[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Mar 29 00:13:19 UTC 2002


On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> Thank you.

No problem.  Don't say I never gave you anyting.

> >Wow.  Do you know what communism IS?
> It's an econimic system that requires the government to own the means
> of production, so it is both economic and political.  Our constitution
> is just political.

Now, there you're wrong.

Government has nothing to do with communism.  Communism is an economic
system wherein the means of production of human necessity are not
controlled.  They are a public asset in the way that the air you breathe
is a public asset... not in the way that the Post Office is a public
asset.

> >The whole purpose of communism is to limit the power of wealth and its
> >ability to coerce the public by ensuring public control of the means of
> >production of human necessities.
> 
> This is where your arguement falls apart.

It's not MY argument.

> What does public control mean? It means that the government owns it.

That's an assumption.  The public controls it because the public needs and
uses it.

I don't like to use the word "government" when referring to free states
because free people do not require governing.  Let's say, for the time
being, that what you call government is a collection of public agencies.  
Think about the words here.  They are agents of the public.

Everyone is a member of the public and a thing wouldn't be a public
necessity if EVERYONE didn't need it.  We're talking about those things
necessary for good health, not bliss.

> That means that the people that control the government also control
> the wealth.  Sound familiar?

The public controls its own agencies and destroys them when they conflict
with public interest.  Sound familiar?

In order to CONTROL the means of production, one must control the workers.

> They have no check and balance because they control both the
> government and the businesses at the same time.  Absolute power.  If
> you have very decent people in government then this could work OK.  
> What happens if an evil person (Stalin) gets in there?

First and foremost, Stalin didn't just "get in there".  Stalin constructed
the system from the ground up to serve his purposes.  There were no checks
and balances because he didn't want any, not because they're impossible to
impelement in a communist economy.

Second, I'm not going to sit back and describe to you the perfect
communist economy and how it could be achieved in real life, here and
now.  I don't think anybody has those kinds of answers or plans.

Marx was a firm believer in technology.  He thought that one day worker
productivity would be so high that it would take only a minimal amount of
human effort to meet the needs of the people.  I've always been on the
lookout for information that described exactly how many man-hours were
required, in the modern age, to keep a person in the necessities for a
week... and, correspondingly, what level of human necessity can be met for
all men based on 5 hours work per person per week (and 10 and 20 and so
on).  I don't have those numbers and can only speculate.

> >I think you're confusing communism with Stalinism.
> 
> I think you are confusing that they are not the same thing.  See what
> I said above.  What eventually happens in every form of government is
> some jerk gets in there and starts screwing over the public for their
> own benefit.  It happens here also.  The only difference is we have
> ways of getting the jerk out of power.

What is inherent in a communist economy that prevents ousting jerks that
try to amass power?

Why wouldn't that person be opposed by the public whose liberty and
freedom is threatened by the consolidation of power not strike down such a
man?

> >I think a person can make a VERY strong argument that working in a modern
> >capitalist nation amounts to slavery for an enormous percentage of the
> >people.
> 
> I think not.  Simply because I can choose to quit a job I don't like.
> Slaves can't do that.

The bottom two-fifths of the people in the United States of America have
NO WEALTH.  That means they cannot sustain their lives for a single month
without income.  How is it that these people are free to quit their jobs?

In a communist economy, a person has a minimal obligation according to
their ability that must be met to receive the basic goods and services to
meet their needs.  The assumption is that this obligation would be
minimized (truly, optimally, minimized) by the collective efforts of the
public and withholding what you are able to contribute would only increase
the amount you had to give in order to meet your basic needs.  The benefit
of having one's needs met should outweigh the benefit of withdrawing from
the system.

While full participation is encouraged under the theory that more
participants decreases the required input by all, equally, I don't see any
way for a communist economy to force participation.  Don't participate,
don't reap the rewards.  Run off and build your own house and farm.  
You'll probably end up working a whole lot harder and having less time and
resources for luxuries.  That's the argument, anyway.

I'm just saying that no communist ideals benefit from the restriction of
personal freedom.

> >While the propaganda on the right talks about the rising tide raising all
> >boats and the land of opportunity, real wages have steadily decreased
> >while working hours have steadily increased.  More than 40% of the people
> >have no wealth of which to speak and that number has also been steadily
> >increasing over the past forty years.  That's the recipe for a growing
> >slave class... just so you know.
> 
> I will give you that in the last few years people are being asked to
> work harder for the same pay.

That's a sort of misleading way to put it.  People are working harder for
less pay.  Most people aren't able to maintain the same pay by working
harder.

> This is corporate greed and the only solution is for workers to just
> refuse to take it.  I have.  I was working 70 to 80 hours a week for
> almost a year.  I quit that job and now get paid about the same to
> work 40 to 50.

You had the wealth necessary to take that stand.  Most people do not.

> Employers will take what you give them.

Tell that to the food service and hospitality industries.  The demand for
workers has been rising steadily for 20 years, but real wages have gone
down.  There are more jobs than workers, nationally, but the compensation
is not increasing.

The industry can hold out longer than the workers can.  That's the sum of
it.  The workers can quit their jobs in protest, but they can't find a
better job (better giving/compensation ratio) before they really damage
themselves (losing shelter, etc.).

The situation continues because the workers are slaves.  They don't have a
real choice in leaving their work.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list