Is having perfect equality like in a working communism really fair?

It is in my opinion that it's not fair. In the world, just about everyone wants to succeed. This is where the distinction between the two types of people in the world comes into play: some of the people just hope that they'll somehow succeed, whereas others actually work to succeed.

I believe strongly that those who work to succeed should have more priveleges and a stronger ability to do what they want to than the people who don't work. When I say "what they want," I mean within all moral and ethical boundaries. The people who don't work to succeed shouldn't have to become poor, homeless, or anything of that nature, but rightfully should not have all the same luxuries and whatnot that a hard-worker does. It would be unfair to live in a communistic society where the people who actually want to work to succeed are receiving the same kind of treatment as someone else who really couldn't care less about whether or not they have to work.

The people who actually succeed don't need to be given anything extra to succeed or because they succeed. Successful people will succeed even under dire conditions and their reward is in their success. (fame, money, whatever their goal is.)

If you gave 2 men a fishing pole and a worm and lake with fish.... if one of them doesn't use it, it's not your fault. There is no need to punish him... just do not reward him by sharing your food.

There is no reason to put limits upon people, they will make them themselves.

O.

I agree with you AGiantBean. Making people equal is taking away individuality and individual freedom. People are ultimately in competition with each other and it is survival of the fittest. People who receive equal benefits no matter if they contribute to acquiring those benefits will eventually drag down those doing the greater respective contribution.

I think perfect equality is a hard thing to define. In the context of your example of a working commune I do agree with your stance.

What?! Your analogy is flawed. EQUALITY would mean that BOTH people are given the fishing pole. But in REALITY not everyone is given the fishing pole. The issue on inequality lies their, it's not about the ones who don't take advantage of the opportunities, but the ones who the opportunities are not given.



HOW is equality taking away from individuality and individual freedom?! Maybe it's the FEAR that people you don't AGREE with for what ever reason threaten you?

Let us say there a person named Herbert in a working commune where perfect equality was the rule. Let us suppose Herbert decides he would like to work really hard to make a boat so he can explore across the ocean. Herbert could work very hard to make this boat but he would not be allowed to take it across the ocean as the boat belongs to the community and they all need their access to it.

I don't understand your hypothesis. America isn't a working commune. It's a capitalist society, with a free market economy. How does your hypothesis apply to our society? We are a democracy where "theoretically" everyone is intitled to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Though, there was a time in our history, where African Americans and women weren't allowed to vote, segregation was the standard and the gay population was underground due to the fear of violence ever present. In the last one hundred years, these minorities have been granted those elusive rights and the fear of persecution has demised to an extent. Is our country better off? Yes, undoubtedly. BUT, there is MUCH work and continuous change that still needs to occur. Equality will only bring more diversity, different points of views and strengthening of our nation by eventual harmony by EQUAL cohabitation. What reason is there that in our great nation, one citizen should be denied ANY opportunity that another takes for granted as an inalienable right? What deems one priority over another?

Assuming perfect equality was accomplished, overnight, and we all had the same amount of good land, tools, money, etc.
Within weeks, it would be unequal. Traits like talent, work ethic, ambition, intellect, education are all unequally distributed among us, so even with an even start, there will never be perfect equality.

"Since everyone is different, the only way to treat them all equally is to treat them all differently." Sam Wyche

There will always be a variation among different people as to how much wealth they deserve, and how much they want to work for.

Merit, work ethic should determine the distribution of wealth. Hence, our system is best...well, once you remove racist college admission and workplace hiring policies and the like.

Of course perfect equality would be unfair, but that's not something that a socialist society really needs to have. Socialism is just a society where the means of production are owned by the people instead of the rich eliet. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone gets paid the same, lives in the same house and gets all the same products, it just means they own the means of production. This could be as simple as all companies being worker-owned (my personal favorite) or the government owning most or all of business (which is, in my view, closer to fascism than socialism.)

So to directly answer your question ...




No, perfect equality is not fair, but a working communist system is.

Once again someone is confusing EQUAL OPPORTUNITY with EQUAL RESULTS. I think the debate has nothing to do with communism vs capitalism but freedom vs lack of freedom. If you give everyone the same tools to succeed, some will succeed while others will not. You take away the tools from those that would naturally succeed, and give them to others that would not normally succeed except they have been given an unfair advantage, you have someone that moderately succeeds in place of the person utilizing his god given talents to their potiential. So, equal opportunity DOES NOT mean equal results and is quite fair if everyone is given the opportunity, even if to decline the opportunity, but equal results is in fact a type of tyranny in itself.

it is impossible to have perfect equality in the first place. as some have mentioned, some people won't work, (or CAN"T) some have no talents and what else bill said.

there is no way to guarantee equal results, (right now at least) but you can guarantee equal opportunity. this is what we should strive for. despite the lies they tell you not everyone can get rich, even if they have talent, work ethic, etc... because not everyone has access to the tools needed to succeed (college, for example)

in a capitalist society there is not equal opportunity. the massive corporations will drive smaller businesses out of business almost every time, because they cut into there profits. (9-10 restaurants fail, and not all because of bad management or product)

and how many in our society that are "successful" make most of their money off of their money from the work of others? (nike, adidas, and other companies that use cheap overseas labor for example, where workers are paid at most 2 dollars a day!)of course not every one that is successful does so off the sweat of others but many do.

and in a working communist society people help each other succeed, rather then just caring about themselves. and some people can't or won't work, for whatever reason (schizophrenics for example) but they should be allowed equal access to all the basics of lifes (health care, which should be free for all. food, which should be free or extremely cheap. and basic housing, which should be free, and guaranteed work, even if it is menial things like janitorial) most communists and socialists don't want everyone to have the exact same things, but to have the basics of life. we don't want perfect equality as we know it isn't actually possible (yet at least, and not until we change our thinking)

if you would like to know how a truly communistic society works I would suggest doing research on the "Haudenosaunee (iroquois) federation/confederacy" there are too many links for here but here are few to get you started:
The Haudenosaunee (Six Nation or Iroquois) Confederation
What is the Iroquois Confederacy?
Iroquois Confederacy

(edited for spelling)

Billy Jean, you and I read different things into AGiantBean's original post. I saw it as a simplistic model not representing any country. It was a simple a model with two parameters, perfect equality and a working commune. There is much latitude to color this model without any other delimiters. In this light, my posts may make more sense to you.

CruisingRam brought up the subject of equal opportunity. To me, it is indeed different that perfect equality and I am in agreement with his his comments. But, it was not a parameter in AGiantBean's model or question so I will leave it at that.

No it isn't fair. People should be able to succeed as much as they want, Communism and socialism take away freedom, and I know Commies and Socialists are saying that it doesn't but economic freedom is taken away, period. That isn't right. Punishing the rich for succeeding and rewarding the poor for doing nothing, that is not right at all.

CP

There's a word for what you describe: elitism. Opportunity can never be perfectly equal, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to make it as equal as we can. The market will already reward people with superior skills or work ethics. They'll already have more luxuries, including the luxuries of time and freedom to try new things without risking penury, than other people. Do you think we need to help them along more than that? I don't. If anything, the reward for skill and effort is already too super-linear (e.g. 2x the work yielding 100x the reward) and persistent (across generations) for my tastes. Fairness, to me, means everyone should run the same race, and receive rewards in proportion to how well they run it.

I'm not confusing equal oppurtunity and equal results. Is "equal oppurtunity" not being able to get more than you already have because somebody doesn't think it's fair? That's the way that you're putting it. Look at it this way: in a perfect communism, everyone is equal. Same power, same everything, nobody's higher than anyone else in any way. But Bob is a man who wants more than what he has. Bob is a hard worker. He works and works and works, but is never able to have anything more than Ed, the biggest slacker around. Ed doesn't like to work, but has all the same things as Bob because Bob isn't allowed to have more, even though he's earned it. This isn't fair, or even equal oppurtunity. This is just complete equality, which squanders the amount of priveleges that a hard-worker deserves.

Let me point out here, because this seems to be a common misconception, that this topic isn't saying anything about the US government. This is directed simply at the topic: Is equality fair.

well, i would think all agree that inequality sucks, is that the same as inequity, or is this just a money thing. No one wants to be poor, where does that leave the class issue. How is any society going to deal with population growth, resource need and inflation all at the same time, equity is a joke plain and simple, equity is a threat to power as well, so do i think it will make it, no. Should the destruction of equity also destroy freedom then, or is that something else also

AGiantBean, you've got misconcecptions about Communism. Let me repost an earlier post:

AGB, you seem to be missing something. in a truly communistic society (whcih there has not been one, though native americans came close) those that do not cotribute to the community get the basics. if you want to sit araound and do nothing, you would get food, a home (such as a small studio apartment, including water and electricity) and medical care. if you want more you need to contribute. I don't know ANY communists or socialists (personally at least) that want to give everyone the exact same things (like houses, cars, tv's etc...) they all want to give people the oppurtunity to at the least live, and to thrive and make themselves better (such as by going to college) they want to give people an equal oppurtunity, not equal results.

can you prove this CP? I can't disprove it and you can't prove it because there has never been a fully communist or socialist country, not one. (the soviet union was moving towards socialism in the first part of this century, but after WW2 became a state-capitalist country)


WHAT economic freedom? the freedom to earn someone else millions of dollars? the freedom to work 50 hours a week just to pay your bills? it takes mass amounts of capital to make any, and if you don't have the capital and can't get it, you end up a wage slave. the freedom you think you have under capitalism is illusionary, it doesn't exist. more the 3/4 of all new businesses fail within the first year, and they can't all be because of bad management, or poor work ethic. many are driven out of business by bigger companies that see the small ones as cutting into their profit margin. (wal mart has driven thousands of small stores out of business)

CP, before you start criticizing communism, please read marx and engels, and try reading "the state and revolution" by lenin.

Yes Unabomber, freedom is taken away in a textbook communist gov't, economic freedom, if you can't make as much as you want, that is not economic freedom, it's that simple, there is no economic freedom at all, that's what the whole philosophy is based on.

CP

CP you don't seem to get it. in a complete true communistic society people don't put themselves first, they put the community, and those that need, help first, VOLUNTARLY. they are not interested in making endless and obscene amounts of money and aren't trying to persue material wealth but personal or "spiritual" wealth. they do things not because there is monetary gain to be made, but because they WANT TO! and also because it needs to get done. by the time true communism is acheived,(which is at least 200 years away BTW) money has been forgotten about, as true communism is actually an anarchist society, where everything is shared by all, voluntary. (marx believed that as man evolved to communism the state would slowly wither away) I know it is hard for you to understand, I don't know why, as it is simple. from each according to his ability: this does NOT mean everything you make, but what you can spare; to each acording to his need: if someone needs something, lets say food, you help them get it.

oh yeah, jesus taught communism:
and he feeds 5000 people (likely an exageration) with 11 loaves of bread and a few fish when he could have kept it for himself. that's what a communist would do. and the 10% tide was not to help the church but to help out people that needed it.

oh and the jewish people have proven communism can work. ever hear of kibutz's? they were/are communities in which everything was/is shared by the community.

also, where is your information on the philosophy of communism coming from? an american textbook? maybe capitalism magazine? what are your sources? I have studied marx/engels and lenin, and the philosophy is not what you say it is.

What you are describing is a utopia, that could never happen except in small groups of communes, never large groups. Jesus, a Commie. Do you honestly think that JC would approve of lazy people reeping the benefits from those who work hard, of course not. And by justifying a political philosophy with religion, you're sounding like the religious Right

CP

wow, you can see the future! what I'm describing is man's nature. look at children. they will share their food and and toys with those that don't have any. I have seen this happen every time.

I am not justifying it with religion. the christian church of today does NOT follow the teachings of Issa. he taught people to care for there fellow man and not to expect anything in return. he did this himself. he easily could have used his talents to make money, but he healed those that ned it and expected NOTHING in return, not even to worship him. he fed the hungry with HIS food (ie "lazy" people reaping the "benefits" from those who work hard) Issa very often feed those that wouldn't work (or couldn't, or worked and were being screwed by the system) with food HE bought and fish he and his followers caught. do you honestly think jesus would not be appalled at the way the world is today, where a person can have ten cars, yet there are children starving in the streets.

you seem to have the misconception that everyone that doesn't work doesn't do so because they are lazy. truth is most people want to work, but can't find work, or they do work, but can only find part time work at minimum wage. there are many that would become doctors or nurses, but can't afford the schooling that is needed.

I will admit that at this point in time communism is not possible as we aren't ready for it. we need to move from capitalism to socialism and get that worked out first, then we are ready to move to communism. this is at least a couple hundred years off.

by the way, check out capitalism and western reforms at work in russia:
young russian girl begs for food - woman and child begging at a moscow metro you think Issa would approve of THIS?

As I said, small communist acts are normal and a part of life, communism simply doesn't work in large groups, as I said. How do you know that most want to work but can't?

About your links, oh, and of course none of that happens in a socialist state, nothing like that happened in the Soviet Union. The misconception about communism is that everyone will always have "adequate living money/supplies". What about a family of say, 8. How does the "community" adjust to that. What if there is a compulsive gambler in the "community" and he constantly gambles his money away, is money constantly given to him? To many question marks, or to many question marx [sorry, couldn't resist].

CP

You show me a socialist nation that feeds a gambling addiction and i am moving there

The simple thing i like to point out is the road say poor or middle class people face in respects to healthcare and education. These things are very hurting to say the least, and without those two vital areas you seem to get a stagnation i guess, or being born into a class most likely means you will die there also. To me i guess, i could be wrong here, is that socialism provides for people that need it, in basic terms along with the ability to help yourself, not a system that lets you die. Laid off workers if lucky have to rely on socialist aspects of our government already. But the simple thing is that can run out or be closed off, may not cover the need for education, healthcare or even pay enough to eat a normal diet of say 3 or 2 meals a day, basic needs.

I dont remember socialist ideas saying pour millions of dollars into a lazy person.

because everyone I know that doesn't have a job is looking for one and can't find one. they all want to work and are unable to find work. those I don't know, I'm sure want to eat and have a place to stay , and that requires money, which requires work. there is a portion that does,'nt want to work and those that can't, but I assume most want to work but can't find work.


according to people from russia my brother I and speak to,(online, which is where I got those photos) this rarely happened in the soviet union. not everyone in communism had what they needed, but that is because EVERYWHERE communism and socialism has been tried has been poor to begin with. this is the reason capitalism is needed, (according to MARX) so as to produce the resources to ensure that everyone has the basics needed to survive. with the family of eight the community would help raise the children and contribute to them what they could.

with the compulsive gambler: if he was a contributing member of society, and contributed a portion of his money to help those that need it, and if he worked for the money he gambles away, that's his deal, if he isn't a contributing member, we would help him get help for his problem until he became a contributing member of society, he would be given: FOOD, HOUSING, MEDICAL CARE AND ACCESS TO WATER AND ELECTRICITY AND NO MORE. he wouldn't be given money as you think he would be. if

Key word, basic. Communism helps insure that you have the bare minimum to survive, well, I and I'm sure most want more than the bare minimum, they don't want the gov't to decide what they get, they want to earn what they get, how do I know, because we are a happy, prosperous [for the most part] CAPITALIST country.

CP

you yourself admit that communism INSURES the bare minimum. that doesn't mean that is all you get. if you sit around and do nothing you should not expect more then the minimum. if you want to get more you need to help contribute to the community, this again does not mean that you need to give everything to the state (which according to theory, has withered away by the time communism is achieved) it means you give a decent portion to help out those that need it, and keep the rest. and in a truly communist society(which is the situation AGB is speaking of) no one works for monetary gain and greed but because they like to do so, with monetary gain as a secondary reward.(they are reimbursed for their work, such as auto manufacturers, who would share the income generated by the cars they make as they share the means of production) the "perfect" equality that communism aims for isn't forced, as that creates resentment, it is created voluntarily by the community itself.

I won't deceive myself, america at this point in time is not ready for this, as too many are too greedy. (seriously, what does someone need 5-10 cars for? or three gigantic houses, some of which probably have rooms they never go in? or several planes? especially when millions, possible billions the world over are starving?)

Your First Paragraph: There is no incentive to work hard if you don't get anything for doing itl People aren't greedy, as long as there is money, and money is needed to buy things to support themselve and their families, people will want money.

Your Second Paragraph: I agree with you to some extent, more charities should be established for these less fortunate people, however, it is immoral to take away these rich people's hard-earned money to give to someone else, that is a choice they need to make themselves.

CP

Is there anything wrong with discussing a utopian vision? Laissez-faire types do it all the time, and they even expect us to believe it's real. Certainly compromise would be necessary in the real world either way, but there's nothing wrong with defining a direction even if the endpoint is unattainable.



At least he tried to back it up with scripture. Could you please try to do the same? This is a debate after all, we're supposed to provide support for our beliefs and not just sneer at others'.

Okay, fine, but what I'm saying is that it is highly unlikely that people would do what unabomber is proposing.

I wasn't sneering, I was asking a question , that hasn't been answered.

CP

Hi Conservpat, I've changed to here, as you suggested. With regard to your point that what would currently be seen as a less hardworking person being rewarded for not working, I have a couple of points.
Firstly, I wonder why that matters so much. If the situation was that people could work while they wanted to and then have the freedom to choose not to work for a time - say to travel, take up painting, spend time with the kids, find something more fulfilling - why would that harm someone who is hardworking and enjoys their job? If a person is prepared to live more frugally in exchange for more personal fulfilment at a stage in their lives, why would that be such a bad thing for someone who makes a different choice?
Secondly, the current perception is that working hard to make economic gains and earn lots of money is 'good'. Well, of course those who benefit enormously from it see it as good and work very hard to keep the ordinary person believing that it's good, but to me there never seems to be any moral reason behind it. I can't think of any reason why using your life to perform dull routines is necessarily a better choice than using your life to appreciate flowers.

Because a job isn't nessesarily a dull routine, it can be fun. Making lots of money is rewarding and helps you do things you want and need to do, that is the morality behind it, can you re-word your first point, I don't get what you're trying to say, sorry.

CP

you seem to have a misconception of how communism works, so I am going to try explaining this in simple terms:
me and 79 other people work in a plant making widgets. this plant is owned by none of us, but shared. the widgets are big sellers, and many people buy them. they give us money in return for our product. we take that money,(let's say $100,000, for two weeks sales) use what is necessary to keep the plant running and producing widgets, (let's say 10,000 for materials and whatnot) we take the remaining 90,000 dollars, and split it equally, giving each person $1125. in our current society the state takes money (known as TAXES) which is supposed to go to public schools, military, etc... and is supposed to be used for the needs of the citizens. in a truly communist society (which is what we are talking about) you wouldn't have the money you made taken for these things, but would GIVE them to the general fund which would fund things the community needs.) under a truly communist system, everyones basic needs are met, whether you contribute or not. if you contribute, not only are you afforded better housing, but it is free, you get free food, and your medical care is free. people are likely to be MORE prosperous under this system and also, more willing to work as they no longer feel alienated from the product they produce, from themself as they would have more free time, and as they would no longer be competing against each other, as marx wrote out in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts

you get it NOW???? also, you seem to think that the only reason anyone works is money, which, while for many right now is true, many also do the jobs they do(such as doctors who likely became doctors not because of the money, but because the want ed to help people) because they like doing it, and are good at it. under communism, jobs such as doctors would have incentive despite medicine being free because that money you put into the community goes to pay doctors, which are an important member of society (as they keep everyone healthy)

your conceptions of what communism is seem scewered to me, as if you got your info on it from the weekly standard, or capitalism magazine. I am again asking you where you get your information about communism and socialism. most my info comes from the fathers of said system, karl marx and friedrich engels. I have also studied a little lenin, the first person to try implementing such a system.

and just to clarify-
marx came up with an ingenious theory. his theory was that society, no matter what people did, evolved through several stages. the first of which was the now virtually dead "primitive communal" state, which is what the native americans had. as time went on, we moved through the feudal stage (dark ages and medieval times in europe) this evolved into the slavery stage which lasted from about 1400 til the late 1700's to mid 1800's. then we moved from the slavery stage into the capitalist stage, (early 1800's to present) after capitalism we moved into communism. communism had two stages, as we moved from capitalism to communism, we went through socialism, which sets up the mindset and systems needed for communism, after that we move on to true communism, at which time there is no longer any state, as it had withered away during socialism. it cannot be implemented in short amounts of time, but needs to be implemented over a period of time and must develop naturally.

"While the state exists there will be no freedom;
When freedom exists there will be no state."-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, first premiere of the Souyz Sovietskich Socialisticheskich Respublic (SSSP, more commonly known as the USSR)

Sorry, I'll rephrase it.
Suppose a situation where each person is given the basic minimum to live, whatever their circumstances, working or not. People can choose to work and have more than the minimum if they want to, but if they don't want to they can choose to live differently. If they choose different things at different points in their lives they have they freedom to do that too. I don't understand how the person who interprets their quality of life in a way that does not involve constant paid employment and commercial goods is somehow 'doing down' someone who chooses to work.
Regarding whether people who work enjoy it, that's fine for them. But why should the fact that they enjoy work mean that it's right for everyone? I just don't get the reasoning behind the idea that workers are morally superior to non-workers.
I should probably point out that I would see giving all people a basic income as promoting equality of opportunity and outcome. It ensures that people have equality of choice throughout their lives. This will mean that anyone who has a talent can develop and exploit it whenever they are able to do it, and anyone who just has a talent for living a fulfilled life can do that too.

And if one of your friends doesn't work as hard as you why should he get equal share. It's the lazy riding on the coat-tails of the hard working and that isn't right. As for your doctors analogy, most people work to make money, so they can eat, afford luxeries [the fruits of their labor] and support their family. Explain to me how that doctor is going to make what he does in a capitalist country in a communist system.

CP

Although I think we have veered off topic into a Capitalism vs Communism debate, think of it this way.

In a classroom setting. You have A+ students and you have D students(you need a C to pass). The A+ students study and work hard to get their A+. The D students do their work incomplete, and rarely study. To compare this to communism, the teacher takes the total of all grades for all his students in the class and averages them out to a C+ average. Now every student has passed, regardless of how much effort they put into it.

Is that fair?

conservpat, I have asked you to provide your source of information on the communist system TWICE now. this makes THREE, please do so.

as to how what to do a non hardworker: I do not honestly know what exactly you would do. this is one of those practical problems that is worked out in the socialist stage of development. one option would be to only give him only a portion of the 1125, and tell him why he is not making as much, and put the money he doesn't get into the communities general funds. hopefully in 200-300 years we would build decent work ethic up again.

most people work the jobs they do because they have no other choice. I'm sure ther are thousands of people working a crap job, but want to be a doctor, or a defense attorney, and not simply because of money, but because they like to help people. money and material wealth isn't the driving force for everyone because it is for you.

how we would pay doctors as well as they are now is another of those practical problems that is solved during socialism. and besides in a truely communist society MONEY WON'T BE AS IMPORTANAT AS IT IS NOW!!!! how many times must I explain that. the doctors in a communist society wouldn't be as interested in the money so much as HELPING PEOPLE!!!! and they would be paid from general funds.

in response to sleeper:
no that isn't fair, so you would need to provide the student with an incentive to get a better grade, and let those that worked hard keep those grades they earned. if they did nothing to improve their grade they would be kicked. if he is given an incentive to improve, (let's say passing and getting a good job.

I'm going by the definition of the word. What you said in answering my question is basically, we don't know yet. Well, there you go, if I work hard, my buddy doesn't, we each get paid, differently? Sounds like capitalism to me.

CP

Conservpat and unabomber, this thread isn't suppossed to be another Capitalism vs. Socialism or Communism threads. It is about equality - which covers a lot more than just economic equality. Could you please try and tie your posts into the broader subject of equality? Otherwise, the specifics offered your posts would probably be best suited for another thread.

Thanks-

Well now we're getting somewhere.

What they tell you about Communism is a lie. Not everyone makes the same amont no matter what they work, not everyone is allowed to do a poor job, sure it's possible that you could make a Communist society like that, but it wouldn't work and would have to be changed. The only thing needed for you to call a society Communist or socialist is for the people to own the means of production (i.e. land and labor.) You can put whatever type of government you want on that, there's infinite possibilities. To say there's only one Communist system is like saying there's only one Capitalist system.