So, my title used to be Global Application Architect. All software development went through my office and I set the standards and determined what the appropriate architecture would be for developing the code in question. The development staff essentially reported to me. But at the same time, I was one of them. I was coding in the trenches just like them and I and the other senior level developers had a peer type relationship with a deference to my position only when decisions needed to be made. Am I working class or ruling class?

"But "to each according to his contribution" is a socialist (and, as it happens, capitalist) view, not a communist statement."

That's wholly incorrect. People who produce nothing exploit the labor of others in order to extract surplus under capitalism. They are parasites. People are not being rewarded according to work performed. Wages are determined in large part by the demand for a particular type of labor. Agricultural work performed by migrant workers for very low wages is dangerous, physically exhausting work. Surely if we were this meritocratic capitalist society they'd be paid more than the pittance they are paid now.

"So don't casll it a strawman argument when you refuse to recognize the difference between socialism and communism, Putin."

I've been pointing out the differences ad nauseum, Draugnar. You're ridiculous.

Everyone's a sinner baby :)

@Putin - Who says that someone doing agricultural work is contributing so much more? And, while it is physically demanding, what is so dangerous about it? I'd say firemen, policemen, and even construction workers on high-rises do much more dangerous work. And they get paid significantly more than immigrant field hands.

But who is to judge who contributes how much?

Putin, don't you see the contradiction in having a class society, where you remove the ruling class, then the working class takes over, some of them have to be placed to rule (take basic decisions even, like do we drive left or right lane), which makes them ruling class...

Insects have queens, worker bees, fighters ... and some fat guys who also get all the sex. No species are all equal. Even twins are different. Killing the top guy is a very ineffective way of doing things. Quite opposite to the usual natural selection approach.

Lets not forget the fact that some of the current working class doesn't have self-motivation and needs the ruling class to tell them what to do or they'll do nothing except draw a paycheck and be a drain on society. Yes, yes, I know, to each according to his contribution. So are we to just let them starve because they don't contribute? If not, then we have moved back to "to each according to his needs".

There are essentially three types of people.

1. Those that can and do - Perfect for the society you describe
2. Those that can but don't - Well, they'll start doing if they want to survive in that society.
3. Those that can't - What do we do with them? If we were base animals, we'd let them die out. They are the weak members of the pack and better to let the tigers catch them while the rest of us gazelles escape. But we aren't base animals and we feel a responsibility to the widows, orphans, ederly, and handicapped like mapleleaf. So we put social programs in place for them now. But under the "to each according to his contribution", we'd let them starve and die.

i would like to bring this thread back to the intended topic, or assertion, that is:

1) neither capitalism nor communism has been good for human beings, and
2) some combination or even totally new approach ought to be devised

to sum up my own view of what is wrong with each:

1) in a laissez faire world, if you dont have money, you're as good as dead
2) in a communist world, no one wants to do anything because property no longer exists. the trend as we have seen it has been for these societies to decline into totalitarianism

so now i pose the question:

what balance would you strike? is there a new untried approach you would advocate?

I still assert that small scope capitalism would work. Our problem is rampant greed. Take away the ability to grow beyond a certain size, doing away with public offerings and such, and the new order of the day would be companies thast take care of their employees and pay competitive wages because there would be so many more companies.

Ok but let me pose you a devils advocate question then:

What would you say to the counter that if no one can, say, make more than 10 million dollars, would not people who today work super hard because they are motivated by greed work very much less hard?

Yes, but my proposition is not so much in a fixed figure, but in a market limitation. Just as today we have anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws, we would put regulations that prevented a private communications group from owning more than one radio or one TV station in a given market, Likewise, there would be no cross market corporations. A company like P&G would be limited to consumer goods of a particular general type (cleaning/paper products) which is there core business and they wouldn't be allowed to produce food products (like coffee) or over the counter drugs. GE might be restricted to consumer appliances, eliminating their finance and aerospace divisions. Ford/GM/Chrysler would be restricted to cars and car parts, no financing divisions. And even the banking industry would be restricted to being a lending institution, but not a stock brokerage firm or insurance firm. Companies could grow exceedingly well that way, still making potentially hundreds of millions for their founders and the employees if the founders set up partnerships/ESOPs, but their would be no stock market and people making money by speculating on a companies rise or fall while contributing nothing to that company. Investors and investments would be strictly private.

And, just so you know, I believe the cat is so far out of the bag he is on the other side of the world and we'll never get him back in. What I mean is, while this would be a better system, it is not an acheivable system do to the existence of companies that already would violate these rules.

"Please do correct me if I am wrong, but wern't there special shops, only to be used by the party elite, in Soviet Russia?"

There were foreign exchange stores/beryozkas in which western goods not found in department stores or public markets could be purchased by foreigners with their own currency or with certificate rubles which were given in exchange for hard currency. These stores were originally open to all Soviet citizens, they were called torgsin shops. In other eastern bloc countries, they were open to all citizens. For example in the DDR they were called intershops and were opened to all East Germans in 1974 after the ban on having foreign currency was relaxed. These shops were designed to get access to foreign exchange from foreign visitors or relatives. It's probable that certain party elites abused their status in order to trade in hard currency and get certificate rubles "Vneshposyltorg checks" to use in these stores in the USSR, where having foreign currency was prohibited.

"@Putin - Who says that someone doing agricultural work is contributing so much more? And, while it is physically demanding, what is so dangerous about it? I'd say firemen, policemen, and even construction workers on high-rises do much more dangerous work. And they get paid significantly more than immigrant field hands."

Yes, construction is very dangerous. So is agricultural work and fishing. To suggest agricultural work is safe is ridiculous. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing make up 20% of all work-place fatalities among immigrant laborers, construction comprises 25%.

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/laborday/upload/immigrant_risk.pdf
http://health.yahoo.net/galecontent/farm-injuries

The point is, people who do laborious, dangerous jobs are paid very little compared to the profits they amass for the bosses. How is it fair that farm hands get paid less than minimum wage when they put their health and life on the line to do their job, while people like you get to play diplomacy every day?

"Putin, don't you see the contradiction in having a class society, where you remove the ruling class, then the working class takes over, some of them have to be placed to rule (take basic decisions even, like do we drive left or right lane), which makes them ruling class..."

Ivo, how many times are you going to say the same thing and get the same answer? Why is the dictatorship of the proletariat so hard to grasp? You need a working class dictatorship because even though the means of production have been expropriated this does not mean classes have been fully abolished, especially since numerous countries around you will be capitalist powers seeking to attack the socialist countries. The bourgeoisie which has been overthrown will organize for counterrevolution - many will go abroad to do so, and has we have seen historically. So no there is no contradiction. You can keep using this line over and over, about the "hypocrisy" of a classless society with a proletarian dictatorship, but the whole friggin point I have been making which doesn't get through your thick head is that a classless society doesn't yet exist after the working class expropriates the means of production. There are still class enemies that need to be defended against - foreign and domestic. Until these conditions no longer exist and until labor becomes productive enough that you do not need a state to supervise distribution, a working class dictatorship is needed.
There is no fucking contradiction. Understand the D of the P and the point of communism in two phases. For the love of god stop asking me this damn question.

Totally fair. You see, I'm a US Citizen. Born and raised. I pay my taxes. I went to school and paid for my education. I worked hard. I got ahead.

Illegal aliens, however, tax our economy by taking jobs that *would* pay minimum wage or better if they weren't being stolen by said illegals and by using resources that are budgeted for and intended for our citizens. Remember, the law requires people to be paid minimum wage.

If you can find a legal farm hand who isn't making miimum, you should point him to an attorney. If he has friends, they'll have a class action suit against their employer who will be out of business in no time. Problem is, you will only find *illegal aliens* making less than minimum wage and getting paid off the books. And if you find a company doing that, you should blow the whistle on them. I have. Bee's Buffet in Fairfield, OH had it's business shut down after I and a few other's discovered they were hiring illegals and even letting them sleep on premise as part of their "pay". They were exploiting the illegals as slave labor (food and a place to sleep, but no actual pay) and were rightfully shut down. Of course, Sheriff Jones had the illegals deported as well, but that is what they get for coming into the country illegally.

I know I'm going to get crucified for that one, but what the fuck. I don't believe in immunity to illegals and think enforcement through attrition is a good method of doing what the fed is supposed to do but won't.

"Our problem is rampant greed."

Capitalism is predicated on "rampant greed". That's what you people keep telling me, that humans are greedy by nature, so capitalism is a system suitable to human beings. If you limit the size of the market a firm can control that is like giving pixie sticks to a small child and telling them to go to bed. It won't work. Capital will find ways to centralize wealth. Plus, a system of artificially small firms will be inefficient and unproductive, by precluding improvements in economies of scale.

You claim paying people below minimum wage is fair, and then go on to rail about "illegal aliens". Doesn't make any sense. Is paying agricultural workers below minimum wage proper compensation for their labor? Yes or no?

There are plenty of programs out there trying to recruit people to go work these jobs that are supposedly being "stolen". There haven't been many volunteers. Anyway, defenders of capitalism say minimum wage laws are an artificial distortion of the market that increases unemployment, so you're trying to have it both ways. "Oh yes, capitalism justly rewards people for their labor, providing that the government steps in and twists Capital's arm about it".

Paying people who are legally entitled to work in the US less than minimum, no. But I defie you to provide even a little anecdotal evidence that this is occuring, much less clear cut evidence that it occurs on an industrial basis.

defy, not defie - wierd typo there.

Now, I asnwered your question with regards to that issue. Will you answer mine? Am I, a team lead essentially, working class or ruling class? Understand, I do make six figures a year with bonuses, but I'm also a working software developer. Developing and debugging software is 75% of my job.

Putin, I give up. Communism is gone, rage as much as you'd like. Clearly having an opinion and defending it no matter what is more important to you than the quality of your ideas and no matter how many people try to explain, in whatever manner, you keep repeating the same.

Good luck then. You're the best ad for capitalsm.

"Illegal aliens, however, tax our economy by taking jobs that *would* pay minimum wage or better if they weren't being stolen by said illegals and by using resources that are budgeted for and intended for our citizens. Remember, the law requires people to be paid minimum wage."

This ill sits coming from someone whose family were immigrants themselves into a land occupied by native people. Have you ever wondered what their 'legal system' had to say on the matter? Or is resort to the 'law' only the prerogative of those with power and/or money? Of course you must know that there were several laws in Nazi Germany too? What is illegal or legal often has little to do what is right or wrong, but is rather a means of oppression.

Of course I should have added the Spanish to the Native people in my last post to make the point more forcibly. Won't be long though until the black/hispanic electorate make this point for me.

@fulhamish - I'll give you that. And it is embarrasing to think how the native people of the Americas were treated when this continent was colonized by England, France, and Spain.

And I would have a problem with US immigration law if it were racists (i.e. restricted where a race could immigrant to or even if the race were allowed in) or in any other way discriminatory like Nazi Germany had. But, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such restriction to our immigration laws. They are equally applied to all who would desire to call the US home.

"Will you answer mine? Am I, a team lead essentially, working class or ruling class? "

You're the equivalent of a foreman, which is classified as petit bourgeois. Petit bourgeois are the vacillating class, divided in allegiance between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. It's pretty clear you're in the upper strata of the petty bourgeoisie, and identify your interests with the bourgeoisie.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/Marxclass.htm

"The English term 'petty bourgeoisie' is an anglicisation of the French term 'petite bourgeoisie', meaning 'little bourgeoisie'. Marxist-Leninists define the petty bourgeoisie as a class which owns or rents small means of production which it operates largely without employing wage labour, but often with the assistance of members of their families: "A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property", (Vladimir I. Lenin: Note to: 'To the Rural Poor', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 254)."

"This divided allegiance between the two decisive classes in modern capitalist society applies also to a section of employed persons -- those who are involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management -- e.g., foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers, etc. These employees have a supervisory function, a function is to ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer. On the one hand, such persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the proletariat (from which they largely spring); on the other hand, their position as agents of the management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow employees gives them interests in common with the bourgeoisie:

"An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, overlookers) who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist", (Karl Marx: 'Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production', Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 332)."

The American southwest was Mexican before it was American. In addition, one could easily argue that the US government never compensated those Mexicans living in the southwest at the time of the conquest via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after their property was seized by American settlers. There's plenty of illegality to go around.