Marxists Thread

[Jenos Ridan]

Standardised housing is a mainstay of communism alright, we definately haven't seen any capitalist based housing plans along the same lines... oh wait. Furthermore, capitalism tends to promote cultural homogenity as it's easier to market to.

A fine point.

@ Jenos Ridan: So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing. Or would you rather have it that the elite few can design their mansions anyway they like, the bourgeois can live in their 3 bedroom semis, the working classes struggle on in substandard slums, while the underclass exists in shacks or on the street.
I for one would rather see equality rather than this outrageous disparity. I assume you were lucky enough to be born into the good side of this divide. The majority of the planet weren’t.

Yeah, a large majority here do not live in shacks. That Cuba's and the USSR's position.

By point exactly. Capitalistic societies tend to supply to the majority at higher levels of living better. Sure, a tad wasteful and in some cases easy to corrupt, but then if the said culture has democratic traditions the corruption is less, as politicians and buerocrats are answerablt to the people.

[flashleg8]

So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing.

Because:

1. It would suck
2. You would be squashing individual human expression

The point is really that you & your communist friends would be setting yourselves up as the definers of what is and isn't adequate.

Hmm, It would suck for you - cause you already live in a big fancy house. It wouldn't suck for the masses living in poverty dieing every year due to exposure and living in unsanitary conditions.

Individual expression? Designing luxury houses at the expense of live itself? Get your priorities straight!

I'll happily define what is adequate: Shelter that is hygienic, with running water, heating, modern sanitation. 72 inch Plasma screen TVs and 500W sound systems with £3K leather sofas not included.

[everywhere116]

Standardised housing is a mainstay of communism alright, we definately haven't seen any capitalist based housing plans along the same lines... oh wait. Furthermore, capitalism tends to promote cultural homogenity as it's easier to market to.

A fine point.

@ Jenos Ridan: So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing. Or would you rather have it that the elite few can design their mansions anyway they like, the bourgeois can live in their 3 bedroom semis, the working classes struggle on in substandard slums, while the underclass exists in shacks or on the street.
I for one would rather see equality rather than this outrageous disparity. I assume you were lucky enough to be born into the good side of this divide. The majority of the planet weren’t.

Yeah, a large majority here do not live in shacks. That Cuba's and the USSR's position.

By point exactly. Capitalistic societies tend to supply to the majority at higher levels of living better. Sure, a tad wasteful and in some cases easy to corrupt, but then if the said culture has democratic traditions the corruption is less, as politicians and buerocrats are answerablt to the people.

Entire point of the Founding Fathers' position.

[flashleg8]

You want me to dumb it down for you, ok....

Humans compete, one needs not look far to see this evidenced in society. Competion drives production and innovation. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is the fairest.

Not so. Competition may drive production and innovation but only towards that which can be sold to consumers for the profit of the capitalists (owners of the means of production). This innovation is not necessarily for the good of the community.
An example: Western pharmaceutical companies develop medicines which are profitable, masses of research goes to wards treatment of diabetics as this is an affliction widespread in the affluent western world. Any treatment will generate huge profits. Treatments for afflictions more common in the developing world (such as malaria) go either un-researched are under researched as any potential treatment or cure developed would either be unmarketable or generate low profits as the people afflicted do not have the means to pay for the treatment.

[Neutrino]

Yeah, a large majority here do not live in shacks. That Cuba's and the USSR's position.

Ive said it once, ive said it twice, ive said it 3 times, ill probably have to say it again:

RUSSIA AND CUBA ARE NOT SOCIALIST!

They may like to say that they were, but in reality they were dictatorships.

[everywhere116]

Yeah, a large majority here do not live in shacks. That Cuba's and the USSR's position.

Ive said it once, ive said it twice, ive said it 3 times, ill probably have to say it again:

RUSSIA AND CUBA ARE NOT SOCIALIST!

They may like to say that they were, but in reality they were dictatorships.

Socialist dictatorships. You can be both or not be both. For example, Western Europe is very socialist, but hardly a dictatorship. The Soviet Union and Cuba on the other hand are/were communist dictatorships, with one of the worst poverty levels there is.

[Jenos Ridan]

So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing.

Because:

1. It would suck
2. You would be squashing individual human expression

The point is really that you & your communist friends would be setting yourselves up as the definers of what is and isn't adequate.

Hmm, It would suck for you - cause you already live in a big fancy house. It wouldn't suck for the masses living in poverty dieing every year due to exposure and living in unsanitary conditions.

Individual expression? Designing luxury houses at the expense of live itself? Get your priorities straight!

I'll happily define what is adequate: Shelter that is hygienic, with running water, heating, modern sanitation. 72 inch Plasma screen TVs and 500W sound systems with £3K leather sofas not included.

"Getin' Rich" is the American Dream. Take away a goal, why bother to work? "Earning one's keep"? You'd get that even if you didn't work. Economies run on incentive. People in general are motivated by self-interest. Sad, but true.

And before you brand me as some millionaire's child, I'm middle-class. Too rich to benefit from social welfare and too poor to be rich. My folks, myself and most everybody in my family has to fight an uphill battle because of the damn socialistic crap this nation (the USA) has ennacted into law. Socialism fails to reward effort, so it is un-fair. End of Story.

[flashleg8]

Yeah, a large majority here do not live in shacks. That Cuba's and the USSR's position.

Ive said it once, ive said it twice, ive said it 3 times, ill probably have to say it again:

RUSSIA AND CUBA ARE NOT SOCIALIST!

They may like to say that they were, but in reality they were dictatorships.

Even so, I must stand up and say that both these systems are a step towards a better, fairer system. Undoubtedly they are not true socialist, more like state capitalist and I agree that aspects of their government systems were/are dictatorial in style.

But the fact is that Americans can point to the housing problems in Cuba is laughable. The US blockade to Cuba is the major reason why the Cuban people are enforce into their current hardships. Housing in Cuba is free for all people. There is no homelessness and a massive drive to improve the housing stock has been underway for some time. If the USA would allow equal access to their markets to all countries (surely the "capitalists" way?) then this improvement would be increased.

And as for the former USSR - you must remember the low base that the country started at. In 1917 the country was barely industrial at all and people were still living in virtual serfhood. Lenin and Stalin managed to industrialise the nation in a fraction of the time that the countries of the west did. Of course the USSRs work to improve the lot of the people was not complete, but again the USA hindered this work and eventually bankrupted the nation in the cold war.
Just because a nation wins a war does not make their system the fairest.

[flashleg8]

"Getin' Rich" is the American Dream. Take away a goal, why bother to work? "Earning one's keep"? You'd get that even if you didn't work. Economies run on incentive. People in general are motivated by self-interest. Sad, but true.

I refuse to believe this. Take a teacher or a public servant for example. They could almost certainly get more money working in the privet sector, but they do their job as it is a vocation, not all people are motivated by money.

And before you brand me as some millionaire's child, I'm middle-class. Too rich to benefit from social welfare and too poor to be rich.

I can assure you, you are rich compared to the billions living in poverty not knowing where their next meal is coming from.

My folks, myself and most everybody in my family has to fight an uphill battle because of the damn socialistic crap this nation (the USA) has ennacted into law. Socialism fails to reward effort, so it is un-fair. End of Story.

Say its unfair for the people in the sweat shops in Asia working a 16 hours day for peanuts to make your Nike trainers. They not putting in enough effort for you?

[qeee1]

So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing.

Because:

1. It would suck
2. You would be squashing individual human expression

The point is really that you & your communist friends would be setting yourselves up as the definers of what is and isn't adequate.

Hmm, It would suck for you - cause you already live in a big fancy house. It wouldn't suck for the masses living in poverty dieing every year due to exposure and living in unsanitary conditions.


Individual expression? Designing luxury houses at the expense of live itself? Get your priorities straight!

I'll happily define what is adequate: Shelter that is hygienic, with running water, heating, modern sanitation. 72 inch Plasma screen TVs and 500W sound systems with £3K leather sofas not included.

"Getin' Rich" is the American Dream. Take away a goal, why bother to work? "Earning one's keep"? You'd get that even if you didn't work. Economies run on incentive. People in general are motivated by self-interest. Sad, but true.

And before you brand me as some millionaire's child, I'm middle-class. Too rich to benefit from social welfare and too poor to be rich. My folks, myself and most everybody in my family has to fight an uphill battle because of the damn socialistic crap this nation (the USA) has ennacted into law. Socialism fails to reward effort, so it is un-fair. End of Story.

Look at almost all of American literature, especially the great American novels, Gatsby, Steinbeck, Catcher in the Rye, they're all filled with the failure of the concept of the American dream.

Anyway your simplistic arguments offend me, thankfully I'm just about to leave this site, so I can disappear without appearing hypocritical, but rest assured, I'm right you're wrong, and as a possible addendum: Nah nah na nah nah.

[everywhere116]

But the fact is that Americans can point to the housing problems in Cuba is laughable. The US blockade to Cuba is the major reason why the Cuban people are enforce into their current hardships. Housing in Cuba is free for all people. There is no homelessness and a massive drive to improve the housing stock has been underway for some time. If the USA would allow equal access to their markets to all countries (surely the "capitalists" way?) then this improvement would be increased.

The reason we had a blockade because they had armed Soviet missiles not 100 miles from our shore. And I wonder why that thousands of Cubans would fight through that blockade, if it is still there, to get to Miami? Perhaps to opportunity?

And as for the former USSR - you must remember the low base that the country started at. In 1917 the country was barely industrial at all and people were still living in virtual serfhood. Lenin and Stalin managed to industrialise the nation in a fraction of the time that the countries of the west did. Of course the USSRs work to improve the lot of the people was not complete, but again the USA hindered this work and eventually bankrupted the nation in the cold war.
Just because a nation wins a war does not make their system the fairest.

And acccording to my history book, on my lap at this moment:

They were also all built [the railway and dams] with prison camp labor, fot the first Five Year Plan saw a vast expansion of the concentration camps of the civil war. The secret police were deeply involved with the economy. The forcible establishment of collective farms, with the deportation to Siberia of Kulaks (rich peasant farmers) helped control the peasentry. It was, however, an economic disatser, leading to a catostrophic famine. Oppostition to the speed and force of the changes led to the great terror of 1937-38, with show trials of party leaders and the deportation of millions of citizens to labor camps across the country. The scale of famine, the horrors of collectivisation, and the extent of terror were not revealed to the Soviet public until the late 1980s. In 1939 the Stalin Cult of personality was at its height, and to many symphathisers in Europe, this was indeed a brave new world.

It speaks for itself.

[Jenos Ridan]

You want me to dumb it down for you, ok....

Humans compete, one needs not look far to see this evidenced in society. Competion drives production and innovation. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is the fairest.

Not so. Competition may drive production and innovation but only towards that which can be sold to consumers for the profit of the capitalists (owners of the means of production). This innovation is not necessarily for the good of the community.
An example: Western pharmaceutical companies develop medicines which are profitable, masses of research goes to wards treatment of diabetics as this is an affliction widespread in the affluent western world. Any treatment will generate huge profits. Treatments for afflictions more common in the developing world (such as malaria) go either un-researched are under researched as any potential treatment or cure developed would either be unmarketable or generate low profits as the people afflicted do not have the means to pay for the treatment.

What part of "Not perfect" do you not understand? Besides, why in hell would I want to punish the successful to turn the hard pressed poor in to welfare bums? Such leeches don't put anything back because suck people tend to stay unemployed. They don't pay taxes (how does one propose to pay for this socialist welfare? wooden nickles?), and so where does the funding come from? It comes out of the middle class, not the rich! Class systems will always exist, but at least slavery and serfdom have largely been resolved.

[flashleg8]

....[The unemployed]....They don't pay taxes (how does one propose to pay for this socialist welfare? wooden nickles?), and so where does the funding come from? It comes out of the middle class, not the rich! Class systems will always exist, but at least slavery and serfdom have largely been resolved.

Nationalise all industry. Equality of wages. Abolish unnecessary professions and allocate labour more effectively to produce services necessary to the community.

Wage-slavery is just the extension of serfdom and outright slavery - open your eyes! Class systems can be abolished is the community works towards equality.

[everywhere116]

....[The unemployed]....They don't pay taxes (how does one propose to pay for this socialist welfare? wooden nickles?), and so where does the funding come from? It comes out of the middle class, not the rich! Class systems will always exist, but at least slavery and serfdom have largely been resolved.

Nationalise all industry. Equality of wages. Abolish unnecessary professions and allocate labour more effectively to produce services necessary to the community.

Wage-slavery is just the extension of serfdom and outright slavery - open your eyes! Class systems can be abolished is the community works towards equality.

Let me tell you the story of the garbage company that had a monopoly.

40 years ago there were many companies all trying to do thier best to satisfy thier customers. The ones that did the best got the most customers. The ones that didnt worked harder. Which made the company in first work harder. Every employee did his best, because if he didn't, he was canned, because if they slack off, they lose business. One day the state gave all of the garbage responsibility to one company. Everyone had to have that company. It didnt have to fear competition, so they became lazy. They didnt fire thier employees for slacking off because the customers were bound to that company. So the workers can slack off wothout losing thier jobs. Now, we have terrible service and we are furious.

This is why you cannot have one entity running all business.

[flashleg8]

Let me tell you the story of the garbage company that had a monopoly.

40 years ago there were many companies all trying to do thier best to satisfy thier customers. The ones that did the best got the most customers. The ones that didnt worked harder. Which made the company in first work harder. Every employee did his best, because if he didn't, he was canned, because if they slack off, they lose business. One day the state gave all of the garbage responsibility to one company. Everyone had to have that company. It didnt have to fear competition, so they became lazy. They didnt fire thier employees for slacking off because the customers were bound to that company. So the workers can slack off wothout losing thier jobs. Now, we have terrible service and we are furious.

Let me tell you a story about competition replacing a "monopoly".

For 50 years the Nation Health Service in the UK employed cleaners directly to clean the wards. This work was contracted out to different companies as this would introduce competition and supposedly deliver better value for money for the tax payer.
The companies winning the tenders all have to make a profit for their owners/shareholders so they introduce lower paid workers, temporary workers, reduce staff and have staff working more sites. This leads to a lower standard of cleanliness and accountability resulting in the massive increase in MRSA outbreaks in UK hospitals. "Now, we have terrible service and people are dying."

This is why you cannot have rampant competition in a public service.

[everywhere116]

Let me tell you the story of the garbage company that had a monopoly.

40 years ago there were many companies all trying to do thier best to satisfy thier customers. The ones that did the best got the most customers. The ones that didnt worked harder. Which made the company in first work harder. Every employee did his best, because if he didn't, he was canned, because if they slack off, they lose business. One day the state gave all of the garbage responsibility to one company. Everyone had to have that company. It didnt have to fear competition, so they became lazy. They didnt fire thier employees for slacking off because the customers were bound to that company. So the workers can slack off wothout losing thier jobs. Now, we have terrible service and we are furious.

Let me tell you a story about competition replacing a "monopoly".

For 50 years the Nation Health Service in the UK employed cleaners directly to clean the wards. This work was contracted out to different companies as this would introduce competition and supposedly deliver better value for money for the tax payer.
The companies winning the tenders all have to make a profit for their owners/shareholders so they introduce lower paid workers, temporary workers, reduce staff and have staff working more sites. This leads to a lower standard of cleanliness and accountability resulting in the massive increase in MRSA outbreaks in UK hospitals. "Now, we have terrible service and people are dying."

This is why you cannot have rampant competition in a public service.

Then when you get the company that does it right you get more business and the other companies would clean up thier act. And I was talking about collecting garbage, not cleaning the wards.

[Jenos Ridan]

....[The unemployed]....They don't pay taxes (how does one propose to pay for this socialist welfare? wooden nickles?), and so where does the funding come from? It comes out of the middle class, not the rich! Class systems will always exist, but at least slavery and serfdom have largely been resolved.

Nationalise all industry. Equality of wages. Abolish unnecessary professions and allocate labour more effectively to produce services necessary to the community.

Wage-slavery is just the extension of serfdom and outright slavery - open your eyes! Class systems can be abolished is the community works towards equality.

So, in your fantasy world, things would be as in Brave New World, huh? Oh Wait, They have classes there too!

What incentive can you give me to work if I'll be housed, feed and clothed all for free? Betterment of self? I can do that now, all it takes is a little hard work. I'd rather strungle to earn a way in this world than suckle from the bland teet of conformity and "equality".

[KomradeKloininov]

Do you even know wat you are talking about??? Brave New World was a distopian FICTION, not a possible situation. I am sorry, my friend, that you should be so brainwashed by the procapitalist ideals you have been taught to refuse to see things any other way, despite how realistic they be. What incentive? You don't work, you don't pull your weight, its not fair to the rest of the populace and you are punished thereby. Its not the fault of the government that you are a couch potato.[/quote]

[Jenos Ridan]

So what if the house is beige and the same layout as all the rest. The point is that all people will have adequate shelter and housing.

Because:

1. It would suck
2. You would be squashing individual human expression

The point is really that you & your communist friends would be setting yourselves up as the definers of what is and isn't adequate.

Hmm, It would suck for you - cause you already live in a big fancy house. It wouldn't suck for the masses living in poverty dieing every year due to exposure and living in unsanitary conditions.


Individual expression? Designing luxury houses at the expense of live itself? Get your priorities straight!

I'll happily define what is adequate: Shelter that is hygienic, with running water, heating, modern sanitation. 72 inch Plasma screen TVs and 500W sound systems with £3K leather sofas not included.

"Getin' Rich" is the American Dream. Take away a goal, why bother to work? "Earning one's keep"? You'd get that even if you didn't work. Economies run on incentive. People in general are motivated by self-interest. Sad, but true.

And before you brand me as some millionaire's child, I'm middle-class. Too rich to benefit from social welfare and too poor to be rich. My folks, myself and most everybody in my family has to fight an uphill battle because of the damn socialistic crap this nation (the USA) has ennacted into law. Socialism fails to reward effort, so it is un-fair. End of Story.

Look at almost all of American literature, especially the great American novels, Gatsby, Steinbeck, Catcher in the Rye, they're all filled with the failure of the concept of the American dream.

Anyway your simplistic arguments offend me, thankfully I'm just about to leave this site, so I can disappear without appearing hypocritical, but rest assured, I'm right you're wrong, and as a possible addendum: Nah nah na nah nah.

Since you had not the mental endurance to stand the flames, it is for the best.

[Jenos Ridan]

Do you even know wat you are talking about??? Brave New World was a distopian FICTION, not a possible situation. I am sorry, my friend, that you should be so brainwashed by the procapitalist ideals you have been taught to refuse to see things any other way, despite how realistic they be. What incentive? You don't work, you don't pull your weight, its not fair to the rest of the populace and you are punished thereby. Its not the fault of the government that you are a couch potato.

[/quote]

Would have said Trek, but that seemed corny. Still, you feel art never imitates life, I'll refrain from making such comparisons.

Answer my question, what could motivate me to bother working when your communist government will give me the basics anyway. Since I would get the same goods regardless, what is the incentive?

[luns101]

Pitting one groupm against another is wrong, if the first group has done nothing wrong certainly, but the whole point is that yes, the workers are being exploited, and yes they should be angry about it and rise up.

But the point that others are making here is that the workers don't even know they are being exploited...that this so-called exploitation is subtle. Of course, the communists are more than willing to step in and be the ones to administer the redistribution after the "rising up" is successful. To me, that advocates direct violence from one group of people against another.

If it was a mere case of envy the arguments would be a lot more straight forward, but the idea is not to replace the bourgeoisie (the rich business owners to those unfamiliar with marxist terminology) with a new bourgeoisie, but to do away with class systems all together.

Envy is not the sole basis for the marxist argument, but it is a powerful tool used by them. It is very easy to point at those who have more than yourself and covet their possessions. Although they may say they are going to do away with all class systems, that is impossible to totally achieve. Either someone or a group of people will always feel that they are the enlightened ones who will decide what's best for the masses.

Concerning Animal Farm, yes it's true about the delay of Orwell's book. But that does not diminish it's message: the very things that marxists/communists accuse capitalists of doing are the very sins that they themselves commit.

[luns101]

Ahh, nice to find a true supporter. I kinda gave up and skipped some pages. I have found that a lot of this is way above CC standards in terms of coherency and complex political arguments. Still, do as much as you can to support the marxist side.

Hail Komrade! Good to chat with you again.

In general terms KK, I find that Marxists & Communists greatly underestimate those of us on the capitalist side of the argument to understand the debate. We do understand that Marxism is a school of historical thought. Even as such, it still forms peoples' worldview and how they try to make sense of their economies & culture. We also understand Hegel's influence on Marxist ideas. The point is, that after reading and considering their views, we just disagree with them.

The Marxist ideas which you espouse seem good in theory. The problem is with the actual implementation of them. Communist countries have repeatedly failed to be able to provide for their people. Meanwhile, capitalist countries flourish.

It's good that your heart is in the right place. You care for the poor and don't want to see them oppressed. Do you think that we on the capitalist side wish to oppress the poor as well? Even if we were selfish, it would make no sense for us to keep the poor remaining poor. We would want them to flourish in order to consume more products and cause the economy to grow even further (I'm just using this as an example).

It's true the rich get richer, but so do the poor. I count myself in that "once poor" category. Capitalism provides the best chance at individual ownership and the ability to provide for oneself.

[flashleg8]

Do you even know wat you are talking about??? Brave New World was a distopian FICTION, not a possible situation. I am sorry, my friend, that you should be so brainwashed by the procapitalist ideals you have been taught to refuse to see things any other way, despite how realistic they be. What incentive? You don't work, you don't pull your weight, its not fair to the rest of the populace and you are punished thereby. Its not the fault of the government that you are a couch potato.

Would have said Trek, but that seemed corny. Still, you feel art never imitates life, I'll refrain from making such comparisons.

Answer my question, what could motivate me to bother working when your communist government will give me the basics anyway. Since I would get the same goods regardless, what is the incentive?

You seem to get the slightly wrong idea of this system. There will be no free handouts, everyone will be required to work for the greater good of the whole. People who refuse to work would have sanctions put in place against them. But I say again to you, people work harder when they have "ownership" and are involved in the outcome. A person working 9-5 flipping burgers for a multinational corporation has little or no incentive either - any increase in productively just lines the shareholders pocket. On the other hand if a worker has a steak in that business he will work that much harder as he will have a share in any benefit. The same will happen if every citizen shares equally in the countries success.

@luns: well argued points as always. If more capitalists were like yourself rather than some of the others on this site, I would have less of a problem with the system!

[Jenos Ridan]

Do you even know wat you are talking about??? Brave New World was a distopian FICTION, not a possible situation. I am sorry, my friend, that you should be so brainwashed by the procapitalist ideals you have been taught to refuse to see things any other way, despite how realistic they be. What incentive? You don't work, you don't pull your weight, its not fair to the rest of the populace and you are punished thereby. Its not the fault of the government that you are a couch potato.

Would have said Trek, but that seemed corny. Still, you feel art never imitates life, I'll refrain from making such comparisons.

Answer my question, what could motivate me to bother working when your communist government will give me the basics anyway. Since I would get the same goods regardless, what is the incentive?

You seem to get the slightly wrong idea of this system. There will be no free handouts, everyone will be required to work for the greater good of the whole. People who refuse to work would have sanctions put in place against them. But I say again to you, people work harder when they have "ownership" and are involved in the outcome. A person working 9-5 flipping burgers for a multinational corporation has little or no incentive either - any increase in productively just lines the shareholders pocket. On the other hand if a worker has a steak in that business he will work that much harder as he will have a share in any benefit. The same will happen if every citizen shares equally in the countries success.

@luns: well argued points as always. If more capitalists were like yourself rather than some of the others on this site, I would have less of a problem with the system!

And what is to stop a wage-whore from saving funds for college or investment? NOTHING! In fact, capitalism allows, no, DEMANDS this! It is how it all works: I get a job, I work it for a while saving my hard earned money to pay for college. I get a two-year degree, so as to get a BETTER job. While working a job, I buy products, this gives another poor sod like I was a chance. And so on and so on....

The sad fact is that humans, by nature are competative. I guess that I take a slightly more Nietzschean worldview than most folks.

[flashleg8]

And what is to stop a wage-whore from saving funds for college or investment? NOTHING! In fact, capitalism allows, no, DEMANDS this! It is how it all works: I get a job, I work it for a while saving my hard earned money to pay for college. I get a two-year degree, so as to get a BETTER job. While working a job, I buy products, this gives another poor sod like I was a chance. And so on and so on....

The sad fact is that humans, by nature are competative. I guess that I take a slightly more Nietzschean worldview than most folks.

And how many years would someone on minimum wage have to save before they could pay for college and afford to take two years off work?
What if they had dependents to support? Were unemployed? Had an accident/disability?

Oh I guess in your competitive world there's gotta be a looser.

Your consumer driven system just seems like another pyramid scheme to me - its okay for those few at the top but the masses propping it up get royally f*cked. It'll all come crashing down one of these days like every other one of those schemes.