Sorry if I'm a bit late.
There's that ambiguous equivocation again. "People" will decide things under your economic system, not the "government." They are one and the same in this context! How the hell will "people" decide ANYTHING if there's no forum to vote, with clearly defined rules?
As I said before, common-planning.
That's not how economics works. If Acme Technological Progress has 1,000 workers, then it's benefitting society a certain amount. Now if *I* join Acme Technological Progress too, the benefit to society (and therefore myself) will be only 0.1% greater. This doesn't even come close to the benefit to myself of having much more free time every day.
As said before "From each according to his abilties, to each according to his needs." Your benifit will not equal .1% because of how many people there are, but on what you need.
You assume that someone will do everything just because it "needs" to be done.
If it needs to be done, then it should be planned to do so practically. Not someone do everything, ALL do everything.
Why would anyone clean **** out of the sewers
Because it needs to be done.
Then you're talking about government. You can avoid that word all you want, but "devised locally, but also for larger areas if needed" shows EXACTLY what you're talking about.
The state in its CURRENT form disappears, such as military. Plans do equal authority, but as said it will be devised by the people, adhering to the needs of the local area. Also authority doesn't equal govt.
Right, because "the people" (but not government) will decide whether or not someone is working hard enough
Not working hard enough, this isn't capitalism where a worker is expected to work as hard as he can. In communism all must do what is needed if you've done your part, more shouldn't be expected from you.
Will there be some kind of rule to figure this out (but not a "law," of course) or will you have to assemble every single person in the community to vote on whether or not each person has contributed enough?
That is quite possible, but adhering to what is needed, if one has filled his/her obligations to what is needed, no action is needed, if one does some but not all, some benifits will have been dropped, contribute less to society, and society will take less care of you. If one works not at all, everything will be virtually cut, but I personally would still have it be minimal needs, as in some food, water, clothing, housing to survive, but not necissarily a lot or good condition.
Compare Hong Kong to China proper.
I would say Hong Kong in general is doing better than the rest of China.
So you're pro-free-trade? Certainly odd for a communist.
I think you misunderstood, the US is the wealthiest country, also if you don't trade with it your economy has a habit of not being better off, but ther economy worsened with their largest trading partner having their country collapse(USSR). I consider myself anti-Free Trade, as it has a habit of taking large amount of goods out of poorer countries and only recieves minimal benifits.
Yes, everyone is about equally poor.
Yes, but if all are almost as equally poor, that means the wealth in the country is distributed more evenly, and will in general be wealthier than a poor citizen in another country, but that depends on how much wealth is in the country.
You're joking right? Cuba is hands-down the most repressive government in the Western Hemisphere. Period.
I could name a few that were more repressive. Pinochet was noted to be quite repressive as a few more right and left winged dictatorships. But some are even worser in other parts of the world.
Not entirly, the reason the US blockaded Cuba was because of some USSR missiles there, that the USSR forced upon Cuba.
Compare the standard of living in capitalist Western Europe with the standard of living in communist Eastern Europe. This should be a strong indication of which system produced more poverty.
well, you should remember that W. Europe was already richer than E. Europe before the Iron Curtain so there is already a lagging behind, but it also depeds on how you look at it. The USSR wages were generally lower, but actually not a lot, than the US and W. Europe. But the state there was pumping out more benifits, as in medical care, the amount of time to work to buy needs were also lower, but luxuries were far higher, as the USSR decided prices and always had needs, as in food, water, housing, etc. were lower than that in the US. During the USSR's most high-time economy, I believe the figures was that an ave. airplane ticket from Vladivostok to Kiev was $15, an ave. apartment rent in Moscow was $5 and that includes 6-month free heating.
Now fast forward twenty years. Eastern Europe is among the most free-market-oriented regions of the world, and its economy is booming.
Poverty has increaed, mortality rates have increased, crime has increased, the KGB transformed into the mafia, ave. lifespan has dropped around 20 yrs. for males. Emigration increased,(of course there was little to speak of before, but I mean emigration is booming). All wealth is centered around Moscow. Must have missed the part where the economy was doing great.
No. I'd stop being a victim, not blame the government, and find another job.
You're assuming there's a job to find.
Then I'd get some income.
Its not so easy, many employers wouldn't employ you, so you would have to beg. You live you're life doing that very little to look forward to, not knowing if you'll live the next few days, etc. etc.
And it took thousands of years for technology to invent just those things. Compare that with capitalist countries today, where there are millions of things invented every year.
With more people, there are more curious minds, and therefore more thing sto be invented, though I do admit capitalism can be attributed to some things.
Explain.
Literally the only thing invented by communists in their entire history...and even here, much of the know-how was stolen from capitalist countries.
It is debatable whether it was invented in a country run by communists. But also if most of the technology was solen by capitalist countries, why did they not beat the USSR? But some of it was. Also there was more things invented by the USSR, space station(Salyut), first man and woman(Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova, 20 yrs. before first American woman).
Under capitalism, that's a very strong possibility. Under communism, it's almost impossible.
Explain.
No. One person doesn't own everything in the United States.
I never wrote that, though however private property is concentrated into a few percentages.