Discussion in 'Political Science' started by sxane, Sep 3, 2016.
Their collective morality dissolves their individual wants and needs.
How morale is the greater good, when workers are like cattle or sheep or work horses?
I think it's high time somebody unionised Chinese work forces to demand better working conditions, higher pay, and sick leave and maternity pay and pensions and paid holidays each year.
If the workers are the ones who're valued, then surely the people should come first.
In a collective (not China, which was a dictatorship playing at 'communism'), individuals volunteer to be cattle/horses. They are not concerned with individual expression through work, they are interested in securing financial and domestic stability. They understand that unless you're born to considerable wealth, financial and domestic stability require self-sacrifice.
Is this moral?
These are the ones who aren't slave labour forced from work camps/prisons where people on trumped up charges of worshiping something that wasn't the state.
How much would Chinese GDP fall if we unionised the workers?
How much money do big companies save using slaves and communists?
No dictatorship is. But what does that have to do with collectives?
Gives a **** about them? Their government doesn't, the work they produce is under cutting the West.
The crux is, it's immoral and this exploitation makes China a global player.
If we unionised them, and got them better working conditions and higher pay, that would make China less productive, and would liberate oppressed workers, win win.
Everything costs less in China, we need to change this.
What are you talking about?
That if it cost as much to build in China as it would where people have rights, maybe China wouldn't be so prosperous.
We'd have to pay more, which mean prices will go up, but can we turn a blind eye to slave labour camps when it's under cutting the West and this collective want oppress the individual want?
Just give us our higher prices now, tariff China, let the manufacture company get the profit we pay the same, but no one gets a union, that's b/s.
I guess the world needs Communism because we're all greedy.
Communism is immoral because it cares about the work, not the worker, and it lies about it too, it calls itself The Workers Party and the People's Republic... They don't give a **** about the people or the worker.
It falsified in USSR to make it look good, exploits in China, denies in Cuba, and oppresses everywhere it goes.
If Communism was so moral, would the state have tried to deny the truth?
we do not set wages or the price of goods in the domestic market of other nations. That’s just idiotic. Different places have different cost-of-living. Protectionist tariffs are anti-competitive which only harm is the strongest competitor which happens to be us. Cheap labor never lasts forever in any market, and China is seeing this transition as we speak. Let’s try and look at rational discussion rather than emotional silliness.
What's the point of having the CIA or MI5 if we can't use it to disrupt a major competitor?
If it'll disrupt China to unionise the workers and get them to think about the the individual than 'the collective' then I say we do it, or sink in the world markets.
It's for our own survival.
It'll liberate the oppressed.
If China believes in One China, then why does it matter where in this Communist PRC part of Communist China someone is born to determine what rights they have? Just make it 1 China, same rights for everybody, Middle Class and education for all, and not just for those lucky enough to be born in a certain postcode/zip code.
Since when is state control moral regardless of how many freedoms it does or doesn't let you have?
Don't waste time with childish nonsense.
You're getting confused because you're giving two definitions for "private ownership," i.e., some own the means of production or a collective owns all means. That's wrong. The first refers to private ownership; the second to public ownership.
You're also making the same mistake with your second point: a collective can mean a small group or the majority in a society. For socialism, the second definition follows. Your definition, where a small group practices in a larger one that does the opposite, is not a socialist economy but a mixed one.
NO. I'm talking about COLLECTIVELY OWNED PROPERTY .. private property. As in, a family home. A rural cooperative. A business premises owned by 'shareholders'. A hippie commune purchased jointly. A religious retreat. Etc etc etc. Your lack of knowledge of collectives is rendering you unable to grasp it.
No, socialism is NOT limited to the state varietal. And NO, the collective practices its own internal economy, independent of the broader system. Families do it every day. No external entity is paying family members for remaining in the collective. All rewards are generated by the internal system itself.
You're referring to PRIVATE property owned by a group of people. That's NOT the same as public ownership in socialism!
We're discussing collectivism. Nothing to do with state 'socialism'.
it requires social morals for free. only the Religious seem to be able to do it.
But, Communism acts just like any other religion - right?
The collective pot, the servitude, the communal society, the beliefs - the doctrine, the iconography, the brutal closed minded anti freedom of ideology justice system.
The burning of books, the destruction of other places of worship, the total control of people and property.
What makes Communists different to ISIS - in terms of 'what they do' not 'what they believe'?
It's the other way round. Read the title thread.
Separate names with a comma.