Allocating jobs [Archive]

Camlon

19th October 2010, 11:38

Well this raises some interesting questions and has been a bit of a thorn in the side of anarchism for a while. Malatesta addresses this problem too.

You have to ask how many of the current "professions" would continue to exist. I'm not sure about accountants surviving the revolution inasmuch as real estate agents would either!:D

However a lot of the stigma attached to work is not really the work itself it's how much you get paid for doing it. If everyone were on an equal footing the danger is that the "easier" jobs, i.e. the ones that might not require years of arduous study would disappear. But I don't think so. You see people would no longer be defined by their work but instead work would be defined by people. A community would respond to work challenges on the basis of need and not surplus so a lot of work would disappear leaving more time for education, culture and science and also more resources.

If you want an efficient society, then accountants are necessary because you need to know how you allocate resources in a firm. If you don't know that, then you won't know how to make the company more efficient. So accountants are necessary to provide general welfare.

However, they are just an example. For certain someone got to work in the sewers or else they may leak. But who would want to take those jobs if they can attempt doing something else and earn the same? You can of course remove the jobs, but that will cause a declining society because important jobs society need, aren't done.

And why would the easier jobs disappear? There are lots of people who would like to go the easy way out and take an easy job. The jobs that will be hard to find employers for, are disgusting boring jobs that require a lot of education.

ComradeMan

19th October 2010, 12:09

If you want an efficient society, then accountants are necessary because you need to know how you allocate resources in a firm. If you don't know that, then you won't know how to make the company more efficient. So accountants are necessary to provide general welfare.

However, they are just an example. For certain someone got to work in the sewers or else they may leak. But who would want to take those jobs if they can attempt doing something else and earn the same? You can of course remove the jobs, but that will cause a declining society because important jobs society need, aren't done.

And why would the easier jobs disappear? There are lots of people who would like to go the easy way out and take an easy job. The jobs that will be hard to find employers for, are disgusting boring jobs that require a lot of education.

In a workers state you aren't going to have firms nor would you have profit. You would need auditors or bookkeepers to monitor resources.

I made a mistake in the other post, I meant to say the harder- corrected accordingly.

If the sewers were leaking then people would all agree, I think, on putting them right.

You see the problem here is that we are projecting a capitalist system onto a post-revolutionary situation that would, or at least should, be entirely different.

Budguy68

24th October 2010, 16:31

In a workers state you aren't going to have firms nor would you have profit. You would need auditors or bookkeepers to monitor resources.

I made a mistake in the other post, I meant to say the harder- corrected accordingly.

If the sewers were leaking then people would all agree, I think, on putting them right.

You see the problem here is that we are projecting a capitalist system onto a post-revolutionary situation that would, or at least should, be entirely different.

I don't think you haven't answered the OP's question.

You're still going to have dirty toliets and dirty jobs no matter what type of society you have.

Who's going to do the crappy jobs like washing dishes and pullign weeds? Who gets to be the supervisor?

ComradeMan

24th October 2010, 16:35

I don't think you haven't answered the OP's question.

You're still going to have dirty toliets and dirty jobs no matter what type of society you have.

Who's going to do the crappy jobs like washing dishes and pullign weeds? Who gets to be the supervisor?

Perhaps some jobs are only seen as crappy because of bourgeois attitudes. Anyway in the future a lot of stuff will be replaced by technology- there are public toilets that clean themselves anyway.

Yes in the glorious socialist future of post-revolutionary society all toilets will be clean. :D

Commie77

24th October 2010, 17:04

It is a very good question Camlon. I think that it would be very hard for these jobs to be done in a "communist society " or whatever you wish ti call it. How ever if they are a bit authoritarian such as cuba maybe they will give you an option of jobs based on your intelligence. I know france is not communist but think they give you a test during high school or right after to test what you would be good at. If you pick to go into that profession then the government would pay for your education, if not then the government would not pay for you education. Basically maybe the governemnt would give you a list of jobs that you are able to do and depending on which jobs are needed some might be on that list. BTW i am not sure about that France thing but i think its a good idea whether it is true or not.

PoliticalNightmare

24th October 2010, 18:00

Communes that are run by society as a whole organise the distribution of labour. Since everyone gets the full value of their labour, everyone would not need to do so much time working etc. For this reason everyone would do 'productive labour' but they'd have far more time to pursue other things. Also what, may I ask is your definition of a 'crappy' job. Is there really such a thing? As long as working conditions are not detrimental to your physical health and you get paid fairly, I don't think such a thing exists, tbh. E.g., some people like being bin men because of the fresh air, the exercise, etc. Others hate it. Its fairly subjective, really

Also, since wealth and technology aren't generated into so few hands any more like they are today, they can be used to benefit the general public - this means that at least some of the 'crappy' jobs may be replaced by machines.

Baseball

24th October 2010, 19:22

You see the problem here is that we are projecting a capitalist system onto a post-revolutionary situation that would, or at least should, be entirely different.

I think what is being "projected" here is an inability of socialists to explain their own systems.

RGacky3

24th October 2010, 19:46

Democracy

ComradeMan

24th October 2010, 20:41

I think what is being "projected" here is an inability of socialists to explain their own systems.

You might notice that most of the world doesn't really have a socialist system and also you might take into account that within the broad spectrum of the "left" there are many differing ideas and there is no homogeneity- that's what makes us such a big happy dysfunctional family.
:laugh:

Quail

24th October 2010, 21:43

I don't really see people taking "easy" jobs as an easy way out as much of an issue. Surely the point of communism is that so people can develop themselves? Most jobs that require studying are fulfilling, so with free access to a decent education for everyone, I'd imagine people would do more jobs that require training. Hopefully we'll develop the technology to eliminate the need for boring jobs.

Lt. Ferret

25th October 2010, 04:33

what if developing that technology is boring?

#FF0000

25th October 2010, 06:07

I think what is being "projected" here is an inability of socialists to explain their own systems.

These sorts of questions are impossible to answer though because no matter what we say it's just speculation.

ComradeMan

25th October 2010, 10:53

what if developing that technology is boring?

A future socialist society may have different values too. What's good for society. Yeah of course people will still feel shitty on a Monday morning, have headaches and dislike people in their workplace- that's life. But at the same time, when production is geared to need and not to making surplus for profit it changes the whole dynamic. When you need something, you get on with it and the job gets done. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Baseball

25th October 2010, 21:28

These sorts of questions are impossible to answer though because no matter what we say it's just speculation.

Isn't it an article of faith amongst the Left of Marx's opinion that capitalism is the precursor to socialism? And isn't that based upon Marx's study of history?
Isn't it rather ridiculous of the Left to "speculate" that socialism will evolve out of capitalism, but refuse to "speculate" (instead, how about "think about" based upon its critiques of capitalism) exactly what will need be done for socialism to be viable?

#FF0000

25th October 2010, 21:33

Isn't it an article of faith amongst the Left of Marx's opinion that capitalism is the precursor to socialism? And isn't that based upon Marx's study of history?
Isn't it rather ridiculous of the Left to "speculate" that socialism will evolve out of capitalism, but refuse to "speculate" (instead, how about "think about" based upon its critiques of capitalism) exactly what will need be done for socialism to be viable?

Except that isn't so much speculation so much as it is "based on this, we think this might happen."

We could do the same thing for job allocation as well, I'm sure, going back in history and taking a look at how jobs were allocated in the past. I don't think anyone in this thread could give you a decent idea of how jobs were even allocated in the USSR to be honest.

Dean

25th October 2010, 21:48

Isn't it an article of faith amongst the Left of Marx's opinion that capitalism is the precursor to socialism? And isn't that based upon Marx's study of history?
Isn't it rather ridiculous of the Left to "speculate" that socialism will evolve out of capitalism, but refuse to "speculate" (instead, how about "think about" based upon its critiques of capitalism) exactly what will need be done for socialism to be viable?

What will need to be done is contingent on the specific conditions that capitalist (and post-capitalist) society finds itself in. The concept of capitalism and socialism as broad phenomena occurring in succession is a theoretical framework of Marx's thought; indeed, the present existence of capitalism proves that it exists before socialism, if the latter is to be achieved.

ComradeMan

25th October 2010, 22:11

I say unleash Rosa Lichtenstein on the brute!!!!!! :) LOL!!!!!!!!

SocialismOrBarbarism

26th October 2010, 00:18

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.If work is too shitty for people to do it voluntarily then we won't have any reason to make it voluntary in the first place.

revolution inaction

26th October 2010, 00:52

I don't think you haven't answered the OP's question.

You're still going to have dirty toliets and dirty jobs no matter what type of society you have.

Who's going to do the crappy jobs like washing dishes and pullign weeds? Who gets to be the supervisor?

you saying you don't clean your toilet or wash your dishes? you disgusting bastard!

how difficult can it be to set up rotors for things like collecting the rubbish, maintaining the sewers, cutting the grass?

Revolution starts with U

26th October 2010, 01:04

Revolution starts with U

26th October 2010, 01:05

Remember, these jobs you are referring to are almost, if not all, exclusively "non-skilled labor." The youth are very good candidates for that.

ComradeMan

26th October 2010, 11:09

you saying you don't clean your toilet or wash your dishes? you disgusting bastard!

how difficult can it be to set up rotors for things like collecting the rubbish, maintaining the sewers, cutting the grass?

When needs arise people usually get on with things anyway. I would say it's not the so-called low-skill or easy jobs that would be under threat at all because they are the jobs that everyone needs- if the rubbish isn't collected you know about it far more quickly than if the CEO of United Affiliated Conglomerated is away on a golf trip....:thumbup1:

Camlon

27th October 2010, 03:11

Most of these "shitty jobs" can be automated right now. But the people in charge of the technology, the ownership class, cannot make a profit off of that.
Any kind of cleaning can almost be fully automated. Accounting can be automated. Many parts of manufacturing can be automated.
First you will have to describe what jobs are "crappy" and we will see if they can be automated or not. If it is crappy, and cannot be automated, then you have an issue.
It is my view that most of these "crappy" jobs that cannot be automated, will be worked by the youth as experience jobs while they are in school.
In a socialist society, most jobs would be productive liesure; reading, writing, theoritzing, music, etc.

Completely wrong. There are lots of jobs that cannot be automated. For instance, inspection of sewers can't be automated. Cleaning portable toilets can't be automated. Crime scene cleaner can't be automated. Cleaning dead people can't be automated. Waiting tables can't be automated. Cleaning floors and toilets can't be automated. Doing accounting work can't be automated. Some of these jobs are semi-automated. For instance when you clean portable toilets, then you will use a suction device and then a water hose. But the job still sucks.

There is no way you can remove boring jobs. In a capitalistic society, this problem is solved by giving people with boring disgusting jobs a higher wage. That's not possible under communism, and I want to know how you are going to get enough workers without force.

Except that isn't so much speculation so much as it is "based on this, we think this might happen."

We could do the same thing for job allocation as well, I'm sure, going back in history and taking a look at how jobs were allocated in the past. I don't think anyone in this thread could give you a decent idea of how jobs were even allocated in the USSR to be honest.

They had their ways.
1. They had Gulags. They could use gulag workers to do jobs no one wanted to do.

2. They simply let some jobs wait. For instance, you don't have to have a sewer system. People can have their own outhouses and they are more likely to take care of the outhouses themselves, because they are using them. You don't have to have portable toilets for concerts. You don't even need to have concerts. When people die you don't have to clean them, and you don't have to clean up the streets. However, if you let important jobs wait, you will end up with an inefficient society and a declining society.

3. Most people were farmers, and lived off their farm. Hence, they had a job and a reason to work. However, today we have a much more diverse society with a lot of jobs that has to be done. At least if you want to live in a first world country.

4. They simply allocated jobs to people and told them that they will end up in Gulags if they don't work.

5. They gave extra benefits to some jobs, which is not communist.

gorillafuck

27th October 2010, 03:21

There is no way you can remove boring jobs. In a capitalistic society, this problem is solved by giving people with boring disgusting jobs a higher wage.

People with disgustingly boring jobs usually don't get higher wages.

That's my contribution to this thread, since I don't think that abolishing capitalism necessarily means abolishing reward.

Camlon

27th October 2010, 03:42

People with disgustingly boring jobs usually don't get higher wages.
No they are well paid. Let me go through some dirty jobs and how much they earn.
Embalmers: 41000 dollar
Garbage collector: 43000 dollar
Portable toilet cleaner: 50000 dollar
Sewer inspector: 60000 dollar
Coal miner: 64000 dollar
Crime Scene Cleaner: 75000 dollar

Compare that to working as waitress or in a store. They earn about 20000 dollar. How are we going to get the jobs above done, when you can't pay them more.

That's my contribution to this thread, since I don't think that abolishing capitalism necessarily means abolishing reward.
If you don't then you won't get a classless society, because some people will be richer than others.

gorillafuck

27th October 2010, 03:58

No they are well paid. Let me go through some dirty jobs and how much they earn.
Embalmers: 41000 dollar
Garbage collector: 43000 dollar
Portable toilet cleaner: 50000 dollar
Sewer inspector: 60000 dollar
Coal miner: 64000 dollar
Crime Scene Cleaner: 75000 dollar
You just switched "boring" to "dirty". You do know that those words mean two different things, right? Because I can think of quite a few jobs that aren't dirty that also aren't exactly a barrel of monkeys.

Compare that to working as waitress or in a store. They earn about 20000 dollar. How are we going to get the jobs above done, when you can't pay them more.I think we should compensate them more. Capitalism is a system of property ownership, not a system of "you always get rewarded for good work!1!11!!1" where the only anti-capitalist alternative is to abolish reward.

If you don't then you won't get a classless society, because some people will be richer than others.
Class is defined by property relations.

Camlon

27th October 2010, 04:10

You just switched "boring" to "dirty". You do know that those words mean two different things, right? Because I can think of quite a few jobs that aren't dirty that also aren't exactly a barrel of monkeys.

Actually I said boring disgusting jobs. Many of these jobs are boring as well, for instance collecting garbage gets pretty boring after a while.

But I still said disgusting and disgusting jobs are paid well.

I think we should compensate them more. Capitalism is a system of property ownership, not a system of "you always get rewarded for good work!1!11!!1" where the only anti-capitalist alternative is to abolish reward.How can you reward people if you don't have property? People who do easy jobs can just use his rewards because it's theirs as well.

Rewarding people for merit is completely against communism. You don't have property rights so it's impossible to reward people after merit. Marx said, that people should receive what they need. Not that they should receive after how they perform.

ckaihatsu

27th October 2010, 05:18

This is a very good topic -- I'm going to tackle this issue with various answers that range from simple to complex:

2. They simply let some jobs wait. For instance, you don't have to have a sewer system. People can have their own outhouses and they are more likely to take care of the outhouses themselves, because they are using them. You don't have to have portable toilets for concerts. You don't even need to have concerts. When people die you don't have to clean them, and you don't have to clean up the streets. However, if you let important jobs wait, you will end up with an inefficient society and a declining society.

This is actually a *very* good point, and points out that, in a collectivized society, it will be entirely what people themselves make of it. Will we need missile production? Probably not, so that could fall by the wayside, with existing components being salvaged for any other projects that anyone might think of.

If things fall too far down there could be the spread of disease -- this would be learning "the hard way", even though people would certainly know better. So perhaps the basis of local civilization would be some kind of "lowest-common-denominator" amount of coordinated efforts. It could be for sanitation -- possibly automated -- and food production, etc.

If these basic duties are dispatched fairly readily that would free people up to do larger, cross-locality types of projects, with more widespread benefits in common, without nearly as much "buy-in" and direct effort needed from those who benefit -- something like the Internet would be an example of this kind of core-group-leveraging, increasing-returns kind of dynamic.

Finally, at the most large-scale and full-participation scales of involvement, there could be the politics of a self-liberated collectivized society in which people freely opt to have a formalized daily role in the more-institutionalized steady routines of the highly interconnected, widely ranging society. This could enable large-scale, long-term projects like progressive scientific research, major public works (as for buildings, cities, etc.), cooperative artistic productions, and so on.

If you want an efficient society, then accountants are necessary because you need to know how you allocate resources in a firm. If you don't know that, then you won't know how to make the company more efficient. So accountants are necessary to provide general welfare.

A post-capitalist society will still be a *material* society, with quantities of work, energy, materials, etc., needed to be kept track of, at the very least. Camlon brings up the valid point that it would be better to administrate over these material quantities in *efficient* ways (rather than in wasteful ways). So for any collective endeavors of any worthwhile size there *will* have to be a political economy that make decisions over these quantities of materials.

Note that much of accounting isn't merely doing arithmetic -- it's partially a *political* function -- of bureaucracy, basically -- that cross-cooperates on a massive scale in order to codify and validate the overall material direction that capitalist society is going in. This means a daily tacit agreement with the capitalist state, its policies, its decisions, etc.

A *post*-capitalist society would have to operate similarly, but not using a pyramid-like, top-down hierarchical political structure. Rather it could be more "bullseye-like", where a bullseye-like decisiveness over policy *emerges* as a result of initially diffuse concerns and discussions. The politics of the day would aggregate more-widespread and stronger issues, placing them in the center of everyone's attention. If any hierarchies *did* appear, they would be hill-like, raised from the bullseye configuration, based on what everyone is focusing their attention on -- in other words, on the basis of ground-level mass activity, towards agreed-upon *policy*, instead of towards the politically commodified, personified, authoritarian *politician* positions that we're used to seeing today.

It is a very good question Camlon. I think that it would be very hard for these jobs to be done in a "communist society " or whatever you wish ti call it. How ever if they are a bit authoritarian such as cuba maybe they will give you an option of jobs based on your intelligence. I know france is not communist but think they give you a test during high school or right after to test what you would be good at. If you pick to go into that profession then the government would pay for your education, if not then the government would not pay for you education. Basically maybe the governemnt would give you a list of jobs that you are able to do and depending on which jobs are needed some might be on that list. BTW i am not sure about that France thing but i think its a good idea whether it is true or not.

Even the use of "intelligence" as a societal index is effectively bowing down to the idea that everyone has to be *individuated* -- a *collectivized* society would *not* depend on *individuals*, it would depend on the *cooperation* of all who have something to contribute for any particular issue. In this way it would *transcend* individuality in the political realm, to focus on *issues* and *policy*.

La Comédie Noire

27th October 2010, 05:22

#FF0000

27th October 2010, 06:27

ckaihatsu

27th October 2010, 07:18

Rewarding people for merit is completely against communism. You don't have property rights so it's impossible to reward people after merit. Marx said, that people should receive what they need. Not that they should receive after how they perform.

What do you think we mean when we say "collectivize property"?

I'll weigh in here again....

I think there's an "anthropological" level of society that will always be innate to us in *any* societal context, particularly around work.... Even today, with all of the formalism over job positions, job titles, pay grades, wages and benefits, etc., there's still an *informal* kind of social interplay that works its way in, regardless of all of the official sorting.... Much of it may be based on how much a person contributes to the actual *social fabric*, independently of material compensation and official perks.

So, by extension, those who are seen as actively making gains in *collectivizing property* may get more of this 'cred', or general social recognition, at an organic, informal level. This could be considered as the "rewarding for merit", whereby those who are seen as contributing more simply get more "political capital" for their person, as with receiving particular shows of respect, impromptu cooperation for initiatives, getting the benefit of the doubt in controversial situations that may arise, etc. In a communism-type social environment this would be no small thing, actually.

*But* -- since I am of a more formalistic mindset myself, anyway, I would *rather* see the formalization of this kind of compensation-for-merit, even in a post-capitalist societal context. I created a model that speaks to this kind of function:

Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

Infrastructure / overhead

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?u=16162

synthesis

27th October 2010, 07:45

ckaihatsu

27th October 2010, 07:55

Okay, I'm probably a minority of one on this, but I think the first task of a new revolutionary state should be to construct a noble lie where people are assigned jobs at random a la the sorting hat from Harry Potter.

This is the one. We should "allocate jobs" the same way we "allocate jury duty." Everyone grumbles, but everyone knows that it's really the only way to have anything resembling a fair system. If it is feasible in the courts, why not in the economy?

The reason why not is because it would be replacing the "invisible hand" with the "invisible coin-flip" -- it would not necessarily yield a collectively conscious, pro-active political economy. Rather, people would have to accept their randomly selected stations with a sigh of resignation, knowing that it's *fair*, but not particularly meaningful or motivating. This may also beg the question of "who's at the wheel" -- would certain job positions be more determining of overall societal direction, as with industrial policy and project mobilizations, or would there still be an equitable political role for everyone, independent of the system of job positions -- ?

synthesis

27th October 2010, 08:45

The reason why not is because it would be replacing the "invisible hand" with the "invisible coin-flip" -- it would not necessarily yield a collectively conscious, pro-active political economy. Rather, people would have to accept their randomly selected stations with a sigh of resignation, knowing that it's *fair*, but not particularly meaningful or motivating. This may also beg the question of "who's at the wheel" -- would certain job positions be more determining of overall societal direction, as with industrial policy and project mobilizations, or would there still be an equitable political role for everyone, independent of the system of job positions -- ?

First off, if we cut out all the socially unnecessary labor - telemarketing and so on - the amount of labor to be divided among the populace would be decreased by quite a bit. If we only had to dedicate, say, 30 hours a month to some sort of garbage-collecting-type job, the system would be much more bearable.

We would also wouldn't have to be relegated to the same occupation for each unit of time. Say I collect garbage one month and clean the next. The variety would definitely make it more tolerable.

Finally, there could also be a system where people who have actually gotten a degree in, say, engineering or education would be able to skip the "generic" labor lottery and move to the "qualified" pool. You could contribute to textbooks one year, teach the next and then administrate, if the lottery picks that.

I don't know that the "invisible coin flip" is a fair characterization - I'd say that would also more to the status quo than what we're proposing. It's basically applying the concept of demarchy to economic matters.

ckaihatsu

27th October 2010, 09:06

La Comédie Noire

27th October 2010, 09:11

Hahaha I was kinda kidding with that, but the jobs we can't automate will probably be decided via Demarchy. Hell If I was given free reign to do whatever I wanted in my free time I'd spend a few hours every week picking up garbage or washing dishes.

It isn't that big of a problem.

ckaihatsu

27th October 2010, 09:17

[T]he jobs we can't automate will probably be decided via Demarchy.

And who decides *that* -- ??? -- !

gorillafuck

27th October 2010, 12:11

How can you reward people if you don't have property? People who do easy jobs can just use his rewards because it's theirs as well.
Property doesn't mean personal property, it means the means of production. Personal belongings and factories are completely different forms of property.

Rewarding people for merit is completely against communism.Does this make what I said invalid? It certainly doesn't make it capitalist.

PoliticalNightmare

27th October 2010, 13:51

There would be division of labour. Workers would co-operate with voluntarily with communes in order to receive goods and services from society. Every worker would have to do his fair share of work and be given a rota, whether it be cleaning the streets or analysing the weather forecast. For the most part, they'd be doing meaningful activities and the concentration of technology and wealth into society rather than the hands of so few would decrease the amount of menial tasks that would need to be assigned by communes.

WendigoGuerilla

27th October 2010, 18:07

WendigoGuerilla

27th October 2010, 18:38

Okay, I'm probably a minority of one on this, but I think the first task of a new revolutionary state should be to construct a noble lie where people are assigned jobs at random a la the sorting hat from Harry Potter.

The problem with this of course is that modern industrial technological society is operated by specialists in intelligence expertise where manual labor is becoming more and more less relevant within modern technological societies.

What happens when a unskilled laborer is assigned to a nuclear fission division within a power plant?

I believe this was the sort of complexities of which the original poster was referring to.

Quail

27th October 2010, 18:47

The problem with this of course is that modern industrial technological society is operated by specialists in intelligence expertise where manual labor is becoming more and more less relevant within modern technological societies.

What happens when a unskilled laborer is assigned to a nuclear fission division within a power plant?

I believe this was the sort of complexities of which the original poster was referring to.

I think that poster was referring to unskilled, dull jobs that nobody wants to do. I personally think that people will do any socially necessary jobs that will keep their community clean and a nice place to live. I tend to use the analogy of washing pots in a shared house. If you don't wash the pots, there are no plates so people can't eat, so someone will do it to keep their lives running smoothly. That is, if the unpleasant work isn't automated.

WendigoGuerilla

27th October 2010, 18:50

I think that poster was referring to unskilled, dull jobs that nobody wants to do. I personally think that people will do any socially necessary jobs that will keep their community clean and a nice place to live. I tend to use the analogy of washing pots in a shared house. If you don't wash the pots, there are no plates so people can't eat, so someone will do it to keep their lives running smoothly. That is, if the unpleasant work isn't automated.

Of course but in a communist society there is the maximum that people don't get rewarded more than others so essentially, what would the difference be between a nuclear fissionist and a person cleaning dishes?

Would there be a difference? If no difference existed, how would such a communist society effectively operate?

I think that is where this thread originally started out.

I suppose the youth could do low end manual jobs while they are at school studying higher academics which might be a quick fix to the situation as there would be a newer younger generation self replicating itself in population overtime constantly where there is never no shortage of young people where they would do such low end manual labor as apart of a collectivized sense of civic duty but, what about those adults that can't seem to ever reach any advance degree in higher education for occupation that remain in low end manual labor positions most of their lives either by choice or misfortune?

[What would communism do for those people?]

[Would such people be seen as a distinct low end group of people within a communist society or would there be provisions to protect them in a coordinated effort in trying to elevate them?]

ckaihatsu

27th October 2010, 20:24

It's possible that the really low end jobs would be done by students or those trying to advance themselves into education namely the younger generation as it is prevalent today in most low end fields. [ Low end manual labors.]

In order to survive while accessing a free decent education to better one's skills into a more advanced form of career it would be a necessity for them to labor to survive on their own daily in their pursuit of higher academics namely by that of cleaning toilets if we must use a example.

I suppose the youth could do low end manual jobs while they are at school studying higher academics which might be a quick fix to the situation as there would be a newer younger generation self replicating itself in population overtime constantly where there is never no shortage of young people where they would do such low end manual labor as apart of a collectivized sense of civic duty but,

I'm rather surprised to hear this line coming from an anarchist -- I thought there's typically a profound distrust of the institutionalized formalization of anything remotely authoritarian, or anything that's susceptible to authoritarian control.

This, like the lottery suggestion, is also advancing a partially "hands-off" approach -- the automation of some aspect of society as a whole, instead of collectively, *consciously* dealing with such concerns and dynamics with our collective intelligence. We shouldn't glorify or fetishize education, as personally and societally valuable as it may be.... What you're suggesting is (gasp) actually suggestive of a *hierarchy*, based on age / chronology -- that approach would cut *against* efforts towards collectivism.

I think a better question is how does the social stigma attached to such low end jobs disperse because of the competitive nature of people which ends up in a sort of social bullying leading to a mental complex that one's position in society is more better than the other of which undoubtedly is a contributor to income disparities when it concerns inequalities of wage distribution within a economy because of the sole influence of self distinguishment and importance in how we judge others.

Can that be done away with entirely?

This is an excellent point -- briefly I'd say that, in the present day, it's bound up with the overall regime of the accumulation of capital, of course, but the flipside is that there *still* is a generically *material* dimension to all of this, too....

I mean that even in a perfectly collectivized material world not all people would be the same -- we would still carve out varying life paths, and in a post-capitalist society some might still be more well-known for dealing with quantities of materials in a certain way -- the analogue of today's business person and/or politician (etc.).

So I'd say we shouldn't worry too much about the strictly *social* dimension of all of this, because it's really outside of our concern as political people. All that we can really address is that which is consistently *political* -- policy, essentially. Anything lesser is moreso in the domains of business, work, or pleasure.

Also I think what Camlon is saying here is that specialists are predominant within our industrial mass technological society where he is saying if nobody is incentivized to being or becoming a specialist not many will be proned towards that field as whole thereby leaving alot of positions unfulfilled in a modern industrial technological communist society if I'm interpreting him correctly when it concerns specialist jobs that require precise intelligence expertise.

I'm not sure if I have any adequate ideas myself in addressing that issue where I would like to see others address it first before beginning to even try addressing it myself.

Of course but in a communist society there is the maximum that people don't get rewarded more than others so essentially, what would the difference be between a nuclear fissionist and a person cleaning dishes?

Would there be a difference? If no difference existed, how would such a communist society effectively operate?

I think that is where this thread originally started out.

(I do address this aspect of some kinds of work being more-difficult or more-hazardous -- see my blog entry.)

what about those adults that can't seem to ever reach any advance degree in higher education for occupation that remain in low end manual labor positions most of their lives either by choice or misfortune?

[What would communism do for those people?]

[Would such people be seen as a distinct low end group of people within a communist society or would there be provisions to protect them in a coordinated effort in trying to elevate them?]

I still maintain that the concept of retaining formal, fixed job positions would be a "holdover" from the current practice of the commodification of labor -- communism should *collectivize* all work efforts and transcend individuation in the realm of work.

WendigoGuerilla

27th October 2010, 20:44

I'm rather surprised to hear this line coming from an anarchist -- I thought there's typically a profound distrust of the institutionalized formalization of anything remotely authoritarian, or anything that's susceptible to authoritarian control.

This, like the lottery suggestion, is also advancing a partially "hands-off" approach -- the automation of some aspect of society as a whole, instead of collectively, *consciously* dealing with such concerns and dynamics with our collective intelligence. We shouldn't glorify or fetishize education, as personally and societally valuable as it may be.... What you're suggesting is (gasp) actually suggestive of a *hierarchy*, based on age / chronology -- that approach would cut *against* efforts towards collectivism.

This is an excellent point -- briefly I'd say that, in the present day, it's bound up with the overall regime of the accumulation of capital, of course, but the flipside is that there *still* is a generically *material* dimension to all of this, too....

I mean that even in a perfectly collectivized material world not all people would be the same -- we would still carve out varying life paths, and in a post-capitalist society some might still be more well-known for dealing with quantities of materials in a certain way -- the analogue of today's business person and/or politician (etc.).

So I'd say we shouldn't worry too much about the strictly *social* dimension of all of this, because it's really outside of our concern as political people. All that we can really address is that which is consistently *political* -- policy, essentially. Anything lesser is moreso in the domains of business, work, or pleasure.

(I do address this aspect of some kinds of work being more-difficult or more-hazardous -- see my blog entry.)

I still maintain that the concept of retaining formal, fixed job positions would be a "holdover" from the current practice of the commodification of labor -- communism should *collectivize* all work efforts and transcend individuation in the realm of work.

I'm rather surprised to hear this line coming from an anarchist -- I thought there's typically a profound distrust of the institutionalized formalization of anything remotely authoritarian, or anything that's susceptible to authoritarian control.

I am profoundly distrustful of anything institutional that is susceptible to authoritarian control.

As a anarchist that is at the very least not a communist loyalist [ Although I like some of the ideas within communism.] I was just thinking of ways communism would approach such a problem.

At the end of the day many problems within society revolve around conformity and nonconformity type issues where me as a anarchist I don't find it completely necessary that individuals have to be beholden to society or the state and both of their standards in conformity to necessarily live confident self asserting lives of independence.

This, like the lottery suggestion, is also advancing a partially "hands-off" approach -- the automation of some aspect of society as a whole, instead of collectively, *consciously* dealing with such concerns and dynamics with our collective intelligence. We shouldn't glorify or fetishize education, as personally and societally valuable as it may be.... What you're suggesting is (gasp) actually suggestive of a *hierarchy*, based on age / chronology -- that approach would cut *against* efforts towards collectivism.

As I said previously I was just thinking of how communism would approach such a situation as what I suggested is definately not the final end all say on the subject but merely a floated idea.......

This is an excellent point -- briefly I'd say that, in the present day, it's bound up with the overall regime of the accumulation of capital, of course, but the flipside is that there *still* is a generically *material* dimension to all of this, too....

I mean that even in a perfectly collectivized material world not all people would be the same -- we would still carve out varying life paths, and in a post-capitalist society some might still be more well-known for dealing with quantities of materials in a certain way -- the analogue of today's business person and/or politician (etc.).

Not entirely the same meaning there would be some level of hierarchy.

If there is a level of hierarchy how does one go about making inequal practices of distribution to cease?

[ Or better yet, how does one make those top of the ladder unable to squander the edge they have over others for their own self interests?]

I still maintain that the concept of retaining formal, fixed job positions would be a "holdover" from the current practice of the commodification of labor -- communism should *collectivize* all work efforts and transcend individuation in the realm of work.

[Nods.]

(I do address this aspect of some kinds of work being more-difficult or more-hazardous -- see my blog entry.)

I'll take a look.

revolution inaction

27th October 2010, 21:05

what is wrong with having a rota? everone in a comunit has to spend say, a couple of days a month doing some unpopular low skilled job?

RGacky3

27th October 2010, 21:11

what is wrong with having a rota? everone in a comunit has to spend say, a couple of days a month doing some unpopular low skilled job?

If anyone's ever lived in a collective home, you'll know no one wants to do the dishes and clean the bathroom, but its gotta be done, so what happens? According to Right-Wingers what should happen is the majority will oppress one guy and make him their slave (the same rediculous argument right wingers use against democracy), No, this is what happens, they all do it, they rotate, or maybe one guy will agree to do the dishes while another will clean the toilet, and another dude has to do something else.

Seriously its not that hard, even on a bigger scale things work out that way, maybe it might need more organization and some more fomalities, and generally speaking the scale never has to be THAT big.

Democracy works.

synthesis

28th October 2010, 01:28

Well I don't mean to be unnecessarily contentious here, but I can't help but think that even in our *current* state of things co-workers get to figure out their schedules for themselves as a group at their common workplace -- they can swap shifts around during the workweek so as to accommodate different people's changing schedules.

Depends on the occupation in general and the workplace specifically. The point of economic demarchy isn't flexibility, though. It's just the best way to get socially necessary labor done in the most fair and efficient way possible.

I don't see why we couldn't just do the same thing, but in even *more* personally liberating ways, once we've freed ourselves from the strictures of the profit-mad system. Why not swap shifts across "occupations", perhaps in "deal-making" ways -- as long as one person was willing to take formal / political responsibility for allowing someone else to swap in, in their stead, then they'd be able to do that, *regardless* of "qualifications". (And, c'mon, here -- we *should* all know by now that most of the day-to-day for *any* occupation boils down to a handful of set routines and procedures.)

Well, for certain things - work that requires education in engineering, for example - you wouldn't want to have that "regardless of qualifications" modifier. It's called "qualified sortition." The other advantage of this system is the relatively equal distribution of power. The person who decides which specific engineering projects will get the most labor, for example, has a certain degree of power that sortition would effectively negate.

This would confer much more autonomy to liberated laborers in the post-capitalism realm of work -- with the use of labor credits some would be more motivated to take on lesser-wanted or more-difficult / more-hazardous roles, so as to be better compensated. But, mid-stream, they could still switch off with someone else if they could find someone willing to do so.... Isn't *this* the overall position in relation to work that workers *should* be in -- !

I think it's best to avoid things like "labor credits." In practice, compensation in general is often both based in inequality and generative of it as well.

(Also, feel free to ask me about *how* work roles might be decided upon -- that's the topic of this thread, right?)

Go for it.

And who decides *that* -- ??? -- !

I don't understand what you mean here. Doesn't this apply equally to your argument?

ckaihatsu

28th October 2010, 10:25

Not entirely the same meaning there would be some level of hierarchy.

If there is a level of hierarchy how does one go about making inequal practices of distribution to cease?

[ Or better yet, how does one make those top of the ladder unable to squander the edge they have over others for their own self interests?]

Not being an anarchist, I *don't* have any problems with hierarchies *per se*.... As I mentioned I think there will always be some *social* hierarchies of some kind or another -- hopefully based more on organic assemblages, according to (many) people's varied personalities, rather than on anything too external, like private property, patronage networks, culture worship, or cults....

In terms of a post-capitalist economics the key point is to have the collectivization of the means of mass production so that the *access* to major productivity will always be relatively equitable, through a political process of some sort. Someone, or a grouping, would then be in the objective position of having to *build a movement* in support of an *unequal* distribution of production, in order to make it happen politically. They would most likely encounter opposition to their plan for extraneous production and the more vociferous they got about it the more the mass opposition to such an irrational plan would likely build, in turn -- there would be no *intrinsic* dynamics, as by capitalism's accumulation of capital, that would drive such an irrational momentum forward.

The only people "at the top of the ladder" would be there by a strictly *social*, or quasi-political, basis -- meaning that certain people might be habitually looked to for taking care of certain matters, just as people build up reputations for anything. But they could not *consolidate* their "base of power" by any official political "decrees", or anything of the sort, because they would not have any official permanent basis for "holding on" to "power" -- in political terms they could not be recognized as having any different, special function or privileges from anyone else in the collectivized society. Their particular duties in relation to productivity using the collectivized means of mass production would be entirely based on the mass-approved *policy* that puts the machinery into motion and motivates their work role within it. Policy, being a social creation, would rest entirely on a *social* basis -- it would depend on the continued support of those supporting it, strictly within the context of collectivized mass production.

Any "politics" *outside* of mass production would be *even more* organic, if that's imaginable, since not even collectivized machinery would be involved. I'd estimate that there would not be any kind of "permanence" as we're used to seeing in the context of private-property-based *bourgeois* politics. Currently certain parties have *vested*, *external* interests in the continuation of their private holdings and even their own, *personal*, organic inclinations are forced to take a back seat to such *external* interests. In a post-private-property context, though, policy could only continue as long as a critical mass of support continued to exist for it -- it would be akin to people having to all hold up placards for the duration of the policy that they support, and that has been approved, or not-opposed, by the larger population.

ckaihatsu

28th October 2010, 10:38

what is wrong with having a rota? everone in a comunit has to spend say, a couple of days a month doing some unpopular low skilled job?

[T]hey all do it, they rotate, or maybe one guy will agree to do the dishes while another will clean the toilet, and another dude has to do something else.

Seriously its not that hard, even on a bigger scale things work out that way, maybe it might need more organization and some more fomalities, and generally speaking the scale never has to be THAT big.

Democracy works.

I've been turning this over in my mind, and it *is* difficult to find flaws with it -- I think that it could even "scale-up" and fit into a larger social-political framework, if some kind of large, multi-locality projects were approved and put into motion. I may have more on this soon....

Sir Comradical

28th October 2010, 11:01

Simple, you allocate all the physically strenuous hard-labour to the recently defeated bourgeoisie who will be forced to work in inhumane conditions while the people they exploited under capitalism will be given a 12 month holiday.

No seriously, there should be a central agency that mediates between workers and industry to determine allocations of labour according to what the worker is qualified to do. This system will feed into the university system to produce the right incentives to prevent shortages of any particular type of labour. Sometimes coercive policies will be necessary, for example preventing medical staff from all moving into the cities.

ckaihatsu

28th October 2010, 11:08

(If you would, could you point me to any materials that detail your conception of 'economic demarchy', synthesis? Thanks.)

Well I don't mean to be unnecessarily contentious here, but I can't help but think that even in our *current* state of things co-workers get to figure out their schedules for themselves as a group at their common workplace -- they can swap shifts around during the workweek so as to accommodate different people's changing schedules.

Depends on the occupation in general and the workplace specifically. The point of economic demarchy isn't flexibility, though. It's just the best way to get socially necessary labor done in the most fair and efficient way possible.

Certainly -- most understandable. But, at the same time, my concern is that we don't wind up supporting *another* system that treats labor as an afterthought. In my "travels" through revolutionary leftist politics I've found that there's been a surprising lack of treatment of the role of labor in post-revolutionary frameworks.

I don't see why we couldn't just do the same thing, but in even *more* personally liberating ways, once we've freed ourselves from the strictures of the profit-mad system. Why not swap shifts across "occupations", perhaps in "deal-making" ways -- as long as one person was willing to take formal / political responsibility for allowing someone else to swap in, in their stead, then they'd be able to do that, *regardless* of "qualifications". (And, c'mon, here -- we *should* all know by now that most of the day-to-day for *any* occupation boils down to a handful of set routines and procedures.)

Well, for certain things - work that requires education in engineering, for example - you wouldn't want to have that "regardless of qualifications" modifier.

Well, again, I base my assertion on the idea that the main liberated laborer in any given work role would have societal / "official" / "political" responsibility for all duties related to that role, and, as such, could delegate it out according to their own discretion, taking on all resulting implications and outcomes from such a decision.

The point of this is to blur the line between what would be considered 'co-administrative' and what would be considered 'work' in a post-capitalist context. It's also to point out that in a truly collective, liberated work context the role of any one person would not be nearly as critical as what the larger *collective* of liberated workers was doing....

It's called "qualified sortition." The other advantage of this system is the relatively equal distribution of power. The person who decides which specific engineering projects will get the most labor, for example, has a certain degree of power that sortition would effectively negate.

(You'll have to explain this in more detail, or direct me to some background materials on this system.)

[T]he jobs we can't automate will probably be decided via Demarchy.

And who decides *that* -- ??? -- !

I don't understand what you mean here. Doesn't this apply equally to your argument?

Yes, of course -- and to anyone else's, of course. What we're doing here is entirely about being political.

This would confer much more autonomy to liberated laborers in the post-capitalism realm of work -- with the use of labor credits some would be more motivated to take on lesser-wanted or more-difficult / more-hazardous roles, so as to be better compensated. But, mid-stream, they could still switch off with someone else if they could find someone willing to do so.... Isn't *this* the overall position in relation to work that workers *should* be in -- !

I think it's best to avoid things like "labor credits." In practice, compensation in general is often both based in inequality and generative of it as well.

In general, yes -- I agree with you -- but, the system I've developed is *unique*, particularly in that it does *not* attempt to establish ratios for the conversion of work effort (hours) into *material* quantities, as for compensation. Instead it posits labor-hour credits as enabling proportional liberated-labor organizing power and like compensation for future work done, going forward.

(Also, feel free to ask me about *how* work roles might be decided upon -- that's the topic of this thread, right?)

Go for it.

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:

'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

'Hours as a measure of labor’

tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?u=16162

Aeval

28th October 2010, 12:08

I kinda imagine a newly formed communist society going through a kinda student phase where noone does any of the boring, sucky jobs, everything gets dirty and kinda goes to shit, and then one day people will wake up and think, you know what? I've had enough of living in this shithole! And then there will be rotas and passive-aggressive notes, and people will fall out and kick off at one another, and eventually everyone will just grow up and realise this stuff needs to be done otherwise we're gonna waste more time trying to get around not doing it.

It's also a bit tricky to say what a boring job is; I know people who whinge on about working in a shop like it's the most boring, soul-destroying job in the world but I quite enjoy it 'cause you get to speak to people, which I prefer to working alone on something. Other people like working alone, some like working with numbers, some like doing something practical or working outdoors - I think there would be relatively few jobs where there would be noone willing to do it.

But for those truly meh jobs, I would regard every unskilled job, by which I mean, every job that literally require no training (sorting out the rubbish, I dunno...restocking shelves, whatever) to be a chore rather than a job - in which case everyone will have to do a bit of it, and they don't need to be actively forced to do it, it's just that if they don't pull their weight then everyone else will end up getting pissed off at them - or maybe we can just dump all the rubbish they couldn't be arsed to sort out in their room, that's what we used to do when people wouldn't tidy up :lol:

Camlon

29th October 2010, 04:43

Ok, I have gone through some of the ideas and here's my take.

Rotation of boring/dirty jobs.
- This doesn't even work in a home very well. And will have huge problems in a society.
It's extremely inefficient because a worker who has done the same job for years and do it with a free will, will do it much more efficient. A worker that is forced to do something will not be very motivated to work. How are you going to control that they are actually working and not just talking to each other instead. What will be the punishment if you don't work. How are you going to prevent people from pretending they are sick. One of the main points about communism, is that people are motivated to work because they do what they love. If they are doing stuff they hate, then they won't be motivated to work. And even if they were motivated, it would still be less efficient, because they don't have the same experience. Also, rotation of jobs won't work in highly specialized jobs.

Society will learn
- Actually, they won't. Look at African countries which has gone to hell. They just blame someone else for their own mistakes. Most people can never blame themselves and therefore will never learn. If the society goes to hell, then people will probably turn to drinking.

These jobs will be done, because someone will eventually do the dishes in a house.
- Not really. The difference in a house, is that it affects you more. And less work is required to fix it. However, if a street is filled with garbage, you won't spend 10 hours trying to clean it up, because you can just take another road and it feels unfair that you are going to work for 10 hours for something you haven't even done. Especially if someone throw in more garbage while you are cleaning up. We can see this in societies everywhere.

Students can do it
That could actually help, but it won't be enough. Also, beer drinking student are probably not very efficient. It might be something simlar to school clean ups. The job will eventually get done, but it takes 5-10 times longer than it could because a lot of people are working inefficiently or just watching the others work.

Sorting Hat
You get assigned a job and has to keep it forever. Best way to create huge resentment against the state. It's fair, but Bob will get mad because he was chosen to pick up garbage in the city, while his classmates was chosen to be a DJ at a disco club or some other cool job. Also, it opens up for corruption. Because if you have some connections, then they can help you get the job you want.

And for the point being, there are going to be problems filling both low qualified jobs and highly qualified jobs. People are still going to educate themselves, but towards fields they like. Hence, we will have a huge problem getting enough accountants, because every student I have met that is studying accounting, are doing it for the money. But other highly educated boring fields will also have problems getting enough graduates.

Camlon

29th October 2010, 06:40

Property doesn't mean personal property, it means the means of production. Personal belongings and factories are completely different forms of property.

The means of production is today owned by people and is personal property. Sometimes, more than one person, but they are still owned by people. So personal belongings and factories aren't two completely different forms of property. And who wants to own a factory or parts of it, if it can't be used to give you more personal belongings?

Aren't factories supposed to owned equally by the workers anyway?

Does this make what I said invalid? It certainly doesn't make it capitalist.
This discussion is about allocating jobs in communism, not market socialism.

RGacky3

29th October 2010, 11:17

- Actually, they won't. Look at African countries which has gone to hell. They just blame someone else for their own mistakes. Most people can never blame themselves and therefore will never learn. If the society goes to hell, then people will probably turn to drinking.

Really? DO you really want to make this argument? Because I have hundreds and hundreds of years of history and modern history to tear your arguement a new asshole if you want to make it.

It's extremely inefficient because a worker who has done the same job for years and do it with a free will, will do it much more efficient. A worker that is forced to do something will not be very motivated to work.

EVERYONE that does boring jubs is forced to do it, for one reason or another, but I'll tell you what would be more motivating for me, if I had to only clean toilets once a month and the rest of the time I could do more interesting stuff, than if I had to do it my whole life.

What will be the punishment if you don't work. How are you going to prevent people from pretending they are sick. One of the main points about communism, is that people are motivated to work because they do what they love.

Its democracy, first of all, there is no evidence that that sort of situation would exist, he have history to proove that. People are motivated to do work for many different reasons, one of it being it needs to get done. And society probably, if someone does'nt want to cooperate at all with anyone, will tell that person to piss off.

If they are doing stuff they hate, then they won't be motivated to work. And even if they were motivated, it would still be less efficient, because they don't have the same experience. Also, rotation of jobs won't work in highly specialized jobs.

Highly specialized jobs are generally much more fulfilling and people will want to do them.

Aslo again, motivation for crappy work, is much easier if its shared, if you ever lived in a collective, or had friends that did stuff together, you'd know that.

- Not really. The difference in a house, is that it affects you more. And less work is required to fix it. However, if a street is filled with garbage, you won't spend 10 hours trying to clean it up, because you can just take another road and it feels unfair that you are going to work for 10 hours for something you haven't even done. Especially if someone throw in more garbage while you are cleaning up. We can see this in societies everywhere.

We see it in capitalist societies there the economy is not at all democratic, in a house if I have no say over anything in the house, chances are I'm not gonna do the dishes.

Also, beer drinking student are probably not very efficient. It might be something simlar to school clean ups. The job will eventually get done, but it takes 5-10 times longer than it could because a lot of people are working inefficiently or just watching the others work.

YOu ever seen interns work? Or have you seen aprentices work?

School clean ups are different, because its a non-democratic hiarchial situation where the worker has no benefit in it.

. So personal belongings and factories aren't two completely different forms of property. And who wants to own a factory or parts of it, if it can't be used to give you more personal belongings?

Yes they are, one is for profit, one is for use, you just pointed out the difference yourself, if you own a factory .. just to hangout it in, then yeah its peronsal property.

Aren't factories supposed to owned equally by the workers anyway?

Yup, factories are not personal property, they are capitalist property, i.e. capital, take economics 101, you'll find out the difference.

ckaihatsu

29th October 2010, 16:27

Camlon

29th October 2010, 18:41

Really? DO you really want to make this argument? Because I have hundreds and hundreds of years of history and modern history to tear your arguement a new asshole if you want to make it.

Really, history show that people tend to learn of their mistakes? That's a new one.

EVERYONE that does boring jubs is forced to do it, for one reason or another, but I'll tell you what would be more motivating for me, if I had to only clean toilets once a month and the rest of the time I could do more interesting stuff, than if I had to do it my whole life.No, you aren't forced to do the job. You are not doing your job, because somone is going to shoot your head off if you don't work. You are doing your job, because you think it's better than the alternative. And you would me much less motivated to do your job, if the only reason you work is because you are forced to. At least most people would.

Its democracy, first of all, there is no evidence that that sort of situation would exist, he have history to proove that. People are motivated to do work for many different reasons, one of it being it needs to get done. And society probably, if someone does'nt want to cooperate at all with anyone, will tell that person to piss off.
So if you force people to do jobs they hate, there is no evidence that some people will find ways to not do the job? Come on!

People are motivated to work, because it benefits themselves. And what if they don't piss off, and keep living in your state?

Highly specialized jobs are generally much more fulfilling and people will want to do them.

Aslo again, motivation for crappy work, is much easier if its shared, if you ever lived in a collective, or had friends that did stuff together, you'd know that.Not all highly educated jobs are fulfilling, like accountants. You will have a problem filling those roles, and you can't use job sharing.

But these jobs are not jobs in a collective. Hence your argument makes no sense.

We see it in capitalist societies there the economy is not at all democratic, in a house if I have no say over anything in the house, chances are I'm not gonna do the dishes.
This has no relevance to what I wrote. Fact is, most people have few problems doing collective work in a house. But it's much harder to get people to do collective work for a large society. If no one cares, chances are you won't be out there cleaning up for everyone else. How would that be fair?

YOu ever seen interns work? Or have you seen aprentices work?

School clean ups are different, because its a non-democratic hiarchial situation where the worker has no benefit in it.Interns work hard, because they are working for getting a job in the future. And you don't have any benefts of working in communism either. You work, and your wage is independant on your job performance.

Yes they are, one is for profit, one is for use, you just pointed out the difference yourself, if you own a factory .. just to hangout it in, then yeah its peronsal property.
Personal belongins can be used for profits as well. I still don't see the major difference. Why would it be acceptable to own an item if you think about getting profits from them, but not if you don't?

Yup, factories are not personal property, they are capitalist property, i.e. capital, take economics 101, you'll find out the difference.
I have studied a lot of economics and never heard of capitalist property. Maybe you are talking about communism 101?

RGacky3

29th October 2010, 19:35

Really, history show that people tend to learn of their mistakes? That's a new one.

About Africa, if you want to make the argument that Africa is the way it is due to the Africans blaiming other people and just screwing up, and NOT due to hundreds of years of colonialism and exploitation, then make it, but if you do its gonna be ripped a new asshole.

No, you aren't forced to do the job. You are not doing your job, because somone is going to shoot your head off if you don't work. You are doing your job, because you think it's better than the alternative. And you would me much less motivated to do your job, if the only reason you work is because you are forced to. At least most people would.

YOur doing it because if you don't you'll starve, and you will get your head shot off, if you don't respect property laws.

you ARE forced too under capitalism, most people are, from threat of starvation, in the socialist situation there is no threat of starvation, your doing it because it needs to be done, and you as a community have come to an agreement, in which you have an equal say.

Under Capitalism, you don't have a say, if you think you do, go to the Exxon Mobil headquarters and tell them to lower gas prices and stop poluting the enviroment.

So if you force people to do jobs they hate, there is no evidence that some people will find ways to not do the job? Come on!

People are motivated to work, because it benefits themselves. And what if they don't piss off, and keep living in your state?

As to your first point, yeah, come on, thats why the only way to get people to work in Capitalism is threat of starvation, even then people will find ways to not work.

As for the second point, it DOES benefit themself, because they live in a community, if they don't piss off then chances are they won't reap the benefits of living in such a community.

Its not hard to answer these questions your self, just think of the economy was a democracy.

Not all highly educated jobs are fulfilling, like accountants. You will have a problem filling those roles, and you can't use job sharing.

But these jobs are not jobs in a collective. Hence your argument makes no sense.

If those jobs are nessesary, then chances are the community will give those jobs better incentives, again, think if the economy was a democracy then answer yourself.

Fact is, most people have few problems doing collective work in a house. But it's much harder to get people to do collective work for a large society. If no one cares, chances are you won't be out there cleaning up for everyone else. How would that be fair?

Well, I don't know how many collective homes you've lived in, but stuff gets done.

As for your second point, if you want to be part of a community you gotta cooperate with other poeple, btw, in todays world people work 40 hour weeks, and many STILL volunteer in schools and things like that, imagen if people had to work much much less.

Again, think, if the economy was a democracy how would things get done, its not that hard to figure out.

Interns work hard, because they are working for getting a job in the future. And you don't have any benefts of working in communism either. You work, and your wage is independant on your job performance.

IN socialism, your wage is democratic, so it IS based on your job performace, in capialism your wage is based on what the boss says, and somehow his job is always the most important.

Personal belongins can be used for profits as well. I still don't see the major difference. Why would it be acceptable to own an item if you think about getting profits from them, but not if you don't?

Let me put it this way, no one wants your toothbrush, no one needs it, it has no social value, factories on the other hand do, if you want to know the line I'll answer democracy, i.e. if there is gray area it'll be a democratic issue. But don't worry, no one wants to sleep in your bed, theres enough that we are able to produce.

I have studied a lot of economics and never heard of capitalist property.

Do you know what Capital is? THATS Capitalist property.

Camlon

30th October 2010, 08:34

About Africa, if you want to make the argument that Africa is the way it is due to the Africans blaiming other people and just screwing up, and NOT due to hundreds of years of colonialism and exploitation, then make it, but if you do its gonna be ripped a new asshole.

That's about 50 years ago. Of course what Europe did to Africa and other nations around the globe sucked, but they have to start taking responsibility for their own actions now. They can't blame all their bad policy on European colonism.

YOur doing it because if you don't you'll starve, and you will get your head shot off, if you don't respect property laws.

you ARE forced too under capitalism, most people are, from threat of starvation, in the socialist situation there is no threat of starvation, your doing it because it needs to be done, and you as a community have come to an agreement, in which you have an equal say.
If you don't work under capitalism, you won't starve. Every single capitalist country got food coupons and a lot of countries has a social security system. For instance here, everyone can get unemployment insurance if they don't work, so no one will starve. The reason you work, is because you prefer working from the alternative, which is not being able to afford a home or a decent living. Also, if you work harder, then you will generate more income.

That's quite different from a system where your pay is independent of your job performance and your only motivation to work, is that you will be placed in prison if you don't work. Then you will only do the minimal amount of effort to not be placed in prison, and you will not do the job with joy.

Under Capitalism, you don't have a say, if you think you do, go to the Exxon Mobil headquarters and tell them to lower gas prices and stop poluting the enviroment.
You won't be able to do that under communism either. I'm just one out of 7 billion people.

As to your first point, yeah, come on, thats why the only way to get people to work in Capitalism is threat of starvation, even then people will find ways to not work.

As for the second point, it DOES benefit themself, because they live in a community, if they don't piss off then chances are they won't reap the benefits of living in such a community.

Its not hard to answer these questions your self, just think of the economy was a democracy.

First point is already answered, and I think people work quite hard. Much harder than the country I lived in previously, which is famous for left wing politics.

They don't care. They got their own friends who share their values. They don't need your approval. And since everything is free for anyone, then they can live a wonderful life without contributing.

If those jobs are nessesary, then chances are the community will give those jobs better incentives, again, think if the economy was a democracy then answer yourself.
Which is not communism.

Well, I don't know how many collective homes you've lived in, but stuff gets done.

As for your second point, if you want to be part of a community you gotta cooperate with other poeple, btw, in todays world people work 40 hour weeks, and many STILL volunteer in schools and things like that, imagen if people had to work much much less.

Again, think, if the economy was a democracy how would things get done, its not that hard to figure out.

I have lived in a collective, and things get done. But the jobs aren't very hard. I used about a half hour on house work each week. And still, not everyone did what they were supposed to. What if we were going to spend 8 hours each day. Then I would need some motivation, and in a large society there wouldn't even that much of social pressure. Just look at residential buildings. When they are doing collective work in the complex, then a lot of people won't show up. You are trying to make this work on a larger scale than an apartment complex.

IN socialism, your wage is democratic, so it IS based on your job performace, in capialism your wage is based on what the boss says, and somehow his job is always the most important.
No, in communism your wage is independent on your job performance. Marx said that people should receive what you need, not that they should receive after how they perform.

His job is the most important for a company. Because if he makes a bad decision, hires a wrong person then the company will lose a lot of money. And if you work hard then you will get a higher wage. If you work more hours you will get a higher wage. If you decide to educate yourself, you will get a higher wage. If you are a good employee, you will get a higher wage. In communism, your job performance doesn't matter.

Let me put it this way, no one wants your toothbrush, no one needs it, it has no social value, factories on the other hand do, if you want to know the line I'll answer democracy, i.e. if there is gray area it'll be a democratic issue. But don't worry, no one wants to sleep in your bed, theres enough that we are able to produce.

Someone might want to use one of my rooms in my house, and i can profit from renting out one room. When I rent out one of my rooms, then it's not personal property and I can own it, but when I'm not renting it out, then it's personal property and it's not mine anymore? It doesn't make sense.

Do you know what Capital is? THATS Capitalist property.
Yep, I know what capital is. But I don't really see why capital should be relevant to this debate. Do you mean that owning capital should be legal, but not other types of property? Why?

ckaihatsu

30th October 2010, 09:48

That's about 50 years ago. Of course what Europe did to Africa and other nations around the globe sucked, but they have to start taking responsibility for their own actions now. They can't blame all their bad policy on European colonism.

This is an absolutely *disgusting* line to take on the situation of the oppressed, repressed, exploited, and destroyed populations of the world. Humanity, as it exists today, is a very dysfunctional family -- to use a metaphor -- as a result of imperialist capitalism and its predecessor, colonialism. It's no wonder that populations of color are confused and ambivalent about their present-day relationship to the dominant civilizations of the globe -- there has been no overall integration of the ethnicities and cultures of the world -- nor can there be -- until all property-based hierarchies are dissolved for good.

If you don't work under capitalism, you won't starve. Every single capitalist country got food coupons and a lot of countries has a social security system. For instance here, everyone can get unemployment insurance if they don't work, so no one will starve. The reason you work, is because you prefer working from the alternative, which is not being able to afford a home or a decent living. Also, if you work harder, then you will generate more income.

That's quite different from a system where your pay is independent of your job performance and your only motivation to work, is that you will be placed in prison if you don't work. Then you will only do the minimal amount of effort to not be placed in prison, and you will not do the job with joy.

So you're contrasting a welfare-state private-property-based capitalism with a welfare-state bureaucratic-elitist-based system -- basically the postwar twin-superpower world situation known as the 'Cold War'.

It's far from being politically convincing or decisive on your part to simply point out this reality of the 1950s through the 1980s. Scholarship alone is *not* being political.

Under Capitalism, you don't have a say, if you think you do, go to the Exxon Mobil headquarters and tell them to lower gas prices and stop poluting the enviroment.

You won't be able to do that under communism either. I'm just one out of 7 billion people.

As to your first point, yeah, come on, thats why the only way to get people to work in Capitalism is threat of starvation, even then people will find ways to not work.

As for the second point, it DOES benefit themself, because they live in a community, if they don't piss off then chances are they won't reap the benefits of living in such a community.

Its not hard to answer these questions your self, just think of the economy was a democracy.

First point is already answered, and I think people work quite hard. Much harder than the country I lived in previously, which is famous for left wing politics.

They don't care. They got their own friends who share their values. They don't need your approval. And since everything is free for anyone, then they can live a wonderful life without contributing.

This conversation is revolving around the topic of the welfare state, and is *not* addressing the levers of political and economic power worldwide. Anyone can point to plenty of individuals who have followed Timothy Leary's advice and "dropped out" -- while still living decent, humane lives for themselves -- but 7 billion separate people does *not* make for a world society of empowered, collectivized people, no matter how physically healthy their lives are as detached individuals.

If those jobs are nessesary, then chances are the community will give those jobs better incentives, again, think if the economy was a democracy then answer yourself.

Which is not communism.

(My position on the material-reward aspects of a post-capitalist society is detailed within the structures of my model that's at my blog entry. I'm also open to structures of post-capitalism local collectivism that would share all agreed-upon work roles evenly while generalizing larger structures across many localities, as shown in the 'Rotation system of work roles' illustration at post #59.)

I have lived in a collective, and things get done. But the jobs aren't very hard. I used about a half hour on house work each week. And still, not everyone did what they were supposed to. What if we were going to spend 8 hours each day. Then I would need some motivation, and in a large society there wouldn't even that much of social pressure. Just look at residential buildings. When they are doing collective work in the complex, then a lot of people won't show up. You are trying to make this work on a larger scale than an apartment complex.

It's *imperative* to make this work on a larger scale than an apartment complex, primarily for the reason that industrial production exists -- leaving us with the unresolved political issue of who, or what interests, should be in control of such all-deciding mass power.

IN socialism, your wage is democratic, so it IS based on your job performace, in capialism your wage is based on what the boss says, and somehow his job is always the most important.

[The boss'] job is the most important for a company. Because if he makes a bad decision, hires a wrong person then the company will lose a lot of money. And if you work hard then you will get a higher wage. If you work more hours you will get a higher wage. If you decide to educate yourself, you will get a higher wage. If you are a good employee, you will get a higher wage. In communism, your job performance doesn't matter.

No one here needs to be sympathetic with the profit-minded goals of a capitalist boss.

No, in communism your wage is independent on your job performance. Marx said that people should receive what you need, not that they should receive after how they perform.

By "communism" here you really mean 'Stalinism', or bureaucratic elitism.

This intersection of compensation with quality of work is not an easy issue to resolve, and I think much of the revolutionary left still tiptoes around the issue, unfortunately.

We might say, though, that, relieved from capitalist exploitation, such concerns *could* become moot and/or the world population would be so collectively empowered that all efforts could only be judged by the standards of art, which is whether the creation has achieved what it set out to be.

Someone might want to use one of my rooms in my house, and i can profit from renting out one room. When I rent out one of my rooms, then it's not personal property and I can own it, but when I'm not renting it out, then it's personal property and it's not mine anymore? It doesn't make sense.

If you're talking about a *present-day* context, well, no one is stopping you from living your life and doing what you like with what you own.

But in a *post-capitalist* context the thing that would matter more is *how* people are actually using material things. There would be no abstract valuations of material things like land, so such a society would have to decide *politically* how to *directly* use such things in actuality, in realtime.

Yep, I know what capital is. But I don't really see why capital should be relevant to this debate. Do you mean that owning capital should be legal, but not other types of property? Why?

Capital and private property are economically synonymous -- their only difference is in *form*.

Camlon

30th October 2010, 11:19

This is an absolutely *disgusting* line to take on the situation of the oppressed, repressed, exploited, and destroyed populations of the world. Humanity, as it exists today, is a very dysfunctional family -- to use a metaphor -- as a result of imperialist capitalism and its predecessor, colonialism. It's no wonder that populations of color are confused and ambivalent about their present-day relationship to the dominant civilizations of the globe -- there has been no overall integration of the ethnicities and cultures of the world -- nor can there be -- until all property-based hierarchies are dissolved for good.

They aren't alone in being oppressed. Asia and South America was also oppressed for a long time. Life was terrible back in the early 1900s for nearly everyone. However, that time has passed. They can't blame their own bad policies on European colonism, and if they do then they will never improve their own conditions.

So you're contrasting a welfare-state private-property-based capitalism with a welfare-state bureaucratic-elitist-based system -- basically the postwar twin-superpower world situation known as the 'Cold War'.

It's far from being politically convincing or decisive on your part to simply point out this reality of the 1950s through the 1980s. Scholarship alone is *not* being political.Actually, we were comparing job rotation, and obviously we have to force people to do their jobs in some way. When people are forced to jobs they hate, then they won't work very hard.

This conversation is revolving around the topic of the welfare state, and is *not* addressing the levers of political and economic power worldwide. Anyone can point to plenty of individuals who have followed Timothy Leary's advice and "dropped out" -- while still living decent, humane lives for themselves -- but 7 billion separate people does *not* make for a world society of empowered, collectivized people, no matter how physically healthy their lives are as detached individuals.Communism won't empower me. At least now I can decide my own life and what I want to do. With a job sharing program and all of your other ideas, then that wouldn't be possible. That's much more important for me, than be part of some kind of collective unit.

No one here needs to be sympathetic with the profit-minded goals of a capitalist boss.Correct, but he is still important for the company, because he makes all the important decisions. To hire the wrong people, or investing in the wrong area can cost a lot of money. That's why he is paid better.

By "communism" here you really mean 'Stalinism', or bureaucratic elitism.

This intersection of compensation with quality of work is not an easy issue to resolve, and I think much of the revolutionary left still tiptoes around the issue, unfortunately.

We might say, though, that, relieved from capitalist exploitation, such concerns *could* become moot and/or the world population would be so collectively empowered that all efforts could only be judged by the standards of art, which is whether the creation has achieved what it set out to be.No, I'm talking about theoretical communism and how ideally communism will work in practice.

I don't think it's possible to answer my question, and that's why I'm asking the question. Either, you have to force people to work, and you're another Stalin. Or you don't and the economy crumbles. I think market socialism can work in practice, but not communism.

If you're talking about a *present-day* context, well, no one is stopping you from living your life and doing what you like with what you own.

But in a *post-capitalist* context the thing that would matter more is *how* people are actually using material things. There would be no abstract valuations of material things like land, so such a society would have to decide *politically* how to *directly* use such things in actuality, in realtime.
Well, you haven't made the argument. I actually just think he is confused. Because he said that you can be rewarded with property from working harder. But it has to be property used for profit.

And I said "that doesn't make any sense".

Capital and private property are economically synonymous -- their only difference is in *form*.Exactly! :thumbup1:

ckaihatsu

30th October 2010, 11:57

Overall, Camlon, I have to say that your worldview is overly economics-centric and you don't take the determining role of *politics* into account well enough....

They aren't alone in being oppressed. Asia and South America was also oppressed for a long time. Life was terrible back in the early 1900s for nearly everyone. However, that time has passed. They can't blame their own bad policies on European colonism, and if they do then they will never improve their own conditions.

Self-determination, as for an oppressed people, is far more than just 'placing blame', as you seem to indicate here. As with all history, we can't arbitrarily make a clean break with events from the past -- we are only here today *because* of history, and reconciling the past with the present is almost always complicated and messy.

Actually, we were comparing job rotation, and obviously we have to force people to do their jobs in some way. When people are forced to jobs they hate, then they won't work very hard.

Either, you have to force people to work, and you're another Stalin.

You're still invoking the spectre of Stalinism here -- if we're discussing the possibilities for the *future* -- which is the *point* of politics -- then your dependence on using a boogeyman from the past is unwarranted here. No one has suggested that objective conditions would exist that would compel the use of force for the dispatching of humanely critical work roles in a post-capitalism society.

(My position on the material-reward aspects of a post-capitalist society is detailed within the structures of my model that's at my blog entry. I'm also open to structures of post-capitalism local collectivism that would share all agreed-upon work roles evenly while generalizing larger structures across many localities, as shown in the 'Rotation system of work roles' illustration at post #59.)

Communism won't empower me. At least now I can decide my own life and what I want to do. With a job sharing program and all of your other ideas, then that wouldn't be possible. That's much more important for me, than be part of some kind of collective unit.

(You may want to address strictly *political* issues here.)

Correct, but he is still important for the company, because he makes all the important decisions. To hire the wrong people, or investing in the wrong area can cost a lot of money. That's why he is paid better.

Here you're addressing the enterprise of business.

No, I'm talking about theoretical communism and how ideally communism will work in practice.

I don't think it's possible to answer my question, and that's why I'm asking the question. Either, you have to force people to work, and you're another Stalin. Or you don't and the economy crumbles. I think market socialism can work in practice, but not communism.

You're mixing modalities here -- if you're focusing on theoretical / ideal communism then you shouldn't *also* mix in a concern for "the economy" -- "the economy" would *not exist* as a separate entity of abstract valuations outside of the collective workers' political economy. Market socialism would only *encourage* the existence of such a separate entity of valuations, and would, at best, be an awkward in-between state of society, between today's capitalism and a fully political workers' mass control over the means of mass production.

Camlon

30th October 2010, 12:25

You're mixing modalities here -- if you're focusing on theoretical / ideal communism then you shouldn't *also* mix in a concern for "the economy" -- "the economy" would *not exist* as a separate entity of abstract valuations outside of the collective workers' political economy. Market socialism would only *encourage* the existence of such a separate entity of valuations, and would, at best, be an awkward in-between state of society, between today's capitalism and a fully political workers' mass control over the means of mass production.I think you misunderstood me. I'm not looking at ideal communism like it would be in a perfect world. I'm taking communism if it is run ideally today and checking towards reality if it would work.

And what's wrong with a in-between state of society. Why do you have to have a pure system. Isn't the point of communism to improve the condition of people in your society?

Overall, Camlon, I have to say that your worldview is overly economics-centric and you don't take the determining role of *politics* into account well enough....I could, but it's easier for you to debate about politics. Therefore I just assume politics is perfect and focus on the economic issues.

Self-determination, as for an oppressed people, is far more than just 'placing blame', as you seem to indicate here. As with all history, we can't arbitrarily make a clean break with events from the past -- we are only here today *because* of history, and reconciling the past with the present is almost always complicated and messy.
No, it's not always that easy to take a clean break from the past. But now it's 50 years since colonism. It's time for them to take responsibility for their own actions.

You're still invoking the spectre of Stalinism here -- if we're discussing the possibilities for the *future* -- which is the *point* of politics -- then your dependence on using a boogeyman from the past is unwarranted here. No one has suggested that objective conditions would exist that would compel the use of force for the dispatching of humanely critical work roles in a post-capitalism society.
True, I was a little bit confusing there. I din't try to draw a connection between job sharing and Stalin. When I said force again, I was thinking about the force required to get people to work hard so the economy works. When I was saying force the first time I was thinking about the force required to make people do their job-sharing.

My point about job sharing is that it isn't efficient enough.

Here you're addressing the enterprise of business.Yes, but he was talking about capitalism and not communism.

ckaihatsu

30th October 2010, 12:52

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not looking at ideal communism like it would be in a perfect world.

There is no "perfect world" -- there's only the world that people interactively construct for ourselves since no other species is capable of doing the same. (A "perfect world" would be idealism, too.)

I'm taking communism if it is run ideally today and checking towards reality if it would work.

Communism does *not* exist today, and thus is *not* a part of reality -- either you're discussing 'communism' as a realistic possibility for the future, or else you're discussing it abstractly and without real intentions for its implementation.

And what's wrong with a in-between state of society. Why do you have to have a pure system.

It's not so much about "purity" as it is about the objective *incompatibility* of two different economic systems and how they utilize labor. The use of an abstracted system (entity) of material valuations, as with capitalism, means that political and economic motivations are directed towards changing the composition of that system of abstract values instead of addressing the concrete realities of laborers as real people, in realtime.

Isn't the point of communism to improve the condition of people in your society?

There *is no* "my" society -- I just happened to arrive 37 years ago, myself, and other people's personal histories vary, as well. Nothing that we're doing here on this discussion board is *personal* -- it's *political*, since these discussions deal with *aggregations* (of political and economic dynamics).

I don't mean to waste your time here with these exchanges.

I could, but it's easier for you to debate about politics. Therefore I just assume politics is perfect and focus on the economic issues.

If politics were "perfect" -- from a humane point of view -- then workers would not be exploited and would have co-administering roles in the direction of their own labor power.

No, it's not always that easy to take a clean break from the past. But now it's 50 years since colonism. It's time for them to take responsibility for their own actions.

You may want to re-think the state of the world in relation to people of historically oppressed populations -- which you named accurately -- and better-situate their present conditions in terms of the past.

True, I was a little bit confusing there. I din't try to draw a connection between job sharing and Stalin. When I said force again, I was thinking about the force required to get people to work hard so the economy works. When I was saying force the first time I was thinking about the force required to make people do their job-sharing.

My point about job sharing is that it isn't efficient enough.

[If] you're focusing on theoretical / ideal communism then you shouldn't *also* mix in a concern for "the economy" -- "the economy" would *not exist* as a separate entity of abstract valuations outside of the collective workers' political economy.

RGacky3

30th October 2010, 13:02

That's about 50 years ago. Of course what Europe did to Africa and other nations around the globe sucked, but they have to start taking responsibility for their own actions now. They can't blame all their bad policy on European colonism.

First of all, its not about 50 years ago, because economic imperialism continues, second of all, they can't blame all their bad policy on Europe, but you can say that most of what happens there is a result of european imperialism.

If you don't work under capitalism, you won't starve. Every single capitalist country got food coupons and a lot of countries has a social security system. For instance here, everyone can get unemployment insurance if they don't work, so no one will starve. The reason you work, is because you prefer working from the alternative, which is not being able to afford a home or a decent living. Also, if you work harder, then you will generate more income.

So theres a safty net, still, the motivation is the same, not living as a homeless bum.

As far as your last sentance, what planet are you living on???

You won't be able to do that under communism either. I'm just one out of 7 billion people.

You'll have much more of a say, especially in your own community, nowerdays your say is just how much money you have, which means the top 1% has more say than the bottom 90%.

Much harder than the country I lived in previously, which is famous for left wing politics.

Ok, and do they live better? As a whole? Is the wealth gap smaller?

They don't care. They got their own friends who share their values. They don't need your approval. And since everything is free for anyone, then they can live a wonderful life without contributing.

Well, all I'm gonna say is historically, in free socialist societies, thats never been the case, infact its a problem in capitalist societies with a safty net (since work in a capitalist society is done mainyl for the benefit of the rich), in socialist societies, thats much less of a problem, which is why Norway has 2% unemploymenet even thought NO ONE NEEDS to really work, or why the CNT controlled area of spain was the msot productive during the 30s.

Which is not communism.

Yes it is, what I support is socialism, a democratic economy, if your arguing against a straw man, find a strawman, but What I'm arguing for is a democratic economy.

What if we were going to spend 8 hours each day. Then I would need some motivation, and in a large society there wouldn't even that much of social pressure. Just look at residential buildings. When they are doing collective work in the complex, then a lot of people won't show up. You are trying to make this work on a larger scale than an apartment complex.

Thats because a residential building is in a capitalist complex, everyone is renting, and they all work eight hours a day.

But again, its pretty much common sense that when you have a say over omsething, when its part yours, you'll be more motivated to work with it.

ALso, lets look at history, CNT spain, Zapatista Mexico, argentina factory takeovers other anarcho-socialist areas, HAVE NEVER had the slacker problem.

No, in communism your wage is independent on your job performance. Marx said that people should receive what you need, not that they should receive after how they perform.

His job is the most important for a company. Because if he makes a bad decision, hires a wrong person then the company will lose a lot of money. And if you work hard then you will get a higher wage. If you work more hours you will get a higher wage. If you decide to educate yourself, you will get a higher wage. If you are a good employee, you will get a higher wage. In communism, your job performance doesn't matter.

Why are you aruging a strawman, its more complex than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

IN capitalism, if your a boss, you decide the way, plain and simple, its a dictatorship (you might reward more education or whatever, ubt its up to you).

In socialism its a democracy, plain and simple.

Thats why CEOs in capitalism that screw up still get millions or billions in bonuses, and why lower workers in those companies that did everything right loose their job, imagen if those companies were democratic, THATS what I'm arguing for.

Someone might want to use one of my rooms in my house, and i can profit from renting out one room. When I rent out one of my rooms, then it's not personal property and I can own it, but when I'm not renting it out, then it's personal property and it's not mine anymore? It doesn't make sense.

pretty much, it does make sense, the tax system in most countries seam to make sense of it.

Yep, I know what capital is. But I don't really see why capital should be relevant to this debate. Do you mean that owning capital should be legal, but not other types of property? Why?

I say get rid of all property laws, (you don't need property laws for personal property), whatever falls out, then you don't have it.

Camlon

30th October 2010, 16:04

First of all, its not about 50 years ago, because economic imperialism continues, second of all, they can't blame all their bad policy on Europe, but you can say that most of what happens there is a result of european imperialism.

Well, everything is a result of something, but they have to take responsibility for their own actions. Not blaming it on colonialism. And they could have done something different, look at some other developing countries that are doing well. Also, some african countries aren't doing that bad.

So theres a safty net, still, the motivation is the same, not living as a homeless bum.

As far as your last sentance, what planet are you living on???But you are free to pick the alternative. You just choose not to. If someone will shoot your head of if you don't work, then you're not free to choose the alternative.

Do you deny that universty graduates in professional fields earn more than high school drop outs? Do you deny that working 60 hours a wekk will give you much more income than working 30 hours a week?

You'll have much more of a say, especially in your own community, nowerdays your say is just how much money you have, which means the top 1% has more say than the bottom 90%.
I don't want to have anything to say over my community. I want to have something to say over myself.

Well, all I'm gonna say is historically, in free socialist societies, thats never been the case, infact its a problem in capitalist societies with a safty net (since work in a capitalist society is done mainyl for the benefit of the rich), in socialist societies, thats much less of a problem, which is why Norway has 2% unemploymenet even thought NO ONE NEEDS to really work, or why the CNT controlled area of spain was the msot productive during the 30s.Of the countries you could pick, you seriously picked the worst one. First off, Norway has around 6% unemployment if you add onto their unemployment programs. Also, a lot of people are on welfare. That would be on unemployment here.

But secondly, and most importantly, Noway is an oil country and gets most of it's export revenues are oil. You can't compare an oil country to non-oil countries. Or Kuwait would be our economic model. Thirdly, Norway is actually not that left wing. Taxes are average compared to Europe, and is lower than France, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium. There are some regulations, but nothing like you find in many developing countries, or even France, Italy and Greece

Also, how is Sweden doing? I heard there is a man running around shooting innocent people in Malmo. 100 carfires in gothenborg in one month. And they have the highest amount of rapes in whole Europe, an unemployment of over 10% if you add onto unemployment programs.

Yes it is, what I support is socialism, a democratic economy, if your arguing against a straw man, find a strawman, but What I'm arguing for is a democratic economy.Well, my argument is against communism. I think market socialism can work. I don't want to live under market socialism, but if managed well then the economy can be decent.

Thats because a residential building is in a capitalist complex, everyone is renting, and they all work eight hours a day.

But again, its pretty much common sense that when you have a say over omsething, when its part yours, you'll be more motivated to work with it.

ALso, lets look at history, CNT spain, Zapatista Mexico, argentina factory takeovers other anarcho-socialist areas, HAVE NEVER had the slacker problem.
There is a difference between a factory and a economy. If someone decides to not work in a factory, then he won't have a job and therefore no income. However, in communism you recieve what you need. Not after how you perform. Also, allocation of jobs will still be a problem, because you can't give a higher wage to workers who do unpopular jobs.

Also, I don't think Argentina is the best example.

Why are you aruging a strawman, its more complex than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."So what you are saying, is that he actually meant. To each after his performance?

IN capitalism, if your a boss, you decide the way, plain and simple, its a dictatorship (you might reward more education or whatever, ubt its up to you).

In socialism its a democracy, plain and simple.

Thats why CEOs in capitalism that screw up still get millions or billions in bonuses, and why lower workers in those companies that did everything right loose their job, imagen if those companies were democratic, THATS what I'm arguing for.The problem with a democratic firm, is that democratic firms don't work. There is nothing that prevents you from creating a company that is democratic in this economy. There are probably some companies that already exist. But there is a major problem. Let's pretent times get tough and you have to cut back straff. Will a democratic company cut back on staff? Hardly!

Also, I don't think most democratic companies will award for merit. But more by popularity.

pretty much, it does make sense, the tax system in most countries seam to make sense of it.

I say get rid of all property laws, (you don't need property laws for personal property), whatever falls out, then you don't have it.So then it's impossible to award people for merit and it will hard to fill unpopular jobs.

Baseball

31st October 2010, 20:52

[QUOTE]IN capitalism, if your a boss, you decide the way, plain and simple, its a dictatorship (you might reward more education or whatever, ubt its up to you).

In socialism its a democracy, plain and simple.

This is false. In capitalism, the "boss" makes decisions and choices based upon what he or she thinks consumers or potential consumers wants. He doesn't control- the consumer controls. That's where the potential for a "screw-up" comes from.

The workers in a socialist factory also will have to make their decisions with the same problems in mind. In other words, even the socialist workplace, will not be controlled by those workers.

Thats why CEOs in capitalism that screw up still get millions or billions in bonuses, and why lower workers in those companies that did everything right loose their job, imagen if those companies were democratic, THATS what I'm arguing for.

Imagine what would happen if the socialist workers "screw up?" In fact, in such a situation there is GREATER justification for the loss of jobs since those workers will be complicit in the "screw-up." But do you think they would ever vote to terminate their employment? But the problem still exists and has to be resolved.

ckaihatsu

1st November 2010, 10:34

IN capitalism, if your a boss, you decide the way, plain and simple, its a dictatorship (you might reward more education or whatever, ubt its up to you).

In socialism its a democracy, plain and simple.

This is false. In capitalism, the "boss" makes decisions and choices based upon what he or she thinks consumers or potential consumers wants. He doesn't control- the consumer controls. That's where the potential for a "screw-up" comes from.

The *most* accurate description is that it's the *market* that decides what should be produced. 'The market' is a select portion of the population that happens to have enough funds with which to drive a certain kind of consumption. We *could* reasonably call it 'the dictatorship of the market'.

The workers in a socialist factory also will have to make their decisions with the same problems in mind. In other words, even the socialist workplace, will not be controlled by those workers.

Workers in a socialist workplace *will* be one and the same as the population that consumes -- there will be no middleman function of the markets required anymore. Workers for any given good or service, though, will be far smaller in numbers than the whole population of workers / consumers that they're producing for. *And*, any given group of liberated workers *will* have "veto power" over their own labor under regular conditions, by definition -- in other words they'll be normally free to collectively organize.

Thats why CEOs in capitalism that screw up still get millions or billions in bonuses, and why lower workers in those companies that did everything right loose their job, imagen if those companies were democratic, THATS what I'm arguing for.

Imagine what would happen if the socialist workers "screw up?" In fact, in such a situation there is GREATER justification for the loss of jobs since those workers will be complicit in the "screw-up." But do you think they would ever vote to terminate their employment? But the problem still exists and has to be resolved.

I think you're arguing RGacky3's case *for* him -- in a fully collectivized labor context it will be fully contingent on the liberated workers themselves to resolve any problems like production errors, unsatisfactory performance, unnecessary work roles, etc.

RGacky3

1st November 2010, 11:13

Chaihatsu, thanks a lot for taking care of baseballs objections.

but they have to take responsibility for their own actions. Not blaming it on colonialism. And they could have done something different, look at some other developing countries that are doing well. Also, some african countries aren't doing that bad.

Sure, but you can't put most of the blame FOR the situations there on the Africans, they are repsonsible for their own actions, but their own actions are not the most responsible for the situation there.

Do you deny that universty graduates in professional fields earn more than high school drop outs? Do you deny that working 60 hours a wekk will give you much more income than working 30 hours a week?

Yes I do, people that work 60 hours a week do so because they are desperately poor, wealthy people work less, Universaty grads make more money (sometimes), but that has nothing to do with how much work they have, the Ruling class's wealth has no corrolation to their work, and the working classes work has nothing to do with their poverty.

But you are free to pick the alternative. You just choose not to. If someone will shoot your head of if you don't work, then you're not free to choose the alternative.

Whos talking about shooting anyone in the head???

I don't want to have anything to say over my community. I want to have something to say over myself.

But you live in a community, and this in the community effect you, but if you want to live as a hermit then your dream will come true.

Of the countries you could pick, you seriously picked the worst one. First off, Norway has around 6% unemployment if you add onto their unemployment programs. Also, a lot of people are on welfare. That would be on unemployment here.

WHere are you getting those statistics?

But secondly, and most importantly, Noway is an oil country and gets most of it's export revenues are oil. You can't compare an oil country to non-oil countries. Or Kuwait would be our economic model. Thirdly, Norway is actually not that left wing. Taxes are average compared to Europe, and is lower than France, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium. There are some regulations, but nothing like you find in many developing countries, or even France, Italy and Greece

Taxes are not what make a country left or right wing, its how much public control there is oer the economy, Norway has public owned oil, banking, communications and other industries, also the regulations there are very stringant, but if you have some facts and data I'd be happy to hear it.

Kuwait also has probably the best social services and safty net in the region.

Also, how is Sweden doing? I heard there is a man running around shooting innocent people in Malmo. 100 carfires in gothenborg in one month. And they have the highest amount of rapes in whole Europe, an unemployment of over 10% if you add onto unemployment programs.

Yeah, and they liberalized their economy in the 90s, thats for the argument.

Well, my argument is against communism. I think market socialism can work. I don't want to live under market socialism, but if managed well then the economy can be decent.

I'm not arguing for communism (what your refering), or market socialism, I'm arguing for a democratic economy.

There is a difference between a factory and a economy. If someone decides to not work in a factory, then he won't have a job and therefore no income. However, in communism you recieve what you need. Not after how you perform. Also, allocation of jobs will still be a problem, because you can't give a higher wage to workers who do unpopular jobs.

Also, I don't think Argentina is the best example.

In most western economies you recieve whta you need, no amtter how you preform.

Allocation of jobs won't be a problem because unpopular jobs can either be decided on democratically, rotated, or given extra incentives.

Argentina is a great example of the market economy getting destroyed, but the factory takeovers are a great example of socialism saving the day :).

So what you are saying, is that he actually meant. To each after his performance?

WHat he's saying is getting rid of the profit and wage incentive, but that does'nt mean that under communism there are no benfits to anything.

The problem with a democratic firm, is that democratic firms don't work. There is nothing that prevents you from creating a company that is democratic in this economy. There are probably some companies that already exist. But there is a major problem. Let's pretent times get tough and you have to cut back straff. Will a democratic company cut back on staff? Hardly!

Also, I don't think most democratic companies will award for merit. But more by popularity.

There are many democratic firms, and they do work, also ALL of your arguments are essencailly arguments against undemocratic firms.

WHen times get tough, the boss won't cut his own pay, he'll cut staff, democratic companies will cut manegement pay first probably.

Undemocratic comanies reward the bosses for just being bosses, and everyone else based on waht they can get away with. In democratic companies it'll be done by merit (people that work the best and contribute the most probably will be more popular), I'd much rather pay be democratic than just up to one or a few guys.

Also All of these comapnies work in a Capitalist context, i.e. reliant in finance (controlled by the ruling class), and must be profit motivated and in competition with profit motivated companies, which means that coops are not the perfect example of socialism on a large scale, but they are an example of how democracy can work in the workplace.

So then it's impossible to award people for merit and it will hard to fill unpopular jobs.

Thats been answered over and over and over again, pay attention.

Baseball

1st November 2010, 14:21

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;1911486]The *most* accurate description is that it's the *market* that decides what should be produced. 'The market' is a select portion of the population that happens to have enough funds with which to drive a certain kind of consumption. We *could* reasonably call it 'the dictatorship of the market'.

What this means is that production is geared to what people want. It remains mysterious as to why this is a bad thing.

Workers in a socialist workplace *will* be one and the same as the population that consumes

No. How many automobiles will the auto worker consume? Statistically 0% of production.

Workers for any given good or service, though, will be far smaller in numbers than the whole population of workers / consumers that they're producing for.

Says who? And then prove it.

*And*, any given group of liberated workers *will* have "veto power" over their own labor under regular conditions, by definition -- in other words they'll be normally free to collectively organize.

What this means is that the workers will decide what they wish to produce, based upon their own interests and needs.

But the purpose of their work is not to satisfy their needs, but rather the needs of those who desire their product.

I think you're arguing RGacky3's case *for* him -- in a fully collectivized labor context it will be fully contingent on the liberated workers themselves to resolve any problems like production errors, unsatisfactory performance, unnecessary work roles, etc.

Yes. However Gacky is placing different standards upon it than would apply under capitalism. Fair enough, of course, but that doesn't mean such standards cannot be critiqued and found wanting and the source of other problems.