Meritocracy After the Revolution

[Bud Struggle]

Learned Comrades,

Not that I want to quote my self, but in another thread I opined:

As a matter of fact--bring on the Revolution. Being the most productive (and best best rewarded) Communist is a challenge that I will find hard to resist. I'm going to end up with a bigger house than I have now without all those workers leaching off of my hard work.


My remarks were made a bit tongue in cheek, but is my point correct? After the Revolution if I work harder and smarter than other Comrades could I posess as much personal property as I desire if I'm able to work for it on my own? Can I have the big house and the Bentley and pool and the horses while other Comrades live on basic sustenance?

Or no matter how hard I work or how much I contribute to society or my Soviet will I be given the same as those who contribute little of nothing?

[Edit] Let me mention that the core idea of this thread came from my esteemed colleague here in OI, the venerable Kronos. :)

[FSL]

You shouldn't really wait until after the revolution. Just fire those damn workers sucking the life out of you and work your way to Forbes 500.

[Kronos]

After the Revolution if I work harder and smarter than other Comrades could I posess as much personal property as I desire if I'm able to work for it on my own?Absolutely. What you buy with the money you earn is your choice.


Can I have the big house and the Bentley and pool and the horses while other Comrades live on basic sustenance?There probably won't be the same variety of commodities in the market, since economy (which will be somewhat minimalist) will be planned and directed. But don't sweat it.....you won't even notice the fact that there aren't 578 brands of shampoo at the store anymore.

And yes, there will be a minimum standard of living which will be provided for all citizens.....even the Ivans of the world who want to drink vodka all day and play x-box. And trust me, the standard will be so low only a small margin of citizens will be satisfied with it, and this will produce the incentive to work harder.


Or no matter how hard I work or how much I contribute to society or my Soviet will I be given the same as those who contribute little of nothing?You will be provided, by default, the minimum standard. Beyond that, what you own depends on what you want to buy with the money you earn working.

[Zanthorus]

On the general subject of Meritocracy I agree with this quote:


Were we to evaluate people, not only according to their intelligence and their education, their occupation and their power, but according to their kindliness and their courage, their imagination and sensitivity, their sympathy and generosity, there could be no classes. Who would be able to say that the scientist was superior to the porter with admirable qualities as a porter, the civil servant with unusual skill at gaining prizes superior to the lorry-driver with unusual skill at growing roses?

[Kronos]

Of course that quote blurs the distinction between aesthetic value and utility. The utility of a commodity is more important than the 'metaphysical niceties' (as Marx put it) a commodity is endowed with. In that sense, while we certainly do enjoy a beautiful painting or flower garden, such things have no other function than that of being an object of entertainment.

A piece of coal or a cork screw is infinitely more useful than a diamond ring.

I think you get the idea.

[Robert]

Can I have the big house and the Bentley and pool and the horses while other Comrades live on basic sustenance?No. What will happen is that maximum hours/week of labor will be imposed "for your own good."

So ... you will sit around after your workday is done and dream about Bentleys, mansions, and thoroughbreds, but the Bentleys will have been smelted down to make statues of -- choose your favorite non-restricted member (remember the poll?) --, the mansions will have been demolished to make room for re-education centers, and the thoroughbreds will have been turned into Worker Weiners. (There will also be Bourgeois Burgers on the menu, at least for a while:lol:)

There will be minimum hours/week of labor required also, as the people are not about to work 40 hours/week and let me sit around watching. Trust me on that if nothing else.

[mykittyhasaboner]

So your asking people on revleft what you'll be able to do and own "after the revolution"?

:lol: As if your going to find a real answer....

[Axle]

the Bentleys will have been smelted down to make statues of -- choose your favorite non-restricted member (remember the poll?)

Not just Bentleys. You forgot about all the Ferarris and Rolls we'll need to melt down to make the 500-foot statue of Karl Marx that we'll all be required to pay daily homage to. And every full moon we'll sacrifice a Capitalist to His name. :rolleyes:

[Robert]

Roll those eyes at your peril, comrade. I'm sure Marx had no visions of this either:

http://thestar.com.my/archives/2008/9/6/lifetravel/f_18statue.jpg

They could have made 5 Ferraris with that monstrosity, but noooooooo.:crying:

Seriously, you have zero concerns that the revolution will be usurped by some megalomaniacal tyrant? It's not like there's no precedent for it.

[Axle]

Roll those eyes at your peril, comrade. I'm sure Marx had no visions of this either:

http://thestar.com.my/archives/2008/9/6/lifetravel/f_18statue.jpg

They could have made 5 Ferraris with that monstrosity, but noooooooo.:crying:

Seriously, you have zero concerns that the revolution will be usurped by some megalomaniacal tyrant? It's not like there's no precedent for it.

Like Socialism is the only thing EVER usurped by a power-hungry individual.

Of course I have concerns that it could happen, but we don't even have a revolution right now, so why waste time worrying about it? Besides there's damn sure a big enough road map of human experience to give us a pretty good idea of the warning signs of a tyrant.



Ferraris are complete garbage cars too, btw.

[Robert]

Ferraris are complete garbage cars too, btw.

Oh, okay. Let me know when you put yours out in the trash so I can come by and haul it away for you.:lol:

[Axle]

Oh, okay. Let me know when you put yours out in the trash so I can come by and haul it away for you.:lol:

Aw, I see what you did there.

But I guess its no business of mine if you want a $100,000 toy with no use outside of stroking the owner's ego that breaks down constantly (or as I like to put it: a garbage car).

EDIT: Besides, personal transportation in and of itself is wasteful and inefficient. I'd love to see it done away with.

[Valeofruin]

Roll those eyes at your peril, comrade. I'm sure Marx had no visions of this either:

http://thestar.com.my/archives/2008/9/6/lifetravel/f_18statue.jpg

They could have made 5 Ferraris with that monstrosity, but noooooooo.:crying:

Seriously, you have zero concerns that the revolution will be usurped by some megalomaniacal tyrant? It's not like there's no precedent for it.

Looks kind of pretty too me.. if they wanted to erect that in my town i'd let them.

[Robert]

You are not allowed to say that this red car is not more beautiful than that bronze statue.

http://autocars.setifaq.org/images/Ferrari10.jpg

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This doesn't really answer what is at the "heart" of his question. Collective ownership is going to exist so you "own" or "possess" in the same sense that you do now.

I don't know if all communist answers will be consistent on this. I'm am a bit malleable on this issue. It really depends on how things play out. Anyway, I'll give an attempt at explaining my view.

The communist society may have access to a factory that packages non-perishable beans. Let's assume society is very advanced. They can actually monitor, within reason, how much my labor contributes to something, etc. We haven't got to complete control of the weather (if that's possible) and problems still exist. Society isn't perfect under communism, just better. Here is my take on your general idea, if I understand it correctly:

If it is determined that my efforts have led to the production of 10,000 cans of beans, what happens if there is no food shortage? Well, things kind of fall apart. My beans get stolen. Let's also assume I replanted all the beans I used so I haven't made anyone worse off by my actions. I'm only denying them something that can make them "better off." These are consequentially the same, and no one can really expect a starving person not to steal anyway.

Here is a more realistic scenario. This is what is sometimes seen as a classical liberal position. As long as people have the bare minimum, luxuries should not be distributed equally. If beans become a luxury, I am not obligated to give my labor to others.

I actually think you are, but let's assume you are not. Many communists are not as favorable towards ethical theory as I am, so we'll adopt an amoralist position. They don't have any duty to you. It's their efforts, etc.

Society will take it because they're also selfish. Unless a general principle of allowing this person to keep their wealth, they will take it. It's basically John Rawls, here, with collective ownership.

Here is a scenario that is different. The best author since Shakespeare is born. She is very dedicated to her work. Unfortunately, she still need to prepare food, bathe, sleep, see doctors, etc.

Society might value her work for the benefits it creates. Let's say neurologists are in short supply due to the genetic lack of people both interested in and capable of becoming neurologists. For some reason, let's say chemical spills (communism still has everyday problems, it's not perfect as some would lead you to believe), people end up having neurological issues.

Here's the deal. She helps people through these issues by making them happy. She helps everyday people by making them have an enjoyable read - not just those with neurological issues. She even inspires many authors and entertainers and spreads a lot of joy throughout the world.

There is a lineup. Although the top neurologist can be seen by anyone, it's for extreme cases. She is not an extreme case. Can she see the top neurologist over someone else? If it's collectively decided, yes. Secondly, if it's decided by a person seeing the top neurologist (a self-sacrificing grandfather, old anyway, who has a granddaughter who loves the author) that they'd wish to trade places (going to a regular neurologist), it's their right to do that, in my view.

They can't give people collective authority over how society is run. She can't trade material rewards for political power because (1) they are owned collectively. Even if she bends the rules, communism needs a great degree of political awareness. Seeing someone exploit power would be like seeing someone get shot. Expect in this society, people would actually report shootings more than they do.

Basically, if you want to say "I can keep my beans" for myself, you have to ask this: if people are selfish and ethics don't exist, why do they care about you having what you earned? They don't. It has to benefit them somehow.

Secondly, you have a case where ethics exist. Utilitarianism is going to say, most likely, that you should be voluntarily giving up the beans. Something is wrong with you. Clearly, people are going to steal from you. Kantianism, virtue ethics. They'll all reach the same conclusion, as far as I can see.

Capitalism, in general, tries to make the claim that it is somehow unethical to steal the labor of someone else. I'm more partial to utilitarianism, but even with Kantianism, I can't see the justification. Rawls gives the most honest defense when he says "it's only alright if it benefits people, even if they don't like it." However, this also includes, for me that these actions have to be the best possible actions available. Therefore, people will support the system unless they are stupid.

Capitalists, especially economists, argue that wealth inequalities benefit the poor and their objections are precisely because they are stupid. These people are quite delusional. Data consistently shows that even "if" capitalism increases the size of the pot, it doesn't increase the quality of life for the average person. Nobody wants to work harder to get the boss a bigger house so they can say "look, the economy is growing again."

I've never understood, even since I was young, the following argument:

1. I worked hard to create this toybox. I didn't hurt anyone doing it, either.
2. I am morally entitled to sole use of this toybox, and it's unethical or irrational for anyone to say I should share it.

Again, amoralism says they'll take it anyway. A principle of letting selfish people be selfish doesn't benefit society. This, though, comes down to the following old things:

1. Capitalism is the best system because it encourages production and utilizes human selfishness.
2. Selfish people won't produce as much if they have to redistribute wealth.
3. Blah, blah, blah..

2 is false. They produce in places where they can make more profit, yes. But evidence clearly shows producers continue producing almost always. Increase the taxes everywhere, the production will stay. It's only because people can move that people have this crazy theory that there is somehow a relation here. Rich people have enough money and still work. Either the power, prestige, and/or the job keeps them going. Industry does not need to rely on capitalism. And selfishness does not need to rely on money. Selfish people can like showing off their productivity or making a nice big house for someone to live in.

Capitalism is the best defense of the kind of scenario you are describing. I can't "see" how one could defend it from a communist perspective. An amoralist communist could defend the person hiding their property from others, but they couldn't defend others not taking it (unless it somehow increases utility, which only works in some cases, as stated earlier). I'm even more puzzled when it comes to how a communist theory alongside a moral theory could justify not taking from someone if they violate a moral law "you must sharing" or decrease utility "not sharing" or even value in virtue "being generous."

People always want to be able to justify keeping their stuff. I am in a good situation for a student. I have no income, but my parents do quite well. If someone asks me why I don't volunteer there or give money there, given my political views. I tell them I'm selfish and lazy. Maybe this has negative psychology effects (I doubt it). I find it liberating.

Most people are moral relativists and/or subjective about morality. They don't know more than that. They just want an excuse to do whatever they want. I just do whatever I want and don't make excuses for it. I have plenty of reasons to be a good person, help others. I am just not motivated.

Capitalism is a huge failure in terms of motivating generosity. One of the best ways to get people to help one another is a sense of community and mutual encouragement. Even working with a few people can still suck. Get a while gang together and work on a project. Every have those moments? Done in no time? Told jokes?

When someone volunteers, people say "That was nice of you." When someone gets a raise they say "That's impressive." Capitalism doesn't think volunteering is impressive. It's just nice. It's not expected. It's not something to feel in awe about. I'm sure these issues could be partially addressed under capitalism as well.

I've ranted long enough and delayed sleeping. I hope the earlier part of my post answered you somewhat. I'd be interested in you or someone else maneuvering communist theory alongside amoralism and/or ethical theory to try and justify the scenario you described - although it is "partially" justified in the sense of the author case, but I'm not sure that's 100% conforming to the spirit of your question.

[Led Zeppelin]

Or no matter how hard I work or how much I contribute to society or my Soviet will I be given the same as those who contribute little of nothing?

Why do you ask questions of members here when you can just as easily get the same answers (and much better ones) by reading the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.?

Well, probably because you want to provoke others, in a troll-like manner. Whatever floats your cappie boat I guess. You gotta do something when you're bored at the office, sitting behind the computer that you bought so you could better pretend like you're actually doing something productive when all you're really doing is posting on Revleft and browsing for free porn, right?

Anywho, here's the answer you were looking for:


Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

[Valeofruin]

Absolutely. What you buy with the money you earn is your choice.

There probably won't be the same variety of commodities in the market, since economy (which will be somewhat minimalist) will be planned and directed. But don't sweat it.....you won't even notice the fact that there aren't 578 brands of shampoo at the store anymore.

And yes, there will be a minimum standard of living which will be provided for all citizens.....even the Ivans of the world who want to drink vodka all day and play x-box. And trust me, the standard will be so low only a small margin of citizens will be satisfied with it, and this will produce the incentive to work harder.

You will be provided, by default, the minimum standard. Beyond that, what you own depends on what you want to buy with the money you earn working.

I used to support the whole 'minimum standard' idea... now I'm not so sure.

Immediately after a revolution more coercion will probably be necessary. Our revolution is one which benefits the proletariat, and if applicable the peasantry. Unemployed workers are those who desire a job and apply for them but can not get one for some reason or another, our revolution will seek to remedy this, and hence they can be counted as workers too.

Those who are not working, and do not seek employment are not of the working class, usually they qualify as lumpens or petty bourgeois. Hence our revolution, and the dictatorship of our class, will target these people. This may mean applying the concept of 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat'.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

]
EDIT: Besides, personal transportation in and of itself is wasteful and inefficient. I'd love to see it done away with.

I don't think there should be a great lefty campaign against cars, I get the bus everywhere. Its not good.

[Bud Struggle]

Why do you ask questions of members here when you can just as easily get the same answers (and much better ones) by reading the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.?

Well, probably because you want to provoke others, in a troll-like manner. Whatever floats your cappie boat I guess. You gotta do something when you're bored at the office, sitting behind the computer that you bought so you could better pretend like you're actually doing something productive when all you're really doing is posting on Revleft and browsing for free porn, right?

Anywho, here's the answer you were looking for:
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

Well thanks Led Zep for that little taste of what life will be like after the Revolution! I can't wait for that happy day in the future when you Trotskyists will monitor our daily lives, make sure we behave properly and rebuke us for our incorrect thoughts and actions so we all can learn to be good Communist just like you instruct us to be.

FYI: I was interested in what people thought about what I said NOT what Marx said about it. Believe it or not--there is a difference. :) Also I find Marx a bit vague. But it is interesting that there WILL be differences in income and differences in how hard people will work and how they will live.

The top "manager" of the people's oil production organization--could theoretically live not much differently than the president of Exxon does today--because of the skill and knowledge that he has in doing a good and effecient job in drilling for and refining petrolium.

In some ways a Communist society may not be much different than the one we have now, at least for managers at the top--the real difference being (and this is an importance difference) the people at the bottom will have the rudiments of a decent life and people will be required to work for what they get over the basic level.

No top end no bottom end, but the people in the middle stay pretty much the same, I guess.

[Robert]

Why do you ask questions of members here when you can just as easily get the same answers (and much better ones) by reading the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin

This wasn't directed at me, but I ask that type of question because I keep wondering whether you folks really and truly swallow Marxism, with all its cornball sloganeering and totalitarian history, or whether you might have developed a new or updated ideology of your own.

[ComradeMan]

Meritocracy is not necessarily a good thing and was coined satirically by Michael Young in 1958, Young went on later to lament the way "his word" had gone on to become some kind of value. I don't want to go into all the various theories such as Social Darwinism and New Labour's ideas etc, but I think as a positive "doctrine" it is fundamentally flawed.

Who is to say who has merit? This is a value judgement that is rooted in Western Roman Catholic theology and also in a slightly karmic sense in Buddhism. The idea of reward for what is deemed good by society. Aristotle was put to death by Athenian society, so was he without merit? (I know it was a slim difference in the vote!!!). I think extolling meritocracy as some kind of value-ideology is potentially dangerous and could lead to very reactionary ideas indeed.

What constitutes merit is highly variable too. In a hunter-gatherer society the best hunters and gatherers would have merit, in a fisher society the best net makers, boat builders and navigators would have merit and so on, in modern western societies we would have the government of science and ecology- the technocrats?

In modern society who are we to say that someone has more merit than the other? And if so how? Does a brace of degrees make you more meritworthy than being a refuse collecter? Why should people who are deemed to be meritworthy have any more rights or priviliges than anyone else?

Meritocracy de facto excludes people who at any given time may be considered less meritworthy than others along purely subjective lines according to whatever zeitgeist be in vogue. In fact, one could argue that we never have anything but meritocracy- in a cynical sense that is.

I find the whole concept tricky and anti-anarchical. I tend to view things like a finely tuned swiss watch, each piece is as important as the other- pull out one tiny screw or spring and the whole piece begins to malfunction. In that way all people have merit in their own way and a post-revolutionary society would have to find a way of recognising that for fear of becoming just another ruling-elite society- whoever that elite might be.

[Robert]

In that way all people have merit in their own way and a post-revolutionary society would have to find a way of recognising that for fear of becoming just another ruling-elite society- whoever that elite might be.

Excellent sentiments. The most successful capitalists know this, too.

[Plagueround]

The most successful capitalists know this, too.

And exploit it.

[Robert]

And exploit it.

Party pooper.

[Zanthorus]

Seriously, you have zero concerns that the revolution will be usurped by some megalomaniacal tyrant? It's not like there's no precedent for it.

Oh please, the old "revolutions will lead to tyrants" excuse has been used by political reactionaries for centuries. It's really fucking stupid and barely convincing. If we were living at the beggining of the 19th century and I was a classical liberal and you were a monarchist I'm sure you'd have pulled napoleon out as an example of how liberal democracy is destined to become totalitarian. In fact I doubt that you're ever likely to find an idea that hasn't been co-opted by power mad maniacs at one point or another.

Of course if reactionaries ever did start using their heads and thinking about politics then they wouldn't be reactionaries.

[Bud Struggle]

In modern society who are we to say that someone has more merit than the other? And if so how? Does a brace of degrees make you more meritworthy than being a refuse collecter? Why should people who are deemed to be meritworthy have any more rights or priviliges than anyone else? The "market" or whatever passes for one in Communist society should decide who has more merit. A brace of degrees may not be worth anything in themselves, but what a person who has them may do for the betterment of all society compaired to a refuse collector may just be worth more to society--so maybe the degreed person should be rewareded for the extra work he has done and for the good he does. Why should anyone bother to work hard if there is no incentive? And as for as privlige goes--that's another matter. No one should have more rights of privilige than anyone else.


Meritocracy de facto excludes people who at any given time may be considered less meritworthy than others along purely subjective lines according to whatever zeitgeist be in vogue. In fact, one could argue that we never have anything but meritocracy- in a cynical sense that is. I'm arguing that point right now. :) And if the "market" doesn't decide who has more merit in society--then who in the end does? A committee? A commissioner? The Party? Someone's got to make that decision somewhere down the line.


I find the whole concept tricky and anti-anarchical. I tend to view things like a finely tuned swiss watch, each piece is as important as the other- pull out one tiny screw or spring and the whole piece begins to malfunction. In that way all people have merit in their own way and a post-revolutionary society would have to find a way of recognising that for fear of becoming just another ruling-elite society- whoever that elite might be.

Good point, but if people aren't allowed to be any different than anyone else, or get things any different than anyone else--that's going to take a LOT of police work. And further without incentive people may do the least they can get away with. It will bring humanity down to its least common denominator. Is that the kind of society we want?

[Robert]

Oh please, the old "revolutions will lead to tyrants" excuse has been used by political reactionaries for centuries. It's really fucking stupid and barely convincing.

Sorry, that won't wash. We are talking about whether Marxism is workable in a democratic society, not whether all revolution leads to tyranny.

I have my doubts and a lot of empirical evidence to support it.

[ComradeMan]

The "market" or whatever passes for one in Communist society should decide who has more merit. A brace of degrees may not be worth anything in themselves, but what a person who has them may do for the betterment of all society compaired to a refuse collector may just be worth more to society--so maybe the degreed person should be rewareded for the extra work he has done and for the good he does. Why should anyone bother to work hard if there is no incentive? And as for as privlige goes--that's another matter. No one should have more rights of privilige than anyone else.


Errico Malatesta discusses this last point of yours. But does not the refuse collecter work hard doing a dirty and smelly job that without which the streets of our cities would be overrun with rats, refuse and disease? Take a trip to Naples.... there has been for the last couple of years ongoing dispute with corruption/mafia and all the usual problems in Italy but the net result has been the streets piled high with rubbish.
I'd also like you to note that some of the worst crimes against humanity were the results of people with degrees... Okay, I know it's emotive and all that but I'm sure you see the point. I am not saying that a doctor does not need a medical degree but I am saying that we should not view a doctor any differently to anyone else- as is the case in most societies.

"market" or whatever passes for one in Communist society should decide who has more merit.


No one has more merit than anyone else. I suppose if we differ on that point, it is fundamental.:)

I'm arguing that point right now. :) And if the "market" doesn't decide who has more merit in society--then who in the end does? A committee? A commissioner? The Party? Someone's got to make that decision somewhere down the line.


No, there need be no decision. It's capitalistic and/or authoritarian thinking that deems people more meritworthy or unmeritworthy, usefell or useless and so on.
Good point, but if people aren't allowed to be any different than anyone else, or get things any different than anyone else--that's going to take a LOT of police work.


I would argue that the idea of meritocracy does actually encourage everyone, in pursuit of material gain, to abandon work and try and climb the social ladder and is thus a contributory factor in the maintaining of the class system.
And further without incentive people may do the least they can get away with.


This is a reactionary argument thrown against anarchists a lot. It presumes that man is both lazy and selfish by nature. I don't believe that is so- not to say there are no lazy and selfish people out there!
It will bring humanity down to its least common denominator. Is that the kind of society we want?


Perhaps we have a different outlook, but that is also another argument that I have heard thrown against anarchist ideas. I don't believe it to be so, it is in the common interest that society works and that people cooperate. In cooperation progress can occur.
It's an interesting and complex argument my friend :) and I don't know who has all the answers but I think it does depend on which ideology you look at things through too.

[Robert]

No one has more merit than anyone else. I suppose if we differ on that point, it is fundamental.Agreed. I also think we agree that what some people do (produce) has more merit than what some others do. Some one (a state commission?) or some thing (a market?) has to recognize and reward those differing levels of production.

[Pogue]

I don't think there should be a great lefty campaign against cars, I get the bus everywhere. Its not good.

It would be basically impossible for everyone to own a car.

[ComradeMan]

Agreed. I also think we agree that what some people do (produce) has more merit than what some others do. Some one (a state commission?) or some thing (a market?) has to recognize and reward those differing levels of production.

I see what you mean, perhaps we are looking at things with different ideas of what meritocracy means.

To me it means "rule and decision making by those who have merit"-

[Axle]

I don't think there should be a great lefty campaign against cars

Neither do I, at least not right now. Right now the manufacture of cars provides jobs for millions of people and it would be wrong as all hell for us to call for the shutdown of the entire auto industry.

I'm talking some time down the road after the revolution, phasing out personal transportation and weaning people on to (much better) public transportation.

[mikelepore]

After the Revolution if I work harder and smarter than other Comrades could I posess as much personal property as I desire if I'm able to work for it on my own?

I guess I'm the only Marxist around here who is going to answer that question with a direct "yes."

To make up a numerical example, if an individual worker who chooses to work a ten hour work week receives an income that is equivalent to what $360,000 per year would buy today, then that same individual, if he or she were to choose to work a 12 hour workweek instead of 10, should receive an income that is equivalent to what $432,000 per year would buy today. The income should be directly proportional to the personal choice of total work hours. That is my interpretation of Marxism.

"For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." -- Karl Marx, from _Critique of the Gotha Programme_

As for whether people will be able to buy a certain model of a product, that's unanswerable, but not because we talking about "after the revolution" -- it's unanswerable because we're talking about the *future*. There's no way to know whether people a hundred years in the future will use painted metal four-wheeled cars, or any other specific type of product.

The phrase "work for it on my own" is a bit strange. No one person performs all the production steps for any article. That has been true for thousands of years. I assume that "I work for it on my own" only means "I'm not an armed robber" or something like that.

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks for the direct answer.




The phrase "work for it on my own" is a bit strange. No one person performs all the production steps for any article. That has been true for thousands of years. I assume that "I work for it on my own" only means "I'm not an armed robber" or something like that.


Well true, but back to (I believe Robert's example of) Tiger Woods. He owns no production facilities, but if a million people choose to pay $10 to watch him play golf--well, he has $10 million dollars. There are lots of examples of people with extraordinary abilities doing things similar.

As far as specific examples--I understand they may not be available, but why shouldn't a post Revolution Tiger Woods type have the best of everything if he could afford it?

Though I wonder if this sort of inequality in posession of goods will cause trouble in the Workers Paradise if people are judged by by their abilities. It may be elitism "by other means."

[Kronos]

That's something we are going to have to work out, comrades. Clearly the entertainment industry is not equivalent to a production industry, which is to say, drama is not a commodity.

While artists are trained and educated, and labor during performance, they do not produce a material substance with utility. Therefore we will have some difficulty determining a wage scale for artists.

I propose, first, that all forms of entertainment be free to the public. Now, how shall we fund the entertainment industry? Taxes?

This will get tricky. Put your thinking caps on because you're going to need them.

[Bud Struggle]

That's something we are going to have to work out, comrades. Clearly the entertainment industry is not equivalent to a production industry, which is to say, drama is not a commodity. Also what about "value added" items. A ladies handbag might be worth $20, but if they have the value added "Kronos" stamp of appoval--maybe it can be worth lots more.


While artists are trained and educated, and labor during performance, they do not produce a material substance with utility. Therefore we will have some difficulty determining a wage scale for artists. And how do we decide what is "good art." Communist countries in the past were notorious for produced the worst art the world has ever known. As a matter of fact Communists in non-Communist countries produced art much much better than art produced in Communist countries. Should all art no matter how good or how bad be rewarded the same. Just like in pre-school.


I propose, first, that all forms of entertainment be free to the public. Well--"pay me at least a million dollars or I won't sing, etc. I already did the free stuff, I have a loyal fan base--now I want CASH to do what I can do." How is that going to fly?

[Kronos]

Also what about "value added" items. A ladies handbag might be worth $20, but if they have the value added "Kronos" stamp of appoval--maybe it can be worth lots more.

Very good, Struggle. You are getting to one of the fundamental problems of the planned economy. There is no way to force the element of 'demand' on a commodity, beyond that which is established to be essential and standardized. A refrigerator would always be in demand, ....everybody would get one..., but a collection of Stephen King novels would not be. Therefore, why would the state pay a writer to produce a product that might not be wanted by the consumer public?

If the state determines the wage of the writer, but the product, sold in the market, does not produce enough profit to return the costs of production, afforded by the state to pay the writer, back to the state, the state has no incentive to pay writers and those workers involved in the production and distribution of the product.

There are only two solutions to this dilemma: one, a free-market. Two, a free market regulated by an invisible hand.

In the first case we would be right back to where we started- the factories that produced the product would be privately owned, and the workers that ran the factory would be paid a wage which was far less than the market value of the product.

In the second case we could watch the popularity of the product and adjust our price/wage indexes according to the margins. If we jack the price up, we hyperinflate, if we lower it, we make no profit after we pay for the production and distribution.

This is one helluva pickle, see. Now I am no economist (as you can see), but anybody knows this much.

Learned comrades, please come forward and propose a solution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well thanks Led Zep for that little taste of what life will be like after the Revolution! I can't wait for that happy day in the future when you Trotskyists will monitor our daily lives, make sure we behave properly and rebuke us for our incorrect thoughts and actions so we all can learn to be good Communist just like you instruct us to be.

Trust me, people will have much more important things to do than to monitor your internet activity, which is already so predictable that it doesn't need any monitoring to find out what it primarily consists of.

If you want to push yourself further into the victim role though...


Also I find Marx a bit vague. But it is interesting that there WILL be differences in income and differences in how hard people will work and how they will live.

The reason he is vague about it is because he's not a Utopian or idealist, like a lot of people on here are. It is entirely pointless and irrelevant to explain in the greatest details what will happen after a social revolution, because there's no way to know it. It's a pointless exercise in "what if" history, and Marx and Engels never really felt much for that.

For example:


What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm)


The top "manager" of the people's oil production organization--could theoretically live not much differently than the president of Exxon does today--because of the skill and knowledge that he has in doing a good and effecient job in drilling for and refining petrolium.

In some ways a Communist society may not be much different than the one we have now, at least for managers at the top--the real difference being (and this is an importance difference) the people at the bottom will have the rudiments of a decent life and people will be required to work for what they get over the basic level.

No top end no bottom end, but the people in the middle stay pretty much the same, I guess.

Well, no, because CEO's and managers generally produce a lot less value than workers do, if any. Given that, they would earn a lot less, or not even exist if they actually destroy value rather than create it (like is the case with bankers).

I know you're a bit biased on this issue though because you're a manager yourself. You think you actually do some hard and productive work when in reality you're quite an irrelevant person, besides that piece of paper that you have which says that you own the company.

Also, you seem to have forgotten that there's no more profit in this new system, so you won't be compensated with any surplus value created, which is what the vast majority of the income of CEO's and managers consists of today.

But yeah, keep on believing that today's society will be pretty much the same as a communist one would be. Tell that to the people around you if you want to give them a good laugh as well.

[mikelepore]

Well true, but back to (I believe Robert's example of) Tiger Woods. He owns no production facilities, but if a million people choose to pay $10 to watch him play golf--well, he has $10 million dollars. There are lots of examples of people with extraordinary abilities doing things similar.

First, there is no such thing as "choose to pay $10." If there were a situation in which the price of admission is $1, but the attendee says, "No, please take $10 instead" -- that would be choosing to pay $10.

But if the price is $10, the people can't get in without paying $10. So they are paying what they are required to pay to avoid the unhappiness of not being able to get in.

The problem is in having an economic system in which prices are determined by approaching the maximum that people will pay for anything in order to avoid the unavailability of the service. While this is a minor point regarding a sports event, it becomes important in other areas. The price for a kidney patient to undergo dialysis is about $30,000 per year. The steepness of the price isn't determined by necessity at the provider's end, but by the patient's desperation to avoid dying. The same economic law operates in both cases. If this is the dominant economic institution that governs relatively unimportant matters like sports, then it will also govern more important matters.


As far as specific examples--I understand they may not be available, but why shouldn't a post Revolution Tiger Woods type have the best of everything if he could afford it?

Though I wonder if this sort of inequality in posession of goods will cause trouble in the Workers Paradise if people are judged by by their abilities. It may be elitism "by other means."

I'm in favor of a system in which one hour of work for Tiger Woods is compensated at the same rate as one hour of work for the average member of the population. If in that case Tiger Woods would be unwilling to play golf, then he doesn't really enjoy golf and he should do something else.

I would support higher rates of income for people whose work is exhaustive, dangerous, dirty or uncomfortable -- which playing golf isn't.

Any consideration of "how much others are willing to pay" should be recognized to be abusive toward other people.

[RGacky3]

The top "manager" of the people's oil production organization--could theoretically live not much differently than the president of Exxon does today--because of the skill and knowledge that he has in doing a good and effecient job in drilling for and refining petrolium.

In some ways a Communist society may not be much different than the one we have now, at least for managers at the top--the real difference being (and this is an importance difference) the people at the bottom will have the rudiments of a decent life and people will be required to work for what they get over the basic level.

No top end no bottom end, but the people in the middle stay pretty much the same, I guess.

Not really, because, unless of coarse everyone involved actually believed and decided that these people deserved more, through a democratic proccess.

Its democracy, so its really all up to that.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It would be basically impossible for everyone to own a car.

Well yes prehaps in urbanized areas however in more rural areas cars do tend to make life run smoother.

[Kronos]

Well--"pay me at least a million dollars or I won't sing, etc. I already did the free stuff, I have a loyal fan base--now I want CASH to do what I can do." How is that going to fly?

It ain't. The pay scales for entertainers will be decided in advance. If you don't like the pay, you apply for a different job. Whether or not you get a different job depends on your aptitude and the demand for that job.

[Bud Struggle]

It ain't. The pay scales for entertainers will be decided in advance. If you don't like the pay, you apply for a different job. Whether or not you get a different job depends on your aptitude and the demand for that job.

Kind of state controlling isn't it? Why can't I--a free person, owning no "means of production" not breaking any of the Commandments of Marx--do whatever the hell I want with my talent?

If I want to charge $10 for my CD and a million people buy it and I do all of the work myself--why shouldn't I get $10 million dollars? Where does "pay scale" come into any of this? This is just me doing whatever the hell I want in a free society.

[Bud Struggle]

I know you're a bit biased on this issue though because you're a manager yourself. You think you actually do some hard and productive work when in reality you're quite an irrelevant person, besides that piece of paper that you have which says that you own the company. True there. I just invented the business, started doing in in my garage. Financed it myself, bought all of the equiptment, planned the businessed marketing strategy, sold the product, made the product, did the books, hired the workers, bought the building, designed the layout, designed the containers, reformulated the product and loaded and delivered the product.

I'm no where near as important as someone who glues labels on bottles for eight hours a day.


Also, you seem to have forgotten that there's no more profit in this new system, so you won't be compensated with any surplus value created, which is what the vast majority of the income of CEO's and managers consists of today. No--I'll be compensated for making the company work effectively by getting the workers to do the most and best work in the least amount of time. They may want to give me a premium for getting things done effectually.

[Led Zeppelin]

True there. I just invented the business

How can you "invent" a business? Do you mean you had the idea to start one up? Does having an idea to do something give you the right to exploit others? Does it give you the right to own everything that comes forth from that idea? If that was the case Franklin and Newton would be quite joyous.

For example, was it right for slave-owners to take slaves because they "had the idea" to do so? Was it right for them to take whatever proceeds came of it because they got the idea to do so? If not, then why should you be allowed to have wage-slaves due to the same principle? Well, of course today you are allowed to have them because the whole economic system is built on property rights, but the fact that you think you would be able to do the same in a communist system is hilarious.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. When you "have an idea" you can use the means available to you to do something with it, but you won't have the right to use that idea as a means to exploit others. Not only wouldn't you have the right; you wouldn't have the ability given the way the economic system works.

I'll elaborate:


started doing in in my garage. Financed it myself, bought all of the equiptment, planned the businessed marketing strategy, sold the product, made the product, did the books, hired the workers, bought the building, designed the layout, designed the containers, reformulated the product and loaded and delivered the product.

What you are describing here is not a CEO or manager, but a petty-bourgeoisie who works in the same business they own. In other words; you do actually have a productive capacity in it, or at least you had in the past. If you no longer do then this whole issue is irrelevant because right now you don't produce any value, and value that you created in the past does not entitle you to own something ad infinitum. The whole concept of "ownership" by individuals won't even exist in a communist society so this whole point is irrelevant when talking in and about that context.

In a communist society the things you did to start your business wouldn't even follow the same chronology. You wouldn't have to "finance, buy equipment, hire workers, buy buildings" etc. etc., because all of that is based on an economic system dominated by private property and scarcity, or at least the former if we are referring to the first stage of a communist society, that is, a socialist one.

In such a society your "worth" is determined by the value you produce. If you have an idea which can increase the total value produced by "a company" (a misnomer itself because there is no such thing as an isolated "company" in the sense we speak of it today), then that idea will be implemented without you being awarded any additional value for compensation. You know why? Because that idea you had which increased efficiency and production doesn't increase the value you yourself produce as an individual. It is not exclusive to yourself, it is part of the whole economic process of production.

This is what differentiates capitalism from socialism; the isolation of production by various branches of production is replaced with the co-operation of all the branches of production. To put it simply; in a socialist society you wouldn't be able to start a company as the owner of it, only as a worker in it, and you will be given by society what you give to it with your own, individual, labour.


I'm no where near as important as someone who glues labels on bottles for eight hours a day.

I'm sorry to break it to you but if that person who glues labels on bottles for eight hours a day produces more value than you do, in the here and now, then that person would receive a higher value for his labour than you do for yours, if what you do can even be called labour (does your workday now really only consist of watching porn and posting on Revleft?).

This is just common sense. Otherwise the great grandson of Rockefeller could say today; "Hey, my great grandfather had the idea and capital to make this company, so I have the right to reap all the benefits from that, because I'm a direct descendant of his, who initially had the idea!"

Sadly today he would indeed be compensated for that, because I'm sure he gets plenty of money for the property rights or shares of the company that he owns, but in a socialist society he would receive only what he himself produces, and so would you.

By the way, you must have a huge ego to be as self-serving and pompous as you are. You believe that you have the right to exploit others because you happened to have worked for a couple years of your life to do something, even though after those years you have done nothing for even longer? Quite a sad individual you must be to have such a pathetic view of your own existence. You basically admit that you are nothing but a leech now, and you talk yourself into accepting that such an existence is justified because you worked hard for a while and had an idea....

Oh well.


No--I'll be compensated for making the company work effectively by getting the workers to do the most and best work in the least amount of time. They may want to give me a premium for getting things done effectually.

Getting workers to work harder and better is not a productive job. It doesn't translate into producing value directly by expending your own labour in a productive capacity; it translates into doing the job of a slave-owner cracking his whip over his owned livestock of labour.

I think it's a funny idea though. I'm sure slave-owners of old felt the same way; "Hey, if it weren't for me and my whip they wouldn't work as hard as they do now, so they appreciate the fact that I'm here! The whole economic system benefits from my existence for this reason too!".

Nope, sorry, you're an irrelevant leech. If your job consists of directing and overseeing production, then that can be done better by any worker who's actually doing the work. The task of directing and overseeing production is by itself not a job because it does not produce any value by itself; it is merely a task which aids in that process. Without labour your "job" would not exist; without you the labour would still be performed by the workers themselves. If now they lack the ability to direct and oversee production as you do it is only because they have not been taught it or have not had the chance to gain experience in it; but with time they will learn, and learning such a menial and easy task is not that hard and won't take much time. I know you have to overstate the importance of your job but let's be blunt about it; it consists of something a 13 year old could do with proper training. So you would have to actually work alongside the other workers if you wish to get anything back from society, i.e., you would have to actually produce value.

That is of course if the workers don't end up exacting their vengeance upon you before that time comes. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Depends on how nice you are to them today, I suppose. Keep that in the back of your mind the next time you consider cracking that whip of yours.

Oh by the way, you do realize that this is all just a game right? Do you really think I believe you are some owner of a company who goes on vacation whenever he wants and lives like a king because he had some great idea to start a bottle-making factory or some shit? Yeah, maybe I would, if I was as gullible as you are delusional. No, you're probably some teenager writing on the computer from his mom's basement, in between going to college part-time and mowing the lawn of his neighbor. Just so you don't think anyone is actually falling for this e-character that you've created here over the years.

[Bud Struggle]

How can you "invent" a business? Do you mean you had the idea to start one up? Of course.


Does having an idea to do something give you the right to exploit others? Does it give you the right to own everything that comes forth from that idea? If you are indeed a Communist Materialist you would know that the answer to that question is that the only rights you have are the ones you take.


For example, was it right for slave-owners to take slaves because they "had the idea" to do so? Was it right for them to take whatever proceeds came of it because they got the idea to do so? If not, then why should you be allowed to have wage-slaves due to the same principle? Again rights are what one takes--not what one is "given." But being a business owner is not the same as being a slave owner. Owning slaves is illegal.



Well, of course today you are allowed to have them because the whole economic system is built on property rights, but the fact that you think you would be able to do the same in a communist system is hilarious.As long as I have no one working for me and I don't own the means of production--I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do whatever I want.


Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. When you "have an idea" you can use the means available to you to do something with it, but you won't have the right to use that idea as a means to exploit others. Not only wouldn't you have the right; you wouldn't have the ability given the way the economic system works. OK, Fine.


What you are describing here is not a CEO or manager, but a petty-bourgeoisie who works in the same business they own. In other words; you do actually have a productive capacity in it, or at least you had in the past. If you no longer do then this whole issue is irrelevant because right now you don't produce any value, and value that you created in the past does not entitle you to own something ad infinitum. Well I do have the right, at least in the present system. I agree in a future Communist society that I would have to continue to work for what I receive. But If I produce 10 times the amount of product as the above mentioned label gluer, I should receive ten times the compensation as the label gluer. That should be fair.


In a communist society the things you did to start your business wouldn't even follow the same chronology. You wouldn't have to "finance, buy equipment, hire workers, buy buildings" etc. etc., because all of that is based on an economic system dominated by private property and scarcity, or at least the former if we are referring to the first stage of a communist society, that is, a socialist one. I understand that. But then again there would be other challenges to getting things done in a Communist society that some people are able to better than the label gluer.


In such a society your "worth" is determined by the value you produce. If you have an idea which can increase the total value produced by "a company" (a misnomer itself because there is no such thing as an isolated "company" in the sense we speak of it today), then that idea will be implemented without you being awarded any additional value for compensation. You know why? Because that idea you had which increased efficiency and production doesn't increase the value you yourself produce as an individual. It is not exclusive to yourself, it is part of the whole economic process of production. You know there is a HUGE problem here and it's setting this whole system up for failure. Why should I (or anyone else) bother doing things better than they were done before? Why should anyone ever try to change the framework of how things are already being done? It reminds me of I believe in 1884 where Orwell writes that after Big Brother took over scientific progress suddenly stopped.


This is what differentiates capitalism from socialism; the isolation of production by various branches of production is replaced with the co-operation of all the branches of production. To put it simply; in a socialist society you wouldn't be able to start a company as the owner of it, only as a worker in it, and you will be given by society what you give to it with your own, individual, labour. I understand that.




I'm sorry to break it to you but if that person who glues labels on bottles for eight hours a day produces more value than you do, in the here and now, then that person would receive a higher value for his labour than you do for yours, if what you do can even be called labour (does your workday now really only consist of watching porn and posting on Revleft?). I think what is in question here is "time." You seem to thing that only immediate labor should be recognized--I work today I get paid today. You miss the concept of I worked very very hard yesterday and I should bet paid both yesterday AND today for that labor. One could make a point that someone that builds a business builds so much value into his short burst of work in the beginning that he can take out his "pay" for the entire time the business is in existence.


By the way, you must have a huge ego to be as self-serving and pompous as you are. You believe that you have the right to exploit others because you happened to have worked for a couple years of your life to do something, even though after those years you have done nothing for even longer? Quite a sad individual you must be to have such a pathetic view of your own existence. You basically admit that you are nothing but a leech now, and you talk yourself into accepting that such an existence is justified because you worked hard for a while and had an idea....

Shouldn't you give yourself a verbal warning for flaming about now....:D



Getting workers to work harder and better is not a productive job. It doesn't translate into producing value directly by expending your own labour in a productive capacity; it translates into doing the job of a slave-owner cracking his whip over his owned livestock of labour. You are wrong there. If I can help 10 workers (for example) who work for 8 hours to produce 100 widgets to do the work in 6 hours--the value of my labor is the ten workers x 2 hours each. I saved 20 hours of work and I should be compensated accordingly. I think that plan would be in full compliance with Communist principals.



Nope, sorry, you're an irrelevant leech. If your job consists of directing and overseeing production, then that can be done better by any worker who's actually doing the work. The task of directing and overseeing production is by itself not a job because it does not produce any value by itself; it is merely a task which aids in that process. Without labour your "job" would not exist; without you the labour would still be performed by the workers themselves. If now they lack the ability to direct and oversee production as you do it is only because they have not been taught it or have not had the chance to gain experience in it; but with time they will learn, and learning such a menial and easy task is not that hard and won't take much time. I know you have to overstate the importance of your job but let's be blunt about it; it consists of something a 13 year old could do with proper training. So you would have to actually work alongside the other workers if you wish to get anything back from society, i.e., you would have to actually produce value.

That is of course if the workers don't end up exacting their vengeance upon you before that time comes. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Depends on how nice you are to them today, I suppose. Keep that in the back of your mind the next time you consider cracking that whip of yours. More preaching and moralizing...:rolleyes:



Oh by the way, you do realize that this is all just a game right? Do you really think I believe you are some owner of a company who goes on vacation whenever he wants and lives like a king because he had some great idea to start a bottle-making factory or some shit? Yeah, maybe I would, if I was as gullible as you are delusional. No, you're probably some teenager writing on the computer from his mom's basement, in between going to college part-time and mowing the lawn of his neighbor. Just so you don't think anyone is actually falling for this e-character that you've created here over the years. As you wish. And I'd love to be a being a teenager again--I'd sure do things A LOT different. :D

[RGacky3]

If you are indeed a Communist Materialist you would know that the answer to that question is that the only rights you have are the ones you take.


You don't believe that though ... So its irrelivent.


Again rights are what one takes--not what one is "given." But being a business owner is not the same as being a slave owner. Owning slaves is illegal.


Moraly speaking though, YOU are a moral person, so you have to approach this from a moral viewpoint.


Well I do have the right, at least in the present system. I agree in a future Communist society that I would have to continue to work for what I receive. But If I produce 10 times the amount of product as the above mentioned label gluer, I should receive ten times the compensation as the label gluer. That should be fair.


What on earth would you do with ten times the compensation? Keep in mind people in Capitalism aquire wealth because it leads to freedom, security, and power, all of those things won't be an issue, because of lack of property rights.


You know there is a HUGE problem here and it's setting this whole system up for failure. Why should I (or anyone else) bother doing things better than they were done before? Why should anyone ever try to change the framework of how things are already being done? It reminds me of I believe in 1884 where Orwell writes that after Big Brother took over scientific progress suddenly stopped.


Because it makes things better ... Ask the guy who cured polio.


I think what is in question here is "time." You seem to thing that only immediate labor should be recognized--I work today I get paid today. You miss the concept of I worked very very hard yesterday and I should bet paid both yesterday AND today for that labor. One could make a point that someone that builds a business builds so much value into his short burst of work in the beginning that he can take out his "pay" for the entire time the business is in existence.


Under a socialist system, its not compensation for "work" the very nature of work is differenty, work is ... to get things done, things that need to get done, or things that the parties involved want to get done.

You can't evaluate how things would be done unsing the concepts of property and compensation.

[Bud Struggle]

One advantage of the Anarchists future over the Trotskyist is that we won't have to spend our days and nights tradeing needless insults with each other.

You don't believe that though ... So its irrelivent. I don't know. I'm a Christian and thus a Dualist and ethics is important to me. Other's may not be so indulgent with other people's lives.


Moraly speaking though, YOU are a moral person, so you have to approach this from a moral viewpoint. Yea, I am. But I'm not taking my view point--I'm taking Communist's OWN MORAL PERSPECTIVE on thing. And I find it grim to say the least.


What on earth would you do with ten times the compensation? Let me worry about that. ;)


Keep in mind people in Capitalism aquire wealth because it leads to freedom, security, and power, all of those things won't be an issue, because of lack of property rights. Listen: for real. People will always want and aquire power...that's just life. If you want to "manage" it as best you can--enjoy. But I don't think there's much hope that you actually can.


Because it makes things better ... Ask the guy who cured polio. Fine for some.


Under a socialist system, its not compensation for "work" the very nature of work is differenty, work is ... to get things done, things that need to get done, or things that the parties involved want to get done. But there are always extas. You sometimes need disinterested extra talent or able hands--they must be compensated.


You can't evaluate how things would be done unsing the concepts of property and compensation. Maybe not--but being in business for a long time I know what motivates people. You are thinking of changing the world. I truly wish you luck--I just don't see it happening.

All the best, Bud

[RGacky3]

I don't know. I'm a Christian and thus a Dualist and ethics is important to me. Other's may not be so indulgent with other people's lives.


Yes, but you DO believe in human rights.


Yea, I am. But I'm not taking my view point--I'm taking Communist's OWN MORAL PERSPECTIVE on thing. And I find it grim to say the least.


Most communists have a similar moral perspective to you, dispite the materialist jargon.


Listen: for real. People will always want and aquire power...that's just life. If you want to "manage" it as best you can--enjoy. But I don't think there's much hope that you actually can.

But they won't be able to do it with property, as you are now.