Who wants to be a communist?

[Luck19]

Few poor? I have to call bull**** on that. There are plenty of poor in the United States and the reason for there being a larger middle class than lower is because the private companies of the United States have gained economic power by exploiting other countries to do their labor, they make big business off countries like Nicaragua and they have a lot more poor than middle.

 

[German guy]

Few poor? I have to call bull**** on that. There are plenty of poor in the United States and the reason for there being a larger middle class than lower is because the private companies of the United States have gained economic power by exploiting other countries to do their labor, they make big business off countries like Nicaragua and they have a lot more poor than middle.

Depends on how you define poor. Usually, it's defined not objectively, but relatively to the income average. So when the average rises, more people suddenly become "poor", although they may have even more than before in total numbers.

I don't mean to say poverty is no problem in the USA or other Western countries. It certainly is. But I think what we call "poor" today is a joke compared to the conditions poor people during early industrialization, the genuine "working class proletariat", had to endure. Today, even most of the poor usually still have a shelter, a fridge, a tv and enough to eat. Their conditions may be bad, but not as bad as those who were called "poor" in the 19th century, by objective standards, and they are not that many.

 

[zimmer]

Depends on how you define poor. Usually, it's defined not objectively, but relatively to the income average. So when the average rises, more people suddenly become "poor", although they may have even more than before in total numbers.

I don't mean to say poverty is no problem in the USA or other Western countries. It certainly is. But I think what we call "poor" today is a joke compared to the conditions poor people during early industrialization, the genuine "working class proletariat", had to endure. Today, even most of the poor usually still have a shelter, a fridge, a tv and enough to eat. Their conditions may be bad, but not as bad as those who were called "poor" in the 19th century, by objective standards, and they are not that many.

The "average" poor in America live better than the average European, and had infinitely more opportunity to rise up.

The 2000 Census indicates that 73% of U.S. poor own automobiles, 76% have air conditioning, 97% own refrigerators, 62% have cable or satellite TV, and 73% have microwaves.

Instead of being homeless, almost half (46%) own their own homes with most of the rest renting their homes. On average a poor person in this country lives in a home with 1,228 square feet (114.1 m2) which they often own, and as noted the home is likely air conditioned, with a refrigerator, cable or satellite TV, a microwave not to mention many other comforts.[48] Cox and Alm[49] conclude that if the American poor formed a country of their own, they would be as well-off or even slightly better-off than the typical family in most European countries.
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also backed up by Swedish Economists http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf, where they found the best EU countries were equal to...

... the bottom 5 US States.

Poverty is most often caused by job loss, and that is why class warfare is evil. It kills jobs.

Yep. However, I think the fundamental misunderstanding that fuels threads like these is that there are certain people that cannot tell the difference between those who desire a mixed economy and those who desire communism. Ultimately, it is that misunderstanding or misrepresentation of intent that makes arguments about the hell of being in a communistic country irrelevent to any real policy discussion.

Mega... mixed economies are dismal... as noted above.

In simple terms it is like this... when you mix raisins with turds... you end up with turds.

.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Mega... mixed economies are dismal... as noted above.

In simple terms it is like this... when you mix raisins with turds... you end up with turds.

.

Given that the US has a mixed economy, you spend time praising the US and than you denigrate mixed economics. Your post does not compute.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

There are no non-mixed economies. Also the mixed economy itself is responsible for workers rights and our standard of living in the first place. So I wonder what he's talking about.

 

[Barbbtx]

I agree, almost none. That's why the American Communist Party has only a few hundred members out of around 300 million. Except for a very small number of truly confused people, nobody in America supports communism.

If you had a large genuine class of starving workers or farmers, that might be different. In that case, that party might be larger.

That is where we are heading. And it's no accident.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

That is where we are heading. And it's no accident.

They gone dun sabomataged our ecomony... before they rund it.

 

[zimmer]

Given that the US has a mixed economy, you spend time praising the US and than you denigrate mixed economics. Your post does not compute.

If you've noted... I very much dislike the turds in our system... but given a comparison until recently... we've had fewer turds and once upon a time a business friendly environment.

So, though we've got our share of crap to consume, our diet isn't pure **** and roadblocks yet... though we are closing in on the EU rather quickly.

Capiche?

.

 

[zimmer]

They gone dun sabomataged our ecomony... before they rund it.

Izza Kapitalist tissue of lice.

.

 

[TheRedToledo]

Who wants to be a communist?

I can't really think of anybody except an empoverished farmer or one of the many factory laborers in a pre-industrial or early industrial society, where capitalism has not yet created mass consumption and mass wealth yet -- people who are living from one day to the next, without any chance of ever climbing the social ladder or overcoming the social status they were born into, in a society where a significant class of people plays no role as consumer, but merely as cheap laborer.

Quite a few such people existed in Europe's early industrialization phase during the 19th century (early in Britain, later in France and Germany, finally in Russia), but a genuine "working class" with an according class conscience soon ceased to exist, as class barriers decreased, social mobility increased and capitalism developed far enough to create wealth for the masses (along with a social liberal establishment of certain labor protection laws and social safety nets). The diagram of modern capitalist societies no longer is a pyramid (many poor on the bottom, very few rich on the top) as in those 19th century industrial societies, but has become more like an egg (few rich and few poor, and a large middle class).

Without such a proletariat, you don't find many supporters of communism. The large middle class that has taken its place has too much to lose to oppose capitalism.

But I imagine for pauperized exploited laborers in the 19th century, or farm hands in feudalist societies, who did not have any social safety whatsoever and nothing to lose except their chains, communism is indeed an attractive concept.

You are mistaking "proletariat" for what people often call "poor", and "bourgeoisie" for what people today call "middle class". The etymology of bourgeoisie comes from the French meaning of "middle class" or "middle estate" but that's because back then the French had an aristocracy(nobility), a bourgeoisie(the capitalist merchants), and a proletariat(those who worked for the capitalists).

"Proletariat" and "bourgeois" defined the relationship to the means of production. The owners of capital were the bourgeoisie and those who worked for them for a wage were the "proletariat". Marx does not distinguish based on income. It doesn't matter whether you're a janitor or a doctor you are in the proletariat if you are working for a boss for a wage. It is a little more nuanced now that some workers have stock, but if your primary source of livelihood comes from wage labor you are proletariat. Marx did recognize a class in between the "petit bourgeoisie", this would include small shop owners and people who earn a great portion but not all of their livelihood from stocks.

No matter what concessions have been given by the bourgeoisie they will never truly concede the full value of your labor. If they did they would be unable to make any profit, even if in the case of non-profit companies. Understood in this context the "profit" would be the extra pay the owner gets for owning it even if this is simply counted in the owner's salary. Because the greatest paid employee with the most benefits is still working under a boss part of his labor is necessarily alienated from him and given to the boss, otherwise the boss would not be gaining anything from this parasitic relationship.

As the gap between rich and poor grows fewer and fewer Americans are in the bourgeoisie, more are in the proletariat, and the proletariat is getting even poorer. This is exactly what Marx said would happen in late capitalism.

 

[VF500]

They gone dun sabomataged our ecomony... before they rund it.

What, no vague reference to "endemic economic issues" holding Marist countries back? I beleve that's your euphamism for "crappy corrupt one party rule". You're so weak and sad.