A few dummie questions.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Ok I have a few questions for you guys.

I always here socialists saying that under socialism people would be able to work much fewer hours, but how can this be when billions of people are living in abject poverty? Clean water sources will have to be found; pipes and roads will have to be laid; power plants and power lines will have to be built; hospitals, schools and houses would have to be built; and millions of doctors and teachers will have to be trained. In addition to the enourmous humanitarian needs we would also have to reduce our use of fossil fuels and greatly reduce our overall impact on the Earth. Environmentalists say that it is physically impossible for the Earth to support 6 billion people at the standard of living enjoyed by those in the developed world, infact it would take several Earths to do the job. How could people work fewer hours when we face such a monumental challenge? It seems like it would take decades to raise the whole worlds living stanards to dignified levels. If the Earth is incapable of supporting all of humanity in the way we live in the developed world then we must surely redistribute the wealth in those nations to the undeveloped nations around the world. Would this not be likely to cause animosity between the developed and undeveloped nations and possibley create a split that could lead to war between the two factions?

I also hear socialists say that you would do the work that you feel like doing. But what if all the shoe makers decided that they didn't want to do that job anymore? Would people have to be coerced into being shoe makers? Wouldn't people rather have to choose their job from a list of available jobs that match their skill set, and if so wouldn't that mean people who were among the last to choose their job would be forced to do jobs that they might find unsatisfying or even hate?

Sorry if these questions are stupid and I'm completely missing the point.

[RedSquare]

Interesting question. It may have been answered before, but I'd be interested in seeing it again.

I think its basic practical issues like this that need to be clarified most if we are ever to explain how a future system would work.

[Psy]

The difference is production for utility meaning products can be engineered for durability and efficiency that can't be done under capitalism as it would make the problem of over production worse.

[Catmatic Leftist]

The statement you made relies on the assumption that technology won't improve over time. Communism won't happen any time in the near future, so by the time it happens, technology will have advanced tenfold, allowing for more efficiency and utility. Also, by the mere fact that overproduction will cease to exist under communism, the work can be tailored to more useful outlets instead of for profit like under capitalism.

[mikelepore]

How could people work fewer hours when we face such a monumental challenge?

It's because you're changing too many variables at the same time. You start out by comparing capitalism, with the stipulation that people are NOT going to build new roads and schools, to socialism, with the stipulation that people ARE going to build new roads and schools, and thereby concluding that socialism would lead to a lot of work hours. Can't you see the error in that reasoning? Holding all other variables constant, and changing only the the administrative system, capitalism versus socialism, people will be building roads and schools in either system, so that cancels out from the comparison. For a given amount of building going on, just compare a stockholder-managed profit-based system to a worker-managed nonprofit-based system.

[The Idler]

The interests of the working-class are the same internationally. There are more than enough resources (labor included) to provide for everyone with clean water, food, sanitation and housing yet we do not provide for everyone. Even environmentalists recognise this latter point.

[Quetzalcoatl]

It's because you're changing too many variables at the same time. You start out by comparing capitalism, with the stipulation that people are NOT going to build new roads and schools, to socialism, with the stipulation that people ARE going to build new roads and schools, and thereby concluding that socialism would lead to a lot of work hours. Can't you see the error in that reasoning? Holding all other variables constant, and changing only the the administrative system, capitalism versus socialism, people will be building roads and schools in either system, so that cancels out from the comparison. For a given amount of building going on, just compare a stockholder-managed profit-based system to a worker-managed nonprofit-based system.

Sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying here. As for the other answers, I see that eliminating overproduction would allow much more useful things to be produced, but has there been a study which estimated how much production could be saved and how many additional useful products could be made with our curreny global production capacity? If not then I hope someone would do it as it would add a lot of weight to our arguments.

I also have another question which is: How would houses be allocated to people? For one thing at the moment many families are living in inadequate conditions because they cannot afford anywhere better, whereas other people are living in houses much larger than what they require, so under socialism would there be an expectation or requirement for the rich to give up their homes to allow the poor to live there? Maybe the state could own houses and people would pay a rent to the state, the level of which would vary depending on the value of the house? In that system people could spend more of their wages on a larger house if they see a value in it, or they could save their wage for other things and live in a more modest house.

[RedSquare]

Ah now I see, its as I expected. Reading the Communist Manifesto last night I was amazed at how honest and how clear Marx is in his writing. Certainly it won me over, and I'm amazed it hasn't won more people over. We've nothing to lose but our chains.

[JacobVardy]

Ok I have a few questions for you guys.

I always here socialists saying that under socialism people would be able to work much fewer hours, but how can this be when billions of people are living in abject poverty? Clean water sources will have to be found; pipes and roads will have to be laid; power plants and power lines will have to be built; hospitals, schools and houses would have to be built; and millions of doctors and teachers will have to be trained.

Really, really short answer. With gross generalisations

In industrialised regions, a lot of work is no longer going to need being done. The finance sector will no longer exist. No more working being done in banking, stock-market speculating, insurance, etc... No more advertising industry either. A lot of manufacturing is going to re-purposed as well. In nearly every sector, each competitor over produces, with significant spoilage. In a communist society, spoilage will be a proportion of the whole industry, not of every manufacturer - and thus as a proportion of the industry, much lower. So, in industrialised areas there will be less work for each individual because there will be more work-hours for necessary goods and services.

In under-industrialised areas, work is laborious because of that very under-industrialisation. Under the current system there is little incentive for the decision makers to industrialise production when labour is so cheep. Under communism labour has a high value to the decision makers (IE, the people doing the work). This will facilitate technology and skill transfers to increase the productivity of labour. That is, work will be mechanised, allowing a great deal more work to be done by the same amount of labour

[Luisrah]

The truth is capitalism inevitably leads to overproduction. Right now, we are producing much, much more food than necessary to feed the whole world, and yet, more than 10 million people die of hunger every year. There are huge houses, abandoned houses, and homeless people.

What happens is that capitalism ''thinks'' only about the here and now, or maybe the here and before the company's boss dies. Those big bosses of huge companies don't care about the environment, they want profit. Things in capitalism aren't made to last, they just want you to buy them, and then get out unless you want to buy more.

They don't care if it ruins the environment, if there's waste, or whatever, they want to sell. Some time ago I saw a documentary about programmed obsolescence (nothing I didn't know already)
Basically what happens in capitalism is that products are made to break or stop working quickly, so you'll have to buy another one. With that come many bad consequences. Your living conditions diminish, since you spend much more money on things that could last much longer, and tons and tons of garbage is produced.

The main examples are lamps. They are made to last around 1000 hours, while lamps that lasted much longer have been made (2500 hours, and with more investigation, maybe it could go further). They showed a lamp that has been working for more than 100 YEARS.

Now just imagine that applied to all other things. Electronics, cars, appliances/applicances (the things in your kitchen). Imagine if they were made to really last. You'd have much more money to spend on other things, and thus your living conditions would be better, and there would be much less waste produced.

When you go to McDonalds or Burger King and you order something, half of the things that come are going to waste. The cups, the packages, all that stuff is wasted resources, but all that is essential in the capitalist money making machine (for the rich of course)