"There has never been true communism."

[Immanuel Can]

I would say that if a CEO is making hundreds of millions working the same number of hours while workers at the lowest levels can barely afford rent and utilities, then it doesn't seem very fair to me either.

Well, Gary...Belinda didn't say any such thing. And if you know such a company, let's hear about it. We should all boycott it.

But B. was only talking in the hypothetical, actually. She doesn't know what this or that CEO might deserve or not deserve. It's really just all bout this: that person X has money, and person Y has less, so we hate person X. Unless there's more information, we don't actually have any idea whether or not that's an injustice. We just know some people are more successful than others....most intolerably, more successful than WE are.

That's envy. That's raw covetousness. That's violations of the 8th and 10th of the Ten Commandments, with likely violation of the 9th as well.

What's also interesting is that Lefties never put their fondness for "equity" and "globalization" together. They only talk about them as separate issues. But if they every combined them, then every person in the Developing World has a legitimate claim against every single person that lives in the modern West. And Belinda and company would realize that THEY are the rich and the privileged.

They don't ever want to think about that, for sure. But that shows the limit of their real devotion to "equity." They're only angry at people MORE privileged than they themselves are.

That's envy again. It's nothing more exalted. It's not "love of fellow man" or "justice," or "fairness," or any of the other empty things the Left says it represents. It's just greed.

[Gary Childress]

I would say that if a CEO is making hundreds of millions working the same number of hours while workers at the lowest levels can barely afford rent and utilities, then it doesn't seem very fair to me either.

Well, Gary...Belinda didn't say any such thing. And if you know such a company, let's hear about it. We should all boycott it.

But B. was only talking in the hypothetical, actually. She doesn't know what this or that CEO might deserve or not deserve. It's really just all bout this: that person X has money, and person Y has less, so we hate person X. Unless there's more information, we don't actually have any idea whether or not that's an injustice. We just know some people are more successful than others....most intolerably, more successful than WE are.

That's envy. That's raw covetousness. That's violations of the 8th and 10th of the Ten Commandments, with likely violation of the 9th as well.

What's also interesting is that Lefties never put their fondness for "equity" and "globalization" together. They only talk about them as separate issues. But if they every combined them, then every person in the Developing World has a legitimate claim against every single person that lives in the modern West. And Belinda and company would realize that THEY are the rich and the privileged.

They don't ever want to think about that, for sure. But that shows the limit of their real devotion to "equity." They're only angry at people MORE privileged than they themselves are.

That's envy again. It's nothing more exalted. It's not "love of fellow man" or "justice," or "fairness," or any of the other empty things the Left says it represents. It's just greed.

Well, the left doesn't think very highly of the ultra wealthy, who use their wealth to buy politicians and influence public policy. The left generally places a lot of emphasis on democracy. The right seems to place more emphasis on freedom. However, it might be worth noting that capitalist businesses are essentially totalitarian entities. We answer to our boses as absolutte authority in the work place. So the idea that there is "freedom" under capitalism is a little debatable.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the left doesn't think very highly of the ultra wealthy, who use their wealth to buy politicians and influence public policy.

That's obviously not true, because they support all the venial Democrats just as much as they claim to deplore the "ultra wealthy." They don't care if people "use their wealth to buy politicians and influence public policy": they just insist that it has to be THEIR public policy that ends up winning.

The left generally places a lot of emphasis on democracy.

Well regarding democracy, they talk about it sometimes. But they don't mean what you and I would understand as democracy, such freedom for individuals, or one-person-one-vote, or limited governmental power. And certainly, they don't do democracy. More than democracy, they talk about equity and justice...and also don't do that. Look at the current crop of Dems: has any gone without a meal lately? No, from within their mansions, they send out pronouncements about helping the poor and raising the oppressed. But personally, they're doing just fine, thank you very much.

The right seems to place more emphasis on freedom.

That might be true.

...capitalist businesses are essentially totalitarian entities....

That's definitely not true. What's "totalitarian" about being asked to work for a mutually-agreed-upon wage, doing mutually-agreed-upon work? You can leave anytime you get a better offer, too. Nobody's forced to work in North America. Slavery's illegal, you know.

We answer to our boses as absolute authority in the work place.

No, we don't. We only answer to them for what they pay us. Their power starts and stops with that. That's why we sign a contract, specifying both what we will do and not do, and what we will be paid for it.

Don't like it? Get another job. It's that simple, under Capitalism.

[Gary Childress]

Well, the left doesn't think very highly of the ultra wealthy, who use their wealth to buy politicians and influence public policy.

That's obviously not true, because they support all the venial Democrats just as much as they claim to deplore the "ultra wealthy." They don't care if people "use their wealth to buy politicians and influence public policy": they just insist that it has to be THEIR public policy that ends up winning.

The left generally places a lot of emphasis on democracy.

Well regarding democracy, they talk about it sometimes. But they don't mean what you and I would understand as democracy, such freedom for individuals, or one-person-one-vote, or limited governmental power. And certainly, they don't do democracy. More than democracy, they talk about equity and justice...and also don't do that. Look at the current crop of Dems: has any gone without a meal lately? No, from within their mansions, they send out pronouncements about helping the poor and raising the oppressed. But personally, they're doing just fine, thank you very much.

The right seems to place more emphasis on freedom.

That might be true.

...capitalist businesses are essentially totalitarian entities....

That's definitely not true. What's "totalitarian" about being asked to work for a mutually-agreed-upon wage, doing mutually-agreed-upon work? You can leave anytime you get a better offer, too. Nobody's forced to work in North America. Slavery's illegal, you know.

We answer to our boses as absolute authority in the work place.

No, we don't. We only answer to them for what they pay us. Their power starts and stops with that. That's why we sign a contract, specifying both what we will do and not do, and what we will be paid for it.

Don't like it? Get another job. It's that simple, under Capitalism.

No matter where you go to work, you're going to have a boss unless you become one yourself or become self employed. Then you're telling other people what to do. It's every bit as totalitarian as electing an official, right? Except, you don't elect your boss. So you can't fire your boss by electing someone else. By "left", I'm taking about further from the center, not moderates who appeal to the status quo. We all know the Democrats and Republicans essentially cater to wealthy interests.

[Immanuel Can]

No matter where you go to work, you're going to have a boss unless you become one yourself or become self employed.

Well, Gary...of course. But so what? "Boss" doesn't mean "totalitarian" at all. It means the guy who's responsible to pay you for the work you freely contracted to do.

Then you're telling other people what to do.

Well, if the boss pays me, then he calls the shots so far as the job goes. He doesn't have one thing to say about my personal life, my associations, my use of my money, or any of my other activities.

And if I don't want him to tell me how to work, then I quit. It's really quite simple.

It's every bit as totalitarian as electing an official, right?

No, elected officials are by definition not "totalitarian" unless they exceed their mandate and stop being elected officials. Then they are monarchs, or czars, or presidents-for-life. And in the west, we have none of those.

Except, you don't elect your boss.

Yes, you do. You elect to work for him, or you don't elect to work for him. Everything is elective about that relationship. And if you don't elect to work for him, then he doesn't own squat, or have any power over you at all.

We all know the Democrats and Republicans essentially cater to wealthy interests.

Sure. But they also cater to the voters. It's definitely a corrupted process, but nowhere near as corrupted as the Communist governments we know.

The great thing about democracy is limited government. They can't rule for more than four years, and they only get to rule by election. And there are definite checks and balances on what they are allowed to do when ruling, including division of powers and multiple stages of approval from house, senate and presidency.

So it's the best that one can do, really. The simple fact is that human beings are corrupt, so inevitably the government forms they create will also be corrupt. The advantage of democracy is that it recognizes the potential for corruption and limits it. Totalitarianisms, including Communism, don't assume people and governments will be corrupt, so they have no checks and balances, and are thoroughly corrupt.

[Gary Childress]

No matter where you go to work, you're going to have a boss unless you become one yourself or become self employed.

Well, Gary...of course. But so what? "Boss" doesn't mean "totalitarian" at all. It means the guy who's responsible to pay you for the work you freely contracted to do.

Then you're telling other people what to do.

Well, if the boss pays me, then he calls the shots so far as the job goes. He doesn't have one thing to say about my personal life, my associations, my use of my money, or any of my other activities.

And if I don't want him to tell me how to work, then I quit. It's really quite simple.

It's every bit as totalitarian as electing an official, right?

No, elected officials are by definition not "totalitarian" unless they exceed their mandate and stop being elected officials. Then they are monarchs, or czars, or presidents-for-life. And in the west, we have none of those.

Except, you don't elect your boss.

Yes, you do. You elect to work for him, or you don't elect to work for him. Everything is elective about that relationship. And if you don't elect to work for him, then he doesn't own squat, or have any power over you at all.

We all know the Democrats and Republicans essentially cater to wealthy interests.

Sure. But they also cater to the voters. It's definitely a corrupted process, but nowhere near as corrupted as the Communist governments we know.

The great thing about democracy is limited government. They can't rule for more than four years, and they only get to rule by election. And there are definite checks and balances on what they are allowed to do when ruling, including division of powers and multiple stages of approval from house, senate and presidency.

So it's the best that one can do, really. The simple fact is that human beings are corrupt, so inevitably the government forms they create will also be corrupt. The advantage of democracy is that it recognizes the potential for corruption and limits it. Totalitarianisms, including Communism, don't assume people and governments will be corrupt, so they have no checks and balances, and are thoroughly corrupt.

I think you're taking "boss" as an individual. You can choose what individual to follow orders from, however, you still follow orders from someone, unless, as I say, you become self employed or become a boss yourself, in which case you are giving orders. I think leftists tend to look at things from a structural viewpoint, not necessarily at personalities.

As far as "communism". As the title of the thread suggests, some say there has never been a true democratic workers state. There have always been politiicans who have seized control from workers (Lenin's undermining of the independent soviets as an example) and created centralized beaurocracies to serve a political elite. In some ways it's little different from a business elite calling the shots. You still have power in the hands of a few and that's not really democracy (rule by the people.) And yes, having a boss is a totalitarian arrangment. S/he says what you do and you either do it or quit and take orders from someone else or you advance and give orders to someone else. That's totalitarianism. Right?

[Immanuel Can]

I think you're taking "boss" as an individual.

Of course. There's no other kind of "boss."

I think leftists tend to look at things from a structural viewpoint,

What does that mean, Gary? That Leftists don't want to work?

Too bad for them. That's how you get to eat.

As far as "communism". As the title of the thread suggests, some say there has never been a true democratic workers state.

Communism isn't democratic. As you point out, it instantly degenerates into tyranny. It has, in every known case.

As for a "worker's state," I think there's an obvious reason why the idea is flawed from the start. People are not, as Marx thought, "self-actualized through praxis" (work). They don't automatically find fulfillment in banging hammers and swinging sickles. The human identity is much more complex than that, and much more troubled than Marxism was ready to assume. So a "worker's" state has a wrong anthropology from the get-go. Work is but one aspect of human personality, and not the dominant or most important one either. Work's just a thing we do.

It's like his dumb idea that everything is about "class," which is also obviously wrong now, and his blatant Historicism. Marx was just an ideologically-possessed fool. And he led everybody who followed him into misery, poverty, oppression and death. Why we want to dig up his rotting corpse now is beyond any sane person.

But this is what we're talking about: there has never been, is not now, and manifestly never will be, a "democratic workers' state." It's not a realistic idea. It's a delusion, a mistake, an ideological figment of Marxist imagination. That's why it's never worked.

And yes, having a boss is a totalitarian arrangment. S/he says what you do and you either do it or quit and take orders from someone else or you advance and give orders to someone else. That's totalitarianism. Right?

No, no...that's obviously wrong, Gary.

He/she is only one person at the end of a contract signed by two. This is what stuns me about Leftism: they don't recognize their own agency. They rattle on as if everything that happens to them is a case of them being a victim, and they've done nothing to put themselves where they are. But it's not. Work arrangements in a democracy are mutual, contractual, and consensual...not enforced and totalitarian. In a democracy, you're responsible for your own labor, and for the arrangements into which you freely enter.

Don't like them? Pick another one. It's that easy. And there's never been any time or place in history when it's easier to do.

[Gary Childress]

I think you're taking "boss" as an individual.

Of course. There's no other kind of "boss."

I think leftists tend to look at things from a structural viewpoint,

What does that mean, Gary? That Leftists don't want to work?

Too bad for them. That's how you get to eat.

I think they just don't want to work for someone else. Their vision seems to be something along the lines of a coop where people work without bosses telling them what to do. Sort of like the Israeli Kibbutz system.

[Gary Childress]

And yes, having a boss is a totalitarian arrangment. S/he says what you do and you either do it or quit and take orders from someone else or you advance and give orders to someone else. That's totalitarianism. Right?

No, no...that's obviously wrong, Gary.

He/she is only one person at the end of a contract signed by two. This is what stuns me about Leftism: they don't recognize their own agency. They rattle on as if everything that happens to them is a case of them being a victim, and they've done nothing to put themselves where they are. But it's not. Work arrangements in a democracy are mutual, contractual, and consensual...not enforced and totalitarian. In a democracy, you're responsible for your own labor, and for the arrangements into which you freely enter.

Don't like them? Pick another one. It's that easy. And there's never been any time or place in history when it's easier to do.

That's like saying, the world is free if you can choose what dictator you want to live under by moving to another country if you don't like the one you're in. Isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

What does that mean, Gary? That Leftists don't want to work?

Too bad for them. That's how you get to eat.

I think they just don't want to work for someone else.

Again, too bad. They need to grow up.

Everybody works for somebody, unless they're the inventor of their own business, and thus self-employed. That's because somebody who has a business is making money, and as for workers, they're not going to get any of it without adding some value.

How old are these people? And how spoiled and lazy are they?

[Immanuel Can]

And yes, having a boss is a totalitarian arrangment. S/he says what you do and you either do it or quit and take orders from someone else or you advance and give orders to someone else. That's totalitarianism. Right?

No, no...that's obviously wrong, Gary.

He/she is only one person at the end of a contract signed by two. This is what stuns me about Leftism: they don't recognize their own agency. They rattle on as if everything that happens to them is a case of them being a victim, and they've done nothing to put themselves where they are. But it's not. Work arrangements in a democracy are mutual, contractual, and consensual...not enforced and totalitarian. In a democracy, you're responsible for your own labor, and for the arrangements into which you freely enter.

Don't like them? Pick another one. It's that easy. And there's never been any time or place in history when it's easier to do.

That's like saying, the world is free if you can choose what dictator you want to live under by moving to another country if you don't like the one you're in. Isn't it?

Of course not. "Dictators" don't pay you. And they don't let you choose whether you work for them or for somebody else. And if you don't like them, they shoot you in the back of the head and roll you into a ditch.

Just like the Communists always do, actually.

Good heavens, man. Don't you see the difference between being employed at your will, and paid for what you do, versus being forced to work for nothing in a labour camp?

[Gary Childress]

No, no...that's obviously wrong, Gary.

He/she is only one person at the end of a contract signed by two. This is what stuns me about Leftism: they don't recognize their own agency. They rattle on as if everything that happens to them is a case of them being a victim, and they've done nothing to put themselves where they are. But it's not. Work arrangements in a democracy are mutual, contractual, and consensual...not enforced and totalitarian. In a democracy, you're responsible for your own labor, and for the arrangements into which you freely enter.

Don't like them? Pick another one. It's that easy. And there's never been any time or place in history when it's easier to do.

That's like saying, the world is free if you can choose what dictator you want to live under by moving to another country if you don't like the one you're in. Isn't it?

Of course not. "Dictators" don't pay you. And they don't let you choose whether you work for them or for somebody else. And if you don't like them, they shoot you in the back of the head and roll you into a ditch.

Just like the Communists always do, actually.

Good heavens, man. Don't you see the difference between being employed at your will, and paid for what you do, versus being forced to work for nothing in a labour camp?

Sure, there's a difference between being employed for an employer you like working for and working in a forced labor camp. However, a leftist would probably say that it's not either or. Hopefully, one could work in a coop atmosphere and choose neither of the above.

[Gary Childress]

No, no...that's obviously wrong, Gary.

He/she is only one person at the end of a contract signed by two. This is what stuns me about Leftism: they don't recognize their own agency. They rattle on as if everything that happens to them is a case of them being a victim, and they've done nothing to put themselves where they are. But it's not. Work arrangements in a democracy are mutual, contractual, and consensual...not enforced and totalitarian. In a democracy, you're responsible for your own labor, and for the arrangements into which you freely enter.

Don't like them? Pick another one. It's that easy. And there's never been any time or place in history when it's easier to do.

That's like saying, the world is free if you can choose what dictator you want to live under by moving to another country if you don't like the one you're in. Isn't it?

Of course not. "Dictators" don't pay you. And they don't let you choose whether you work for them or for somebody else. And if you don't like them, they shoot you in the back of the head and roll you into a ditch.

Just like the Communists always do, actually.

Good heavens, man. Don't you see the difference between being employed at your will, and paid for what you do, versus being forced to work for nothing in a labour camp?

And like them or hate them, dictators will pay some people quite well for doing their bidding. That's how they stay in power. So, yes, you can get paid to work for a dictator and you don't necesssarily get shot.

[Gary Childress]

Too bad for them. That's how you get to eat.

I think they just don't want to work for someone else.

Again, too bad. They need to grow up.

Everybody works for somebody, unless they're the inventor of their own business, and thus self-employed. That's because somebody who has a business is making money, and as for workers, they're not going to get any of it without adding some value.

How old are these people? And how spoiled and lazy are they?

Like most people, they would probably rather work under their own guidance. I don't know of too many people who don't want to work for themselves and avoid the yoke of a boss. I mean, there are nice bosses too but that's really little different from a benevolent dictator except in degree. But structurally, they're still giving the orders, whether nice or nasty.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure, there's a difference between being employed for an employer you like working for and working in a forced labor camp. However, a leftist would probably say that it's not either or. Hopefully, one could work in a coop atmosphere and choose neither of the above.

"Co-op"? No thanks. If I work, I want to be paid. And I want to be paid for as hard as I work. So does anybody honest, I think.