doing what you do well.
Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)
Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.
Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.
Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.
Doing something that excites you.

Ahhhhh.... What do you mean, "you make enough"?

1. Doing something that means something to you.
2. Doing what you do well.
3. Making enough to live comfortably.
4. Job security.
5. Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
6. Doing something that excites you.
--those are the important ones to me, the rest are kinda moot--
7. Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
8. Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)
9. Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.
10. Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.
11. Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.


oh and i changed my mind from what i voted for on the poll.


what is this political message then? :confused:

Already two votes!!! Oh yeah!!!

I like the colours of the polls, don't you, gees?

what is this political message then? :confused:
I will explain it when I have enough responses.

I will explain it when I have enough responses.
Then we shall wait a very long time...

Then we shall wait a very long time...
Lol. Either that or when the thread dies because no one is posting in it and I post the reason as a way of bumping the thread. :)

I voted for doing something I want to do.

My preferred choice would have been something i enjoy doing which includes being pushed/challenged as well as benefiting mankind.

1. Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
2. Doing something that means something to you.
3. Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.
4. Doing what you do well.
5. Making enough to live comfortably.
6. Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
7. Doing something that excites you
8. Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.
9. Job security.
10. Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)
11. Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.

I am thinking of moving out of my current position and looking outside the company for new work. So here is how I rate the order of things...


1) Doing something that means something to you.
2) Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.
3) Making enough to live comfortably.
4) Job security.
5) Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.
6) Doing what you do well. (and constantly learning new things).
7) Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
8) Doing something that excites you.
9) Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving. (although I think this should be part of #6)
10) Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
11) Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)

People may not like that I have listed "Doing something that makes the world a better place..." so low on the list, but as Ayn Rand once wrote...there are virtues of selfishness. I believe that my family and I come first, the rest of the world next.

Personally, my main priority would be making enough to feed myself, house myself etc. Not necessarily "making enough to live comfortably" but money does come into it.

After that:

Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
Doing something that means something to you.
Doing something that excites you.
Doing what you do well.
Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
Job security.
Making enough to live comfortably.
Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.
Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.
Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)
Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.

what about adding an "doing something that changes or isn't necessarily the same every day" option? or some wording to that effect.

that would be in my top 3 i'm sure - i'd hate a job that wasn't fast-paced or where i had to do the same thing day-in, day-out.

what about adding an "doing something that changes or isn't necessarily the same every day" option? or some wording to that effect.

that would be in my top 3 i'm sure - i'd hate a job that wasn't fast-paced or where i had to do the same thing day-in, day-out.

Agreed. Definitly. Strangely, I'm just having a conversation about liking change.

what about adding an "doing something that changes or isn't necessarily the same every day" option? or some wording to that effect.I know it's not exactly the same thing, but perhaps "doing something that challenges you" might include this as part of it?

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but perhaps "doing something that challenges you" might include this as part of it?
nah its not really the same thing... i suppose one kind of leads to the other but they are definatley different things. sorry to be a pain in the arse :P


whats this political thingy then? dying to know here ;)

Doing something that excites you
Doing something that means something to you.
Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way
Making enough to live comfortably
Doing what you do well
Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.
Job Security
Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch
Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)
Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich
Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving

An interesting note is how several people have put benefits way too far down the list. Either these people have yet to enter the work force or they live in a country with free or ridiculously cheap health care. If you dont have health insurance in the US and your kid gets sick, its not a $20 deductible at the doctor's office, its $60+, and if it's one of those doctors who likes to do an x-ray and bloodwork just in case this can easily ascend to $200+. Then, its not $20 for the medications, its $300+. Your kid gets sick once and its easily $500 down the drain for a typical bronchitis/sinusitis combo. If you have more than one kid, expect each one to get sick around the same time, therefore doubling or tripling the cost. Oh, and pray they never have to get any X-rays or other diagnostics done in a hospital, that's easily $1,000+ for one visit. Also, pray their appendix never has to be removed, for the cost of that can ascend to $89,000+

Either these people have yet to enter the work force or they live in a country with free or ridiculously cheap health care.
NHS right here buddy


but like they said on morgan spurlock's (SP?) 30 days programme, in the US you don't have healthcare, you got sickcare (for those who don't pay through the nose). the NHS is half decent at providing preventative treatment, too

How interesting. Some of the more ardent libertarian capitalists didn't rate it as high as I thought they would. I suppose either they're libertarian more for social reasons, or the careers that they do for the other reasons also happen to be lucrative.

Damn, I was hoping that this thread would get at least a few more votes before I have to reveal the reason why I made it. Oh, well, here goes.

The reason that I made this thread was to take a small sample to test a hypothesis: how significant is the profit motive to human behavior?

Capitalists tend to argue that the profit motive is paramount in human behavior, that people are naturally greedy, that they will only look out for themselves, etc.

I, as a communist, argue that if people have enough to live comfortably, can afford health care, child care, can do what they would enjoy doing, can receive praise from their coworkers, etc., that getting rich wouldn't be as much an incentive as the capitalists would say.

So I figured I'd take a poll and ask people what's most important to them. Unfortunately, the poll is even less representative than I thought it would be...lol.

Bump due to thread name change.

I, as a communist, argue that if people have enough to live comfortably, can afford health care, child care, can do what they would enjoy doing, can receive praise from their coworkers, etc., that getting rich wouldn't be as much an incentive as the capitalists would say.

i agree, as a communist.


so any results from this hypothesis yet?

so any results from this hypothesis yet?Not yet, waiting for more people to answer, which is most of the reason why I requested the name change...figured the buzzwords would draw people. ;)

Trying to strike a balance here:

1. Doing something that means something to you.
2. Job security.
3. Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
3. Doing something that means something to you.
4. Making enough to live comfortably.
5. Doing what you do well.
6. Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
7. Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.
8. Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.
9. Doing something that excites you
10. Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.
11. Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)

Damn, I was hoping that this thread would get at least a few more votes before I have to reveal the reason why I made it. Oh, well, here goes.

The reason that I made this thread was to take a small sample to test a hypothesis: how significant is the profit motive to human behavior?

Capitalists tend to argue that the profit motive is paramount in human behavior, that people are naturally greedy, that they will only look out for themselves, etc.

I, as a communist, argue that if people have enough to live comfortably, can afford health care, child care, can do what they would enjoy doing, can receive praise from their coworkers, etc., that getting rich wouldn't be as much an incentive as the capitalists would say.

So I figured I'd take a poll and ask people what's most important to them. Unfortunately, the poll is even less representative than I thought it would be...lol.


I think that you are missing one point. What some people call the profit motive i see as a system of risk and reward. Starting your own business is a huge risk, but can have great rewards if you find the right market. Its the longest hardest job that anyone will do, but it if you enjoy what you are doing, it seems a lot easier.

Some thing else that I think that you're over looking is that at most jobs, your pay is repersentitive of the amount of responsiblity that you have. I make alot more than the national average, and live in an area where the cost of living is quite low. I love my job, but would find a job with less responsibility if ny pay was cut in half. I've been in the work force for awhile, and most people won't list money as the first priority in thier life.

I think that you are missing one point. What some people call the profit motive i see as a system of risk and reward. Starting your own business is a huge risk, but can have great rewards if you find the right market. Its the longest hardest job that anyone will do, but it if you enjoy what you are doing, it seems a lot easier.Oh, I agree with you here, but are you implying that the reward is potentially making a lot of money from your own business, or is the reward simply enjoying what you're doing for a living?

Some thing else that I think that you're over looking is that at most jobs, your pay is repersentitive of the amount of responsiblity that you have. I make alot more than the national average, and live in an area where the cost of living is quite low. I love my job, but would find a job with less responsibility if ny pay was cut in half. I've been in the work force for awhile, and most people won't list money as the first priority in thier life.Then why do capitalists highly rate the effect of money on the reason that people choose their careers?

Then why do capitalists highly rate the effect of money on the reason that people choose their careers?

From my understanding, it's because all of the other options on your list require money. A job that can afford to give you more money can also afford to give you a good experience, while one that can't doesn't. Prices are simply indicators of general quality.

From my understanding, it's because all of the other options on your list require money. A job that can afford to give you more money can also afford to give you a good experience, while one that can't doesn't. Prices are simply indicators of general quality.I don't know about that, if you Think of the most fulfilling careers, they probably aren't the most lucrative.

My first four are:

Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
Doing something that means something to you.
Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.

I voted for the last option.

Oh, I agree with you here, but are you implying that the reward is potentially making a lot of money from your own business, or is the reward simply enjoying what you're doing for a living?

Then why do capitalists highly rate the effect of money on the reason that people choose their careers?

To answer your first question, yes to both.

For your second, money is the most common measure of sucess that we have. Getting a job that can provide you with disposible income helps you pursue other intrests that you may have, and generally makes you life easier.

Money isn't the only driving factor, but is a large one.

To answer your first question, yes to both.

For your second, money is the most common measure of sucess that we have. Getting a job that can provide you with disposible income helps you pursue other intrests that you may have, and generally makes you life easier.

Money isn't the only driving factor, but is a large one.As far as money being a measure of success, I'd agree, but that's because of the way that society is structured. Society is structured in such a way that people covet money, if society were structured in other ways, there would be other measures of success.

As far as money being a measure of success, I'd agree, but that's because of the way that society is structured. Society is structured in such a way that people covet money, if society were structured in other ways, there would be other measures of success.

If society was structured differnently, it would still have a system of risks and rewards, and incentives for preformance and responsibilities. The incentives of more money and a better life is why a lot of people work and go to school at the same time. Its a lot of stress, and far harder than just doing one or the other, but its the only way that some people can do it. Those that make it usually have a far better perspective when they hit the job market.

If the financial incentive is removed, there is almost no reason to take a high stress, or highly demanding job, even with the praise of your peers.

If the financial incentive is removed, there is almost no reason to take a high stress, or highly demanding job, even with the praise of your peers.There are incentives other than the praise of your peers and money...but I wouldn't underestimate the value of getting respect from the people around you.

With that said, perhaps most of the high stress and highly demanding jobs could be eliminated in the restructuring of society.

With that said, perhaps most of the high stress and highly demanding jobs could be eliminated in the restructuring of society.

No, I think the stuff they do is too valuable to get rid of...

No, I think the stuff they do is too valuable to get rid of...Doctors, yes, they're too valuable. Managers...not so much.

Doctors, yes, they're too valuable. Managers...not so much.

I guess somebody has to be able to manage things; it would be tough to keep the economy coherent if work wasn't directed from the top down.

I guess somebody has to be able to manage things; it would be tough to keep the economy coherent if work wasn't directed from the top down.It could be directed from the bottom up.

It could be directed from the bottom up.

Theoretically that could work, but it would have to be on a smaller scale or the logistics would be overwhelming. It would require a total overhaul of the entire concept of economics to say the least.

Theoretically that could work, but it would have to be on a smaller scale or the logistics would be overwhelming. It would require a total overhaul of the entire concept of economics to say the least.
It would certainly be a smaller scale than the 300million + people or so people in the U.S., but I think it could be done with 10,000 or so.
Overhauling economics is the whole point.

No, I think the stuff they do is too valuable to get rid of...
many of the most stressful jobs are made stressful precisely because of the profit motive.

life is made stressful for others by others' profit motive creating externalities. such as banks.


many other jobs that are stressful (such as doctors as already mentioned), many people do for a genuine drive to help or cure others... not necessarily the profit motvie (its just a nice bonus today!)



lift your head up from the society and norms you've been indoctrinated to believe in and believe are the only thing that can possibly work, and you can start to see all sorts of weird and wacky alternatives.


one of the reasons "society" or community (as per communitarian, like what i believe in) is so important in most communist or 'radical' ways of thinking is that the profit motive does have to be replaced with something, and the best thing (imho) is a drive - a motive - to better all of humanity, to better your society or local community... that, if profit, and the problems money brings, were out of the way, would be a powerful uniting force to incentivise people. i think.


edit:
It could be directed from the bottom up.
hooray! thats what the UDCP is all about :)

a complete restructuring of economic systems, incentives and understanding is perfectly possible on any scale, given time.

the problem is idealist policies and goals so easily get derailed by realists whenever a problem pops up :(

Capitalists tend to argue that the profit motive is paramount in human behavior, that people are naturally greedy, that they will only look out for themselves, etc.

I, as a communist, argue that if people have enough to live comfortably, can afford health care, child care, can do what they would enjoy doing, can receive praise from their coworkers, etc., that getting rich wouldn't be as much an incentive as the capitalists would say.
Well, you're oversimplifying things a bit. Sure, I'd be happy if I had enough money to live comfortably and generally do as I please. But that isn't what communism is offering. Your communism would require my relinquishment of private property, and my work for the greater good, if you are the sort of communist I am thinking of. I'm not sure I'd like that very much.

I put profits and whatnot as first, although really it's not for me. Just to piss off the commies on the board :D .

Really I would consider myself wealthy if the job I had enabled me to raise my family and have a nice house with my future wife.....

Ok, in reality whatever God gives me.

lift your head up from the society and norms you've been indoctrinated to believe in and believe are the only thing that can possibly work, and you can start to see all sorts of weird and wacky alternatives.
Except that the "norms" we're "indoctrinated" towards are primarily [with a few exceptions--thank god most of them are in the Constitution: if they weren't this debate probably wouldn't even be legal] the products of your philosophical ancestors [Kant, Hegel, Rawls] and not ours [Aristotle, Locke, Rand]. Modern academia does not tend to favor the philosophical ideas professed by the latter, eschewing them for the most part in favor of the intellectual vacuity which appears throught the works of the former.

"Wierd" and "wacky" alternatives do not mean "correct" ones solely on their differences alone. Like any other philosophical premise, yours fail on its own flaws; not on the fact that it is [or isn't] the "norm," or what-have you. For years now, philosophers have gotten jobs by teaching that philosophy doesn't exist--that the mind doesn't exist either and that any attempts on our part to smuggle in any semblance of either is utterly useless. For years now philosophers have been trying to tell us that it's impossible to think; that we can't know anything and that the products of the intellect are by their very nature inferior to the products of the soul or the spirit or the heart or whatever the hell you guys are calling it this particular decade.

It's funny to see so many agents of today's modern Left plead for "non-conformity" while demanding conformity with the very basis of their moral arguments and "philosohpical" pretexts.

one of the reasons "society" or community (as per communitarian, like what i believe in) is so important in most communist or 'radical' ways of thinking is that the profit motive does have to be replaced with something, and the best thing (imho) is a drive - a motive - to better all of humanity, to better your society or local community... that, if profit, and the problems money brings, were out of the way, would be a powerful uniting force to incentivise people. i think.
You keep thinking--I know otherwise.

The proft motive--when acheived as it is meant to be acheived, by rational, and non-coercive means acheives both of these goals--for proof of this one only needs to witness the cultural advances brought to us by various inventions--especially those that just so happened to occur during and after the Industrial Revolution. The furtherance of technology and the encouragement of its impetus--ideas, thought, and action is the single greatest cause you can give for the betterment of one's society or "local community."

Production and innovation are man's highest acheivements, since not even the 'sacrifices' and redistribution you advocate would be possible without them. You cannot evade this even within the context of your own morality, a fact which should embarras you a bit more than it probably does [since you can no longer claim that sacrifice or charity is man's noblest acheivment].

1Making enough to live comfortably.

2Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.

3Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.

4Job security.

5Doing what you do well.

6Doing something that means something to you.

7Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.

8Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.

9Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.

10Doing something that excites you

11Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)

My family is the most important thing to me, my "work life" would be around the 50th in importance if I had to rank things. I stay home now, but when I do work (I have a seasonal job) the only reason I work is to better my family situation. My grandfather gave me very good advice when I was growing up "you should make enough money to have everything you need and most of what you want, if you don't either work harder or want less"
I ended up working 80 hours a week for 2 years, because I wanted too much. Now, I stay home, because the things that I want money can't buy. My husband works, we don't have as much money, but we have everything we need and most of what we want, and who really would need or want any more than that?
;)

one of the reasons "society" or community (as per communitarian, like what i believe in) is so important in most communist or 'radical' ways of thinking is that the profit motive does have to be replaced with something, and the best thing (imho) is a drive - a motive - to better all of humanity, to better your society or local community... that, if profit, and the problems money brings, were out of the way, would be a powerful uniting force to incentivise people. i think.I agree, though I think that this part is emphasized a little too much. Altruism is nice, but it's also true that by helping the community, you help yourself.
A basic way of explaining this is to take a standard critique of communism: that you work for everyone else, and to correct it, so that it says:
Yes, you work for everyone else, but everyone else also works for you.

Well, you're oversimplifying things a bit. Sure, I'd be happy if I had enough money to live comfortably and generally do as I please. But that isn't what communism is offering. Your communism would require my relinquishment of private property, and my work for the greater good, if you are the sort of communist I am thinking of. I'm not sure I'd like that very much.
Well, there is a difference between private property and personal property, so while I would say that the communism I advocate would have you give up private property, you would still have personal property. The difference between them is that you use personal property, but you don't use private property. The reason for this is that use is the only justification of property ownership.
But to get to your other point, yes, communism is offering that you have enough money to live comfortably and generally do as you please.

Making enough to live comfortably.
Doing something that means something to you.
Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
Doing something that excites you

In that order, none of the others matter to me.

I mainly only wish to be able to feed myself and enjoy some moderate entertainment. As for the job, I prefer it to be something that I enjoy, and I would enjoy a job for the the final two reasons.

I will now read to find out what political point JB is trying to make. Expect a reply.

Although I'm not a communist, "being rich" would be at the very bottom of my list.

Damn, I was hoping that this thread would get at least a few more votes before I have to reveal the reason why I made it. Oh, well, here goes.

The reason that I made this thread was to take a small sample to test a hypothesis: how significant is the profit motive to human behavior?

Capitalists tend to argue that the profit motive is paramount in human behavior, that people are naturally greedy, that they will only look out for themselves, etc.

I, as a communist, argue that if people have enough to live comfortably, can afford health care, child care, can do what they would enjoy doing, can receive praise from their coworkers, etc., that getting rich wouldn't be as much an incentive as the capitalists would say.

So I figured I'd take a poll and ask people what's most important to them. Unfortunately, the poll is even less representative than I thought it would be...lol.

I believe that you are correct in saying that work motivation decreases upon achieving a comfortable wage. Most people would rather survive at a lower middle class full-time wage, than to add a second part time job and become upper-middle class. This has to do with marginal benefits and costs of labor, and in no way impugns the profit motive. The profit motive deals in utility and values that extends past monetary worth.

I believe that you are correct in saying that work motivation decreases upon achieving a comfortable wage. Most people would rather survive at a lower middle class full-time wage, than to add a second part time job and become upper-middle class. This has to do with marginal benefits and costs of labor, and in no way impugns the profit motive. The profit motive deals in utility and values that extends past monetary worth.What utility and values might there be that communism doesn't deal with on some basis, other than the concept of private property ownership?

I put profits and whatnot as first, although really it's not for me. Just to piss off the commies on the board :D .

Really I would consider myself wealthy if the job I had enabled me to raise my family and have a nice house with my future wife.....

Ok, in reality whatever God gives me.
Yeah I agree. Sounds like you want to live comfortably, not extravagantly, which is sensible to me. There's no need to try to imitate Hollyweird stars.

I realize that this survey isn't exactly scientific, because the population of NationStates isn't exactly a random sampling of people, but let's imagine that it is. Over a third of the people who answered the survey said that they were somewhat unconcerned or not at all concerned with being rich when they choose a career. Imagine if this could be extrapolated to the population at large. That's 1/3 of people who just want to live comfortably.

I realize that this survey isn't exactly scientific, because the population of NationStates isn't exactly a random sampling of people, but let's imagine that it is. Over a third of the people who answered the survey said that they were somewhat unconcerned or not at all concerned with being rich when they choose a career. Imagine if this could be extrapolated to the population at large. That's 1/3 of people who just want to live comfortably.
I want to live comfortably but I am a capatilst. I don't want to be rich now, but would like to have the freedom to be rich in the future. If I work harder, faster, and smarter than the guy down the road I think I deserve the right to make more money.

What utility and values might there be that communism doesn't deal with on some basis, other than the concept of private property ownership?

None, at least that I can think of right now, however the only positive factor in the profit motive is money, while all other factors a negative factors.

For example, when there is a need for money, the profit motive is high. Their labor has great marginal utility, as working provides them a lot of benefit.

However, all the other personal values, family, hobbies, laziness, etc., are negative factors, as they decrease the marginal utility of labor by increasing its opportunity costs. If one works, they cannot spend time with the family, watching sports, etc., so they don't work.

So, in capitalism the profit motive is not completely governed by money (the positive factor), people don't want to work 18 hours a day, as the cost of losing personal time outweighs the benefits of the wages of those extra hours.

However, in communism, the profit motive is completely governed by the negative factors. People don't want to work at all, as the cost of losing personal time far outweighs the benefit of working.

I want to live comfortably but I am a capatilst. I don't want to be rich now, but would like to have the freedom to be rich in the future. If I work harder, faster, and smarter than the guy down the road I think I deserve the right to make more money.So then you want to live more than comfortably. Which is fine, mind you, but you're not going to be completely content with a comfortable living, whereas others would be content with a comfortable living.

None, at least that I can think of right now, however the only positive factor in the profit motive is money, while all other factors a negative factors.

For example, when there is a need for money, the profit motive is high. Their labor has great marginal utility, as working provides them a lot of benefit.

However, all the other personal values, family, hobbies, laziness, etc., are negative factors, as they decrease the marginal utility of labor by increasing its opportunity costs. If one works, they cannot spend time with the family, watching sports, etc., so they don't work.

So, in capitalism the profit motive is not completely governed by money (the positive factor), people don't want to work 18 hours a day, as the cost of losing personal time outweighs the benefits of the wages of those extra hours.

However, in communism, the profit motive is completely governed by the negative factors. People don't want to work at all, as the cost of losing personal time far outweighs the benefit of working.I hadn't heard this critique before. But I don't think I quite agree, there are plenty of other positive factors in both communism and capitalism, such as doing meaningful work, and other things from the list on the first page. I believe that not only does communism give a greater chance to have a comfortable living, but it also gives a greater chance of doing what you want to do most, and doing what will be most valued by others most, etc.

I, as a communist, argue that if people have enough to live comfortably, can afford health care, child care, can do what they would enjoy doing, can receive praise from their coworkers, etc., that getting rich wouldn't be as much an incentive as the capitalists would say.

I think you have a problem in the structure of this question if you are trying to make such a point. When choosing a career, I look more toward the ability to live comfortably while doing something I enjoy. You and I would disagree whether that is more likely in a capitalist or communist economy, but that's irrelevant because there is a second consideration.

I also highly value the opportunity and the encouragement, should I come up with a really great idea, to go out and try to make that idea a reality. Here capitalism allows for a higher level of reward to the risk put forth. Both systems, if placed within a government that allows a degree of freedom, give the same opportunity for such benefits as doing what you like, getting praise for accomplishments, etc., but capitalism gives the added benefit of being able to accrue greater wealth and having a better lifestyle.

I hadn't heard this critique before. But I don't think I quite agree, there are plenty of other positive factors in both communism and capitalism, such as doing meaningful work, and other things from the list on the first page. I believe that not only does communism give a greater chance to have a comfortable living, but it also gives a greater chance of doing what you want to do most, and doing what will be most valued by others most, etc.
Looks like someone could stand to do some back-to back comparisons of the size of the middle class in the United States to the middle class in any slightly more left-wing oriented country on the planet--or, for that matter, any civilization in the course of human history. I think the numbers should speak for themselves but in case you need a nudge in the right direction, I'll go ahead and point out that the United States has the largest middle class that has ever existed throughout the course of human history. Most of the other economic powers in the world are left-leaning, and the only two nations that bother to call themselves "Communist" anymore are so ridiculously impoverished they make America's poverty figures look like an atom; at least percentage-wise.

"Greater chance" my ass. Perhaps your statement would hold true in a perfect world, but not this one. Communists frequently speak of getting rid of the "profit motive" which means, in effect, forcing a radical change in our basic biological imperative. Asking the human race to stop wanting to earn a better life for themselves (instead preferring they work to earn a better life for their neighbor) is like asking beavers to stop building dams or asking flying squirrles to cut off their patagium because it's just "not right."

We'd probably shudder if we heard stories of birds pulling out the feathers of their young and shoving them out of the nest; or of lions that systematically declawed their young and sent them to fend for themselves on the plains. But the fact of the matter is that Communism does precisely that to humans; preaching that any desire to think and profit off the product of said thought is inherently evil and any desire to profit off one's own work is immoral. They propose that we earn our living by discouraging the very means that allow us to earn said living in the first place: the power of our thought and the desire to turn that thought into something better for ourselves. Man survives by producing for himself; and Communists think we shouldn't do that anymore. It's nothing more than glorified death-worship.

This is great!!! Although the poll shows that most people treat money as the second most important thing, everybody say "beeing rich is at the bottom of my list" and so on. This makes it easier for me to take the well payed jobs :D :D :D Woot

But seriously communism ruins a country, in Poland when there was communism life was simple, don't do anything and get some amount of money... Ofcourse I don't have to explain how this not working affects the country...

I also highly value the opportunity and the encouragement, should I come up with a really great idea, to go out and try to make that idea a reality. Here capitalism allows for a higher level of reward to the risk put forth. Why should there be risk put forth at all? Wouldn't there be more ideas put out there if the risk of failure was removed?

Looks like someone could stand to do some back-to back comparisons of the size of the middle class in the United States to the middle class in any slightly more left-wing oriented country on the planet--or, for that matter, any civilization in the course of human history. I think the numbers should speak for themselves but in case you need a nudge in the right direction, I'll go ahead and point out that the United States has the largest middle class that has ever existed throughout the course of human history. Are you referring to percentages of the population, or simply the number of people? If it's the latter, then naturally this would be the case, as the U.S. has a much larger number of people than any of the European powers. So the U.S. would therefore quite easily have the largest middle class.
I also think it's odd that you bring up the middle class, when the middle class pretty much only came about as a result of the welfare state and increased union organizing, both of which are things that communists support.

Of course, while you've got the first part of this down: "you work for everyone else", you conveniently neglect the second part: "everyone else works for you."

[QUOTE=Melkor Unchained]But the fact of the matter is that Communism does precisely that to humans; preaching that any desire to think and profit off the product of said thought is inherently evil and any desire to profit off one's own work is immoral. They propose that we earn our living by discouraging the very means that allow us to earn said living in the first place: the power of our thought and the desire to turn that thought into something better for ourselves. Granted that the poll in this thread is hardly scientific, and hardly wide reaching, but if it is accurate, then the poll shows that you are wrong. 1/3 of the people who took the poll said that that they think and put forth effort for reasons other than profiting from it. Based on the poll, profiting in a monetary sense is not a "basic biological imperative", as you would have us believe.

Are you referring to percentages of the population, or simply the number of people?If it's the latter, then naturally this would be the case, as the U.S. has a much larger number of people than any of the European powers. So the U.S. would therefore quite easily have the largest middle class.
Per capita. You'll notice I already specified that I was invoking a "percentage-wise" comparison. Once again, you [as with almost everyone else I've ever butted heads with here] are not paying attention to a goddamn thing I'm saying, save for the isolated situations where you've convinced yourself you have a worthwhile rebuttal.

I also think it's odd that you bring up the middle class, when the middle class pretty much only came about as a result of the welfare state and increased union organizing, both of which are things that communists support.
Um, welfare benefits do not extend to the middle class, and we already had a damn big middle class before "Saint Roosevelt" and his cadre of thugs revolutionized the concept of wealth distribution. Nice try.

Also, I don't have a problem with union movements [so long as the unions don't force members in or make membership in said union a compulsory condition of employment], and I've heard a number of orthodox Communists denounce the welfare state on the grounds that it's incompatible with the goals of capitalism [you might want to look in to what they think about the Welfare State before telling me that they endorse it--they don't]. If you support the welfare state that's your perogative, but communists, by and large, do not support the welfare state: they regard it as a step in the right direction but as an ultimately doomed and feeble process under capitalism.

I'm afraid that's both arguments of yours so far down the pisser. Better luck next time.

Of course, while you've got the first part of this down: "you work for everyone else", you conveniently neglect the second part: "everyone else works for you."
Yeah, says who? What makes you think that someone else's well-being is a measure that the populace at large will accept and laboriously strive towards? The Soviets quickly found out that people don't like working to put food on their neighbor's table--even in spite of your promises that the favor will be returned. The Soviets [and, mind, every Communist regime that has ever existed] has invariably been put in a position where they had to force such a thing to happen--at least to the extent which they were able.

Granted that the poll in this thread is hardly scientific, and hardly wide reaching, but if it is accurate, then the poll shows that you are wrong. 1/3 of the people who took the poll said that that they think and put forth effort for reasons other than profiting from it. Based on the poll, profiting in a monetary sense is not a "basic biological imperative", as you would have us believe.
Yes, and nearly everyone that has answered this poll is still in high school or middle school--you're talking about people here who haven't yet been put into a position where they have needed to [b]put food on any table-- be it their own or anyone elses'. There's always the possibility that those age polls/player surveys are fradulent, but somehow I'd doubt that grown men and women would want the community at large to view them as teenagers. It's a fairly well-established fact that the wide majority of NS forumgoers in general are still quite young.

Regardless of their answers here, people want to profit off their jobs at the very least to the extent that it keeps them alive and provides for their basic needs: that's kind of the point of working in the first place. The poll's results are not accurate [and the question it asks is engineered to acheive a certain outcome anyway] or even worth mentioning, and I think that you would grasp for such a straw speaks volumes as to the weakness of your position. Even assuming you are right, the fact that only a third of people is answering thusly something of a damning endictment of your own morality. If we should be ruled by the masses, doesn't the other goddamn two fricking thirds count for quite a bit more, by your book? Or are we admitting now that you actually do endorse a form of rule-by-minority--just a different kind of minoirty?

Give it up already. Communism is bullshit.

Making enough to live comfortably.
Doing something that means something to you.
Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
Doing something that excites you

In that order, none of the others matter to me.

I mainly only wish to be able to feed myself and enjoy some moderate entertainment. As for the job, I prefer it to be something that I enjoy, and I would enjoy a job for the the final two reasons.

I will now read to find out what political point JB is trying to make. Expect a reply.

I want enough money to be able to provide for my wife& Kids, send them to college, a 500 acre ranch and ranch house, and some nice gas-guzzling lifted diesel 4x4 trucks for us to drive around in.

But really it's all in God's hands. Whatever he gives me I will be satisfied with. In the past he's always given me more than I deserve, and shown me a lesson at the same time.

Per capita. You'll notice I already specified that I was invoking a "percentage-wise" comparison. Once again, you [as with almost everyone else I've ever butted heads with here] are not paying attention to a goddamn thing I'm saying, save for the isolated situations where you've convinced yourself you have a worthwhile rebuttal.I noticed that you did invoke a percentage wide comparison, but not on that particular issue.

Um, welfare benefits do not extend to the middle class, Um, you don't have to directly benefit from something to indirectly benefit from it. Welfare benefits increased the cost of hiring people, as nobody would work if the welfare benefit was greater than the wage that they would receive from welfare.
and we already had a damn big middle class before "Saint Roosevelt" and his cadre of thugs revolutionized the concept of wealth distribution. Nice try.Lol. You're telling me that there was a large middle class during the Great Depression?

I've heard a number of orthodox Communists denounce the welfare state on the grounds that it's incompatible with the goals of capitalism [you might want to look in to what they think about the Welfare State before telling me that they endorse it--they don't]. Certainly, they believe that the communist revolution would have happened if the welfare system hadn't been put in place.

If you support the welfare state that's your perogative, but communists, by and large, do not support the welfare state: they regard it as a step in the right direction but as an ultimately doomed and feeble process under capitalism. Right, they view it as a step in the right direction, a direction that was largely influenced by communist thought.

Yeah, says who? What makes you think that someone else's well-being is a measure that the populace at large will accept and laboriously strive towards? The Soviets quickly found out that people don't like working to put food on their neighbor's table--even in spite of your promises that the favor will be returned. The Soviets [and, mind, every Communist regime that has ever existed] has invariably been put in a position where they had to force such a thing to happen--at least to the extent which they were able. The Soviets failed for reasons which are important to certain ideas of communism - that it is necessary to give a group of people a huge amount of power. Naturally, a group of people having virtually unchecked power is going to provoke resentment in the people who don't have that power.

Yes, and nearly everyone that has answered this poll is still in high school or middle school--you're talking about people here who haven't yet been put into a position where they have needed to [b]put food on any table-- be it their own or anyone elses'. There's always the possibility that those age polls/player surveys are fradulent, but somehow I'd doubt that grown men and women would want the community at large to view them as teenagers. It's a fairly well-established fact that the wide majority of NS forumgoers in general are still quite young.Certainly.

Regardless of their answers here, people want to profit off their jobs at the very least to the extent that it keeps them alive and provides for their basic needs: that's kind of the point of working in the first place. That's why I separated being able to live comfortably from being able to be rich - they are two different motivations.

The poll's results are not accurate [and the question it asks is engineered to acheive a certain outcome anyway]. What outcome is that? I was asking a specific question, how would I get the answer to that question without asking it?

Even assuming you are right, the fact that only a third of people is answering thusly something of a damning endictment of your own morality. If we should be ruled by the masses, doesn't the other goddamn two fricking thirds count for quite a bit more, by your book? Or are we admitting now that you actually do endorse a form of rule-by-minority--just a different kind of minoirty?The other 2/3 of the people are free to live under whatever system that they wish to - I don't support revolutions, but rather change via the democratic process. In this instance, the change would come via the communists creating their own city, then state, then finally a country. That way we could live how we want without forcing other people to live how they don't want.

1. Doing something that means something to you.
2. Doing what you do well.
3. Job security.
4. Doing something that makes the world a better place in some small way.
5. Making enough to live comfortably.
6. Doing something that excites you.
7. Doing something which challenges you, makes you grow and stretch.
8. Doing something which demands more than you thought you were capable of giving.
9. Miscellaneous perks: childcare, health insurance, etc.
10. Getting the praise of your coworkers/employers/customers (if applicable)
11. Making enough to live more than comfortably/being rich.

1 to 7 are all important to me, and are probably interchangeable. 9 I've never really thought about (I've got no kids, and healthcare is available to everyone here in France). 10 I really don't care about. 11 I don't give a damn about. I earn enough to live comfortably, and I'm not interested in more.

I noticed that you did invoke a percentage wide comparison, but not on that particular issue.
Yes, on that particular issue. Note:

Most of the other economic powers in the world are left-leaning, and the only two nations that bother to call themselves "Communist" anymore are so ridiculously impoverished they make America's poverty figures look like an atom; at least percentage-wise.
Last time I checked this was the same issue. Care to make a bigger mountain out of this particular molehill or shall we move on?

Um, you don't have to directly benefit from something to indirectly benefit from it. Welfare benefits increased the cost of hiring people, as nobody would work if the welfare benefit was greater than the wage that they would receive from welfare.
I gathered that, which was why I continued to clarify the point.

Furthermore, I would tend to believe that the immediate effects of losing a percentage of your income are slightly more detrimental than what you welfare preachers are prepared to believe, and the "indirect benefits" brought to said middle class aren't what I would call a good return on that investment.

Lol. You're telling me that there was a large middle class during the Great Depression?
Well yeah, comparatively [consider that the Depression's effects weren't limited strictly to America]. Also there's the 153 years of history we had accrued before the Depression; You're falling into the trap here of assuming that the only relevant portion of history before your golden boy FDR came to office was the Great Depression--almost as if economics and national history hadn't existed at all in this country before 1929. This country did most of its growth [from 1776 to about 1914] on a pseudo-libertarian free-trade, largely income tax-less platform. The growth we've enjoyed since then hasn't been quite on the magnitude of turning a giant chunk of wilderness into the greatest industrial power on the planet.

Certainly, they believe that the communist revolution would have happened if the welfare system hadn't been put in place...
Right, they view it as a step in the right direction, a direction that was largely influenced by communist thought.
Yes, but you told me that Communists "support" these measures which is something of a misnomer. I think getting rid of some of our more outmoded business restrictions is a "step in the right direction" but that doesn't mean I could support them in good conscience without the rest of the neccessary changes that need to accompany them. It's all about context; something which you and your cohorts in the Left have been doing a wonderful job of ignoring for the last century or so.

The Soviets failed for reasons which are important to certain ideas of communism - that it is necessary to give a group of people a huge amount of power. Naturally, a group of people having virtually unchecked power is going to provoke resentment in the people who don't have that power.
I got news for you cheif: power is precisely what government is--you can't have a government without it and you certainly can't do something like change peoples' reasons for wanting to work without something like power. George Washington said it best:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."

Communism evades the issue that a certain degree of power is inevitable, even if it's the simple power that comes from a lynch mob [which is what Communism would be reduced to without the existence of political capital]. If there's no one to smack me around if I decide to keep the benefits of my own labor, who's to say I just won't elect to go ahead and do it?

That's why I separated being able to live comfortably from being able to be rich - they are two different motivations.
And yet, both motivations require the presence of a [and pay attention to these next two words] profit motive, since you can't live "comfortably" if you're working at a loss. That makes the two issues essentially the same; their only distinction being a matter of degrees. Both answers seek to profit off their labor--they merely wish to do so on a different level.

They're not different motivations at all: both are based on a desire to profit. A man who wants to be rich has the same motivation, it's just intensified.
What outcome is that? I was asking a specific question, how would I get the answer to that question without asking it?
Well, by making the poll public it's obvious that you're attempting to persuade people [albeit perhaps subconsciously] not to vote for option one on the grounds that "surely, there must be more to life than money." As an obvious consequence of your ideology, seeking vast amounts of material wealth is hardly virtuous, and putting people in a position where you can see their votes opens the door for Communists and other leftists to come along and single people out for their choices.

Also, your inclusion of "Somewhere near the bottom" is something of a broad brush: while you do go through the trouble to seperate ranks 1-3, "somewhere near the bottom" could mean different things to different people--some might interpret it as merely being somewhere below the halfway mark, which doesn't exactly make it a non-concern but it still bolsters your position when you invoke it in defense of your paper-thin ideology.

The other 2/3 of the people are free to live under whatever system that they wish to - I don't support revolutions, but rather change via the democratic process. In this instance, the change would come via the communists creating their own city, then state, then finally a country. That way we could live how we want without forcing other people to live how they don't want.
If it's change via the democratic process you're after, a third won't get you anywhere.

Also, this brings up an interesting point: Under pure capitalism, your liberties are so profound that one could, if they wished, band together and form a commune with you and, say, ten thousand of your closest friends: working together on enormous tracts of farmland and such to provide food and supplies either to yourselves or to the disenfranchised masses outside said commune. There's nothing inherent to our doctrine that forces you to get a "real" job, or forces you to spend all of your money on yourself. But on the flip side Communism would be loathe to forbid a single private enterprise to exist at all, unless of course the system is corrupt and allows its upper party members to operate as such, in which case it's not really Communism but state capitalism anyway. Basically, the scenario you describe here--making your own Communist hidey-hole--is only possible in a capitalist society unless you're prepared to impose Communism on a mass of folks who don't want it.

If you want to make your own little Communist city/state/country, I don't have a problem with that so long as I'm not dragged into it. I think you'll find it would be a very educational experience, actually.

Furthermore, I would tend to believe that the immediate effects of losing a percentage of your income are slightly more detrimental than what you welfare preachers are prepared to believe, and the "indirect benefits" brought to said middle class aren't what I would call a good return on that investment. The amount of money that goes to corporate welfare far outweighs the amount of welfare that reaches poor people, so the percentage of tax money that goes to the poor isn't going to be substantial.

Well yeah, comparatively [consider that the Depression's effects weren't limited strictly to America].True, but the U.S. was hit the hardest.

Also there's the 153 years of history we had accrued before the Depression; You're falling into the trap here of assuming that the only relevant portion of history before your golden boy FDR came to office was the Great Depression--almost as if economics and national history hadn't existed at all in this country before 1929. Not at all, but the middle class basically didn't exist before the New Deal - and that was what we were discussing.

This country did most of its growth [from 1776 to about 1914] on a pseudo-libertarian free-trade, largely income tax-less platform. The growth we've enjoyed since then hasn't been quite on the magnitude of turning a giant chunk of wilderness into the greatest industrial power on the planet. Certainly. The country did most of it's growth in land area during that time, as well.
There wasn't a large middle class during that time.
And I wouldn't exactly call it pseudo-libertarian, the country was even more mercantilistic than it is today - why else would Teddy Roosevelt have had to break up the trusts?

Yes, but you told me that Communists "support" these measures which is something of a misnomer. Perhaps it wasn't the right word, perhaps I should have said that communists view unions and the welfare state as steps in the right direction, but not the end of the road.

I got news for you cheif: power is precisely what government is--you can't have a government without it and you certainly can't do something like change peoples' reasons for wanting to work without something like power. George Washington said it best:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."I'm aware of this, which is why I support rule via direct democracy - all manmade concentrations of power are removed.

And yet, both motivations require the presence of a [and pay attention to these next two words] profit motive, since you can't live "comfortably" if you're working at a loss. That makes the two issues essentially the same; their only distinction being a matter of degrees. Both answers seek to profit off their labor--they merely wish to do so on a different level.Certainly, and one could argue that wanting to work for the good of society is also a profit motive, in this case the profit is the good feeling you would get from helping others.

Well, by making the poll public it's obvious that you're attempting to persuade people [albeit perhaps subconsciously] not to vote for option one on the grounds that "surely, there must be more to life than money." As an obvious consequence of your ideology, seeking vast amounts of material wealth is hardly virtuous, and putting people in a position where you can see their votes opens the door for Communists and other leftists to come along and single people out for their choices. I admit that I was meaning to single people out, but not to criticize them; rather I wanted to see if people would vote the way I thought they would. For the most part they did, but there were a couple of exceptions.

Also, your inclusion of "Somewhere near the bottom" is something of a broad brush: while you do go through the trouble to seperate ranks 1-3, "somewhere near the bottom" could mean different things to different people--some might interpret it as merely being somewhere below the halfway mark, which doesn't exactly make it a non-concern This is true, but I wouldn't think it would be that big of a deal. A lot of the people who voted for the bottom couple aren't exactly communists, they have other reasons for being communists. Even if it's something that people are concerned with, by putting "somewhere near the bottom" means that they are more concerned with other things, which was the point. I wanted to show that "if people can't get rich, they won't work" is overstated by supporters of capitalism.

If it's change via the democratic process you're after, a third won't get you anywhere. 1/3 of a nation, no, but if you get all of those people in one area it can happen - in a federal system, anyway.

Also, this brings up an interesting point: Under pure capitalism, your liberties are so profound that one could, if they wished, band together and form a commune with you and, say, ten thousand of your closest friends: working together on enormous tracts of farmland and such to provide food and supplies either to yourselves or to the disenfranchised masses outside said commune. There's nothing inherent to our doctrine that forces you to get a "real" job, or forces you to spend all of your money on yourself. Oh, I know, which is one of the reasons why I support an anarcho-capitalist society more than a libertarian nation. I would also point out that capitalism doesn't give more liberties, it just has them in different areas, but both of those points are whole other discussions.

But on the flip side Communism would be loathe to forbid a single private enterprise to exist at all, unless of course the system is corrupt and allows its upper party members to operate as such, in which case it's not really Communism but state capitalism anyway. Basically, the scenario you describe here--making your own Communist hidey-hole--is only possible in a capitalist society unless you're prepared to impose Communism on a mass of folks who don't want it.I disagree, but only to point out that the society I propose could exist anywhere provided that the nation the society was seceding from allowed secession. Most likely this would only happen in a capitalist society, but it's possible it could happen elsewhere.
As far as someone creating their private enterprise in the communist society, they're welcome to do so, but of course they would have to secede from the communist society. It would be hypocritical of me to say that only communist societies can be created, and that supporters of capitalism can't form their own societies.

If you want to make your own little Communist city/state/country, I don't have a problem with that so long as I'm not dragged into it. I think you'll find it would be a very educational experience, actually.I think it would be, too, if it worked or if it didn't.

The amount of money that goes to corporate welfare far outweighs the amount of welfare that reaches poor people, so the percentage of tax money that goes to the poor isn't going to be substantial.
That's cool, corporate Welfare is bullshit too. Businesses that can't survive on the free market shouldn't be propped up by money extorted from the masses.

True, but the U.S. was hit the hardest.
Weimar Germany.

We were able to survive with our political system largely intact, whereas the shockwaves from our economic downturn caused an [arguably worse] Depression in Germany and eventually resulted in the conditions which gave rise to the Nazi regime.

Still, we had acheived superpower status before the Great Depression, and held onto it more or less even during the Depression--although use of the "superpower" term probably isn't appropriate to describe the U.S. since we dealt largely with internal affairs at that time; favoring isolationism instead. Britain and Soviet Russia could be considered as potential contenders in terms of political and economic capital [even if it wasn't excersized], but I'm not prepared to suggest that either actually surpassed us at that point.

Not at all, but the middle class basically didn't exist before the New Deal - and that was what we were discussing.
To be honest, a lot of that has to do with how exactly you define "Middle Class," as the term is somewhat nebulous and people from every political viewpoint have a way of contorting the term to fit their meaning. White-collar workers did exist in early capitalism; and even if the New Deal did hasten its growth I can hardly condone the means by which it did so. Whether or not these practices were justified is simply a retread of the old "Do the ends justify the means?" argument, which is a query that has always left something of a bad taste in my mouth.

Certainly. The country did most of it's growth in land area during that time, as well.
There wasn't a large middle class during that time.
And I wouldn't exactly call it pseudo-libertarian, the country was even more mercantilistic than it is today - why else would Teddy Roosevelt have had to break up the trusts?
Pseudo-libertarian may have been something of a stretch, but I think it's a warranted one, as the government wasn't as interested in restricting personal liberties as it is today and was a good deal smaller.

Perhaps it wasn't the right word, perhaps I should have said that communists view unions and the welfare state as steps in the right direction, but not the end of the road.
Indeed.

I'm aware of this, which is why I support rule via direct democracy - all manmade concentrations of power are removed.
Except the power of the mob, which is a man-made concentration of power simply as a result of being a product of man's collective wishes. If that doesn't make it "man-made" I don't know what does.

So which is it, do you favor direct democracy or communism? The two won't work together, since it will only last as long as it will take for people to realize that they can vote more money into their wallets.

Certainly, and one could argue that wanting to work for the good of society is also a profit motive, in this case the profit is the good feeling you would get from helping others.
What about the people who don't "get a good feeling" from helping others? Does this feeling put food on the table? Does it make it any easier to raise a brood of children or build a shelter if the recipients of your labor aren't as enthusiastic about reciprocating these actions as you are? To proft off something means to derive an advantage from a transaction or undertaking, and acheiving a more satisfying emotion is hardly an "advantage" worth slaving in the fields over.

I admit that I was meaning to single people out, but not to criticize them; rather I wanted to see if people would vote the way I thought they would. For the most part they did, but there were a couple of exceptions.
That's fine: I'm not telling you that you're not allowed to do it, but it might skew the results. Public polls might influence a person to vote differently on account of the fact that their peers will hassle them for an inappropriate choice. Being rich actually isn't my primary concern when selecting a profession , but I voted that way to make a point: that my primary desire for seeking employment is to derive a profit--a [i]material profit, not a spiritual one.

This is true, but I wouldn't think it would be that big of a deal. A lot of the people who voted for the bottom couple aren't exactly communists, they have other reasons for being communists. Even if it's something that people are concerned with, by putting "somewhere near the bottom" means that they are more concerned with other things, which was the point. I wanted to show that "if people can't get rich, they won't work" is overstated by supporters of capitalism.
Many supporters of capitalism are precisely as idiotic as their conterparts [observe the idiocy that takes place in the institutions of today's Conservatives], and any argument to that effect is specious. People will work with whips at their backs, if they get rich or not. They'll still produce, the real point to make here is that their productiveness won't be on par with what they might acheive under a free system. They'll still work, but at a diminished capacity. Observe that throughout history the most productive periods have always been the freest; compare the stagnation of the Dark Ages with the advances of the Renaissance, or the production acheived during the Industrial Revolution versus the century that preceded it.

Currently we're at something of a crossroads; our overall production rates considering our massive population growth are definately not what they should be, and I'm not shy about blaming politicians on both sides of the aisle--along with the college professors who have been trying to teach that reality consists not of absolutes, but on the collective opinions of "the public," a monstrous, fickle organism who seems to consistute everyone else on the planet except for yourself. Reality, they tell us, is dictated by what the public has to say about it, and that true knowledge is impossible--that epistemological nihilism is the only doctrine mankind should accept. These "experts" of epistemology and metaphysics urge us to favor a "They say" over an "I know," shreiking that to claim [metaphysical or moral] knowledge of an issue is the height of arrogance, and thereofore, of immorality. This doctrine, I fear, will reach a gruseome and unmitigated climax at some point within the next century or so if this viewpoint continues unchallenged.

1/3 of a nation, no, but if you get all of those people in one area it can happen - in a federal system, anyway.
That's what the Libertarian Party seems to be trying to do with the Free State project which, despite it's shortcomings, is probably still more significant than any other Communistic attempt at such an activity, at least in this country.

Again, you're welcome to try: I encourage you, in fact. Just remember that such an undertaking is only possible in a free society that permits individual decisions, individual actions, and individual results.

Oh, I know, which is one of the reasons why I support an anarcho-capitalist society more than a libertarian nation. I would also point out that capitalism doesn't give more liberties, it just has them in different areas, but both of those points are whole other discussions.
Anachro-capitalism is something of a utopic ideal; I'm not too sure it's actually feasible, although I have less distate for it than most other political ideologies. I have my problems with libertarianism too, but it at least acknowledges the need for a nominal federal goverment--albeit one limited strictly to military, police, and courts.

I disagree, but only to point out that the society I propose could exist anywhere provided that the nation the society was seceding from allowed secession. Most likely this would only happen in a capitalist society, but it's possible it could happen elsewhere.
Nations don't "allow" secession regardless of their socio/economic model.

As far as someone creating their private enterprise in the communist society, they're welcome to do so, but of course they would have to secede from the communist society. It would be hypocritical of me to say that only communist societies can be created, and that supporters of capitalism can't form their own societies.
I think we crossed a wire here somewhere; when you came along you seemed to be extolling the virtues of a Communist society, but a short while ago I heard you advocate Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what we should be talking about if that's your actual position [and I think you'll find we disagree about a lot less than you might imagine, if that's the case]. Since you were talking about things like "getting rid of the profit motive" I felt it neccessary to address the flaws in orthodox Communism; an idea which you seem to have abandoned either sometime during this discussion or at some point prior, without my having picked up on it.

At any rate, I was addressing the difficulties [or, more accurately, impossibilities] of establishing private enterprise in an orthodox communist society: of course you could rebel or secede or what-have-you, but you can do this under any society. My point is that under pure capitalism, one can acheive the same ends without violence--so long as the commune's organizers can pool the resources neccessary to use the land they'd need to enact such a goal.

I think it would be, too, if it worked or if it didn't.
It's been my experience that Socialism works best with two people and gets progressively worse as more and more people are added to the equation: when I lived with two roommates, believe it or not, we employed something of a pseudo-socialist system [of my design, no less] when it came to things like dividing the grocery bill, labor, and what-have you. It can also work in emergencies, or in a situation where people are free to remove themselves from the system if they find it is no longer approrpriate to their needs--the lack of this ability is what has caused the failure of Communism, at least on this planet.

That's cool, corporate Welfare is bullshit too. Businesses that can't survive on the free market shouldn't be propped up by money extorted from the masses.Agreed.

Weimar Germany.Most of Weimar Germany's problems were caused by the Treaty of Versailles, or whichever one it was that ended WWI.

To be honest, a lot of that has to do with how exactly you define "Middle Class," as the term is somewhat nebulous and people from every political viewpoint have a way of contorting the term to fit their meaning. That's true. When you said that the U.S. had a larger middle class than most of Western Europe, which definition were you using?

White-collar workers did exist in early capitalism; and even if the New Deal did hasten its growth I can hardly condone the means by which it did so. Whether or not these practices were justified is simply a retread of the old "Do the ends justify the means?" argument, which is a query that has always left something of a bad taste in my mouth.Perhaps, we can drop that argument.

Pseudo-libertarian may have been something of a stretch, but I think it's a warranted one, as the government wasn't as interested in restricting personal liberties as it is today and was a good deal smaller. Ah, personal liberties. In that instance, yes, the government was more libertarian than it is now, I agree.

Except the power of the mob, which is a man-made concentration of power simply as a result of being a product of man's collective wishes. If that doesn't make it "man-made" I don't know what does. That's true, but each person within the mob has a chance to voice their opinion on how the mob will act in any given situation. This is different from most concentrations of power.

So which is it, do you favor direct democracy or communism? The two won't work together, since it will only last as long as it will take for people to realize that they can vote more money into their wallets. Both. I favor direct democracy, but with a Constitution that puts limits on what society can do. One of those limits would be that either everyone has a right, or nobody does. So society could vote to put more money into its pockets, but only if everyone gets more money.
Though technically speaking I don't believe in money, either.

What about the people who don't "get a good feeling" from helping others? Does this feeling put food on the table? Does it make it any easier to raise a brood of children or build a shelter if the recipients of your labor aren't as enthusiastic about reciprocating these actions as you are? To proft off something means to derive an advantage from a transaction or undertaking, and acheiving a more satisfying emotion is hardly an "advantage" worth slaving in the fields over. If there are people who don't get a good feeling from helping others, then either they'd be living in the communistic society for other reasons or they wouldn't be living in it at all. As far as more satisfying emotions go, people do strange things to feel good, Mother Teresa had her reasons for doing what she did, and they weren't monetary.

That's fine: I'm not telling you that you're not allowed to do it, but it might skew the results. Public polls might influence a person to vote differently on account of the fact that their peers will hassle them for an inappropriate choice. Fair enough, I will keep that in mind when making my next poll.

Being rich actually isn't my primary concern when selecting a profession , but I voted that way to make a point: that my primary desire for seeking employment is to derive a profit--a [i]material profit, not a spiritual one.I see.

Many supporters of capitalism are precisely as idiotic as their conterparts [observe the idiocy that takes place in the institutions of today's Conservatives], and any argument to that effect is specious. People will work with whips at their backs, if they get rich or not. They'll still produce, the real point to make here is that their productiveness won't be on par with what they might acheive under a free system. They'll still work, but at a diminished capacity. Observe that throughout history the most productive periods have always been the freest; compare the stagnation of the Dark Ages with the advances of the Renaissance, or the production acheived during the Industrial Revolution versus the century that preceded it.I don't view communism as being less free than capitalism; just free in a different way. Actually, I'd view at as being more free, or at the very least equalizing freedom.

Currently we're at something of a crossroads; our overall production rates considering our massive population growth are definately not what they should be, and I'm not shy about blaming politicians on both sides of the aisle--along with the college professors who have been trying to teach that reality consists not of absolutes, but on the collective opinions of "the public," a monstrous, fickle organism who seems to consistute everyone else on the planet except for yourself. Reality, they tell us, is dictated by what the public has to say about it, and that true knowledge is impossible--that epistemological nihilism is the only doctrine mankind should accept. These "experts" of epistemology and metaphysics urge us to favor a "They say" over an "I know," shreiking that to claim [metaphysical or moral] knowledge of an issue is the height of arrogance, and thereofore, of immorality. This doctrine, I fear, will reach a gruseome and unmitigated climax at some point within the next century or so if this viewpoint continues unchallenged.That's a bizarre view of reality, is this viewpoint common on college campuses, or is it just a few rogue professors?

That's what the Libertarian Party seems to be trying to do with the Free State project which, despite it's shortcomings, is probably still more significant than any other Communistic attempt at such an activity, at least in this country. Well, the Libertarians are better funded. :)

Again, you're welcome to try: I encourage you, in fact. Just remember that such an undertaking is only possible in a free society that permits individual decisions, individual actions, and individual results. Fair enough.

Anachro-capitalism is something of a utopic ideal; I'm not too sure it's actually feasible, although I have less distate for it than most other political ideologies. I have my problems with libertarianism too, but it at least acknowledges the need for a nominal federal goverment--albeit one limited strictly to military, police, and courts. I plan to start a thread soon about what specifically supporters of libertarianism want from their governments.

Nations don't "allow" secession regardless of their socio/economic model.That's probably true, but to my knowledge it's never been tried democratically.

I think we crossed a wire here somewhere; when you came along you seemed to be extolling the virtues of a Communist society, but a short while ago I heard you advocate Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what we should be talking about if that's your actual position [and I think you'll find we disagree about a lot less than you might imagine, if that's the case]. Oh, no, I was extolling the virtues of anarcho-capitalism over libertarianism, but anarcho-communism is my preferred system.

Since you were talking about things like "getting rid of the profit motive" I felt it neccessary to address the flaws in orthodox Communism; an idea which you seem to have abandoned either sometime during this discussion or at some point prior, without my having picked up on it.I was talking about getting rid of the profit motive, but more specifically I getting rich as "the profit motive". This is usually what people talk about when people meant the profit motive. I realized, though, that using that term could and probably did cause confusion, so I changed the term to getting rich.

At any rate, I was addressing the difficulties [or, more accurately, impossibilities] of establishing private enterprise in an orthodox communist society: of course you could rebel or secede or what-have-you, but you can do this under any society. My point is that under pure capitalism, one can acheive the same ends without violence--so long as the commune's organizers can pool the resources neccessary to use the land they'd need to enact such a goal.Ah, I see one of the reasons for our confusion, I interpreted pure capitalism to mean anarcho-capitalism as opposed to libertarianism, as anarcho-capitalists would view a libertarian government as interfering in the police protection, etc. markets.

It's been my experience that Socialism works best with two people and gets progressively worse as more and more people are added to the equation: when I lived with two roommates, believe it or not, we employed something of a pseudo-socialist system [of my design, no less] when it came to things like dividing the grocery bill, labor, and what-have you. It can also work in emergencies, I think an entire nation is a bad idea, and that small groups are necessary, though when I say small group I mean up to 100,000 people or so.

or in a situation where people are free to remove themselves from the system if they find it is no longer approrpriate to their needs--the lack of this ability is what has caused the failure of Communism, at least on this planet.I agree, that is one of the reasons why I support the right of secession, except for the purpose of legally committing human rights abuses.