@RJJ: tell me more about these Kibbutzims!

the fact that Jewish people in the middle ages in Europe were not constrained by the same morales as Christians meant they could lend money for profit. Which as i may have suggested allows people to invest/risk take which has the potential to greatly benifit society - thus banking services can be seen as vital to society - or by some as immoral because the banks are basically making money without contributing anything to society - ie they are not making a product or providing a service which people consume - they are profiing simply from manipulating money from one place to another.

but the point capitalists would make (and it is valid) is that they are taking measured risks to ensure the best utilisation of money (where best is defined by most likely to contribute hte most to society) - this is a task assigned to politicians/union leaders/professional manager in the 'pure' communist system - and i don't neccesarily agree that they are the best people to decide - in fact i think the contribution of money lenders to society is great and should be protected (as in fact it was when the governments bailed out the banks last year)

@ Rule Britannia: "What if people didn't want to do the job assigned to their "needs"? What if not everyone worked? what would happen to those who didn't work, or who protested against their "suits and skills designed jobs"?"

This is two questions, not one. The first question is "what if people didn't like the job assigned to them?" and the second is "what if people refused to do any work AT ALL". You are right to pose these questions, as they are important. I would like to answer them.

In answer to the first one, I would propose that something akin to an employment market could still operate, although in more controlled conditions. Essentially whenever a job vacancy occurred, anyone who was (a) without a job, or (b) wanted to change their job, would apply for it in a similar way to what happens today. Shortlisting, interviewing, and the decision of who to appoint would take place pretty much as usual. If a person was unable to find a job after a certain amount of time trying, the state could fit them into any job that remained unfilled and, if possible, was suited to their skills or experience, on the basis that this would be a temporary arrangement and that they would remain free to apply for other jobs which arose. I would remind you that under capitalism, lots of people are forced into jobs they don't like, because if they don't take a crappy job, they can't pay their bills.

The second, seperate, question asks what we should do with people who are perfectly capable of working, but refuse to do so. I would say that's quite simple. If they do not wish to contribute to society, why should society support them? We would therefore conclude that society would be under no obligation to feed, clothe, or house such people.

@ Rule Britannia: "To all socialists I'd like to ask a question- if we had communism in the u.s.s would you be pro not allowing anyone in or out?"

What is the u.s.s ? (apart from a lower-case vedrsion of the initials before the name of an American warship)

@ Rule Britannia: "In fact, do all the commie romantics [remember] something called the nazi-soviet pact?...so i guess from now on i can refer to the likes of jamie, orathaic and bbanner as the nazis"

In 1938 the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain also signed a peace deal / non-aggression pact with Hitler. Does this make everyone who supports the current British political system a nazi as well?

This is basic reductio ad hitlerum stuff. In other words, bullshit.


@orthaic: "I don't have an issue with your definition of communism."

Thanks!

that point about nazis wasn't a serious one- just wanted to point out something else which the soviets did that was bad.
@ jamie- i meant the u.s/uk, not "uss". so if anyone would be kind enough to answer- if communism only existed in one part of the world, would you be pro having a block which meant no contact with the outside world?

No. If I was involved in setting up a successful communist state, I would not want to cut us off from the rest of the world. There would be no need for this.

oh and @Rule Britannia:

"that point about nazis wasn't a serious one- just wanted to point out something else which the soviets did that was bad."

And you therefore agree that Britain did something just as bad by signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler?

The USSR contributed greatly to Germany's defeat in WWII

no, because the british agreemant didn't include a deal not to fight germany if they started invading the rest of europe, nor did it include a secret deal splitting up poland, and deciding who would take which baltic states.

Wow. From capitalism vs communism to WWII debates.

Okay, I'll dive in anyway.

While Stalin was an evil man, communism while involved in a desperate, large-scale which you are losing is justified, because, in the end, a country's number one priority is to protect its citizens from physical harm from other nations. If you have to sacrifice one civilian to save two, what's so evil about that?

actually TMW i don't think i like that reasoning, how would you like it if the US administration decided to draft you and scarifice your life to protect other US citizens? If there is a war and people choose to join the army (hoping that a strong army will repel the invaders and thus protect their families/way of life) then yes, that is their choice to follow their nationalistic tendencies.

However nationalism is a bit 20th century at this point...

@RB - yes but the british refused to fight, so the soviets did what they deemed neccesary to protect themselves from the nazis and capitalists - if Britian and France had been willing to invade Germany in 1938 you would have seen a Soviet, British, French to protect Czechslovakia, probably supported by the Poles (and as a consequence Israel would probably never have been setup)

They are called communes in France as well, doesn't make them communist though.

actually i think communes are communist...

@ Rule Britannia: "no, because the british agreemant didn't include a deal not to fight germany if they started invading the rest of europe, nor did it include a secret deal splitting up poland, and deciding who would take which baltic states."

Stalin was just being realistic. He knew the USSR was in no position to fight Hitler in 1938/39, so he signed the pact to buy time.


@DominicHJ: "They are called communes in France as well, doesn't make them communist though."

In fact the Paris Commune of 1871, which briefly ruled Paris, was seen by Marx as an early attempt at introducing the first stage of communism.

But I think you are refering to the French usage of 'commune' to mean a local government body?