People cannot excel in Communism

[Ballyfornia]

I was having a debate with one of my friends and he stated people cannot excel in Communism

I gave that people could excel at sport, are there any other examples you could give?

[Dean]

I was having a debate with one of my friends and he stated people cannot excel in Communism

I gave that people could excel at sport, are there any other examples you could give?
What's really meant by excel here is to accrue economic power over other human beings. I don't think that's a good measure, though.

Communism allows one to enjoy the full fruits of their labor in the context of a worker-owned factory. What this further allows is the control by the worker over the conditions of their own labor.

I fail to see how one can excel more in capitalism, except in ways which cause others to be unable to excel. In communism, this ceases to be a significant problem.

[Tablo]

Sports, arts, sciences, and many other places. The only places they won't get to excel are in things like accumulation of wealth and exploitation of their fellow human being.

[Omsk]

Sports,art,science,labour.But in true socialism things are not only about money and the accumulation of wealth,comradry,hard work and efforts pay off always,unlike in the corrupt states that value capitalism.You can always advance,but not on the behalf of others,throwing them in the gutter while you advance up.

[Meridian]

I beg to differ, there's an Open Office version of that.

[el_chavista]

... people cannot excel in Communism
People's excelling is what communism is all about. Only that "the free excelling of each is the condition for the free excelling of all."

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Only a small chosen few excel in capitalism.

[mikelepore]

Capitalism defines so many channels for people to spin their wheels in useless acitivies, and then take pride in them. A person may win trophies for "excellence" in the role of thinking up advertising slogans to persuade people to switch from Cola Cola to Pepsi, but the amount of social usefulness in the entire task is zero. If supporters of capitalism say that they want people to "excel", without further clarification, we must first challenge them to specify an activity that we agree bears some usefulness to humankind. Then they must make their case about the economic system and the socially useful parts of the activity.

[Thirsty Crow]

I was having a debate with one of my friends and he stated people cannot excel in Communism

What is his/her argument?
Simple propositions are not arguments in fact. So, what would occur in a stateless, classless society which would produce this specific effect?

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm guessing the argument is: people can only excel if they are being paid to excel.

the answer is: Jonas Salk.

[#FF0000]

Stephen Jay Gould said a thing that I think you might find p. insightful.


"I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."

If anything, capitalism arbitrarily denies or obstructs the opportunity to excel from people.

[Summerspeaker]

Folks like me can't excel - barely even survive - under capitalism, so I have no sympathy for this argument.

Excellent quote from Gould!

[Robespierre Richard]

I was having a debate with one of my friends and he stated people cannot excel in Communism

I gave that people could excel at sport, are there any other examples you could give?

I think a better response would be "excel in what, exactly?"

[Fulanito de Tal]

What's really meant by excel here is to accrue economic power over other human beings. I don't think that's a good measure, though.

EXACTLY! :thumbup1:

Other concepts in which one can "excel"
-Happiness
-Artistic expression
-Social inclusion
-Peace
-Sexual expression
-Equality
-Care for others
-Philosophy
-Academia
-Career
-Health
-Mental health
-Coexistence with nature

[DaComm]

Capitalist hierarchies, neglection of worker safety and tendency towards pollution are major factors in the general deterioration of human health today. Socialism would be much more efficient with democratically run workplaces not only improving our health and thus we "excell", but also we have better ideas as a result of universal participation. That just sounds like one of those extremely vague "it can't work" or "who will do my laundry" arguments made people not worthy of arguing with.

[Rafiq]

I was having a debate with one of my friends and he stated people cannot excel in Communism

I gave that people could excel at sport, are there any other examples you could give?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_inventions_and_technology_reco rds#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_%28rocket%29

And this was in state capitalism....

What exactly is your friend talking about? What does he mean excel?

[jmpeer]

Well, have you bothered to ask why? Why can't people excel in communism? Just mentioning examples in which we think people can excel is meaningless because, naturally, we're all inclined to think people would excel as we would want them to if our opinions were realized. And like others have said, what does he mean by excelling?

[Ocean Seal]

I suggest that they see this pyramid.


Also keep in mind that you don't need money to excel. In fact I would think that if you were to ask any truly passionate scientist/artist whether they would want to publish a huge discovery/ work of art or take a large amount of money, they would reply give me the former. I at least personally would take a Nobel Prize without the money rather than the money without the prize (not saying that I'm in any position to win such an award). Science and art are about contributions to humanity, and they don't require money as a motivator. In fact, I strongly doubt that most scientists/artists do what they do for money.

A physics major (undergrad) could go off to Wall St. make 100,000 or get his/her Masters and later PhD and make around 60,000. Realistically if money was their motivator the only legitimate answer seems to go for Wall St. Anyone who is still a physicist clearly has not done it for the money.

[Tim Finnegan]

I recommend reading Richard Seymour's discussion of "Meritocracy", found here (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/05/meaning-of-david-cameron-talk.html). (Point 2, about half way down.) It quite neatly deconstructs the concept as deployed by conservatives and liberals alike, demonstrating its function as an ideological justification of arbitrary wealth inequality.

[smk]

Q: Will people want to excel more in a communist society than a capitalist one?
A: u6XAPnuFjJc

Q: Will they have the opportunity to excel more in a communist society than a capitalist one?
A: Communism is about equal opportunities for all. I see no logic in their argument/random assertion. They are probably under the common delusion that communism=EVERYBODY'S DA [email protected]!!


Ask them to explain themselves. You will often notice that these things which many anti-communists say are just one-liners ingrained into their memories by society: "communism is the 'perfect system which will only work for perfect people!'", "doctors work harder than janitors, why should they be paid equally?", "if everyone is provided for, there wont be any incentives!", etc. They will end up just repeating these lines over and over because they haven't actually thought about the issue in any depth at all.

[Red Commissar]

What is his/her argument?
Simple propositions are not arguments in fact. So, what would occur in a stateless, classless society which would produce this specific effect?

Yeah, the argument in the OP kind of reminds me of the whole "everyone will be paid the same so no incentive" nonsense you hear a lot when people trash around Communism. I'm reminded of that idiotic story they pass around about the teacher (or professor) scaling things so that everyone gets a C.

[FarewellSlavianka]

If people do not excel under Communism, then the Soviet Union would not have had so many successful doctors and inventors. Not to mention Cuba has some of the highest ranking medical doctors in the world. People actually have a better chance of excelling under Socialism than under Capitalism, because all of the barriers that kept them from reaching their true potential are then broken down. People can do what they're actually good at, rather than slave for a lazy boss at an office.

[Fulanito de Tal]

You will often notice that these things which many anti-communists say are just one-liners ingrained into their memories by society: "communism is the 'perfect system which will only work for perfect people!'", "doctors work harder than janitors, why should they be paid equally?", "if everyone is provided for, there wont be any incentives!", etc. They will end up just repeating these lines over and over because they haven't actually thought about the issue in any depth at all.

"Communism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world." <--That one really pisses me off.

[deadmeat1471]

I would posit that a greedy and capitalist loving person cannot excell in communism. But a conscientious and true thinker will excell further, pushed on in the knowledge that their country values their efforts in bettering their own knowledge.

[Toppler]

That's total bullshit. Even in the context of the past "degenerate workers states", they provided far more resources for a human being to excel than capitalist states at the same wealth level (it is easy to have many opportunities if your GDP per capita is sky high, so don't try to compare it with the Nordic countries or middle class parts of USA). My mother has managed to get into a prestigeous hotel school in Kiev in the USSR era, despite not having parents in the party, being from one of the poorest parts of rural Ukraine (western Ukraine, near to Lu'tsk) and not being a total genius. She was born in the Ukrainian USSR in 1971. Her school included stuff not only directly for helping her future job, but also stuff like programming in BASIC on 8-bit computers, back in the 80s when computers, even in the "glorious West", were only beggining to appear, or the Spanish language. Can an Indian or even Peruan peasant do the same? In the case of the Indian peasant he probably worries about having enough food, in the case of the Peruan peasant he probably has enough food, but probably not a lot of education, and he almost certainly does not know to program a computer even in BASIC.

[Tim Finnegan]

"Communism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world." <--That one really pisses me off.
Oh, Jesus, that one drives me mad. It's like they think they're offering some grand profundity, simply because they're not resorting to McCarthyite screeching.

[robbo203]

Yeah, the argument in the OP kind of reminds me of the whole "everyone will be paid the same so no incentive" nonsense you hear a lot when people trash around Communism. I'm reminded of that idiotic story they pass around about the teacher (or professor) scaling things so that everyone gets a C.


Since "pay" will no longer exist in a communist society being a volunteer economy and goods and services will be for free distribution, the ponly in which individuals can excel and gian the respect and esteem of their fellows is through their contribution to society, not what they take out of it

[robbo203]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/mar02/binman.html (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/mar02/binman.html)
The binman

What would you do if you grew tired of a successful career as a salesman, earning lots of dosh as you persuade people to part with their readies for things they probably didn't want? Would you fake a smile and carry on, hating every minute of it but realising your suffering puts bread on your kids' table? Probably. One man in my home town did something else. He quit that job and became a dustbin man.

He is quite an energetic guy. He doesn't walk at all, he runs with the bins. Danish labour legislation has thankfully forbidden the old-style bins, without wheels, and law requires easy access to them for the binmen. No more busted backs or falling over gnomes. His fellow refuse workers tuns too. They get their job done in next to no time, which means our hero gets lots of hours for canoeing, his favourite hobby. He likes the outdoor life, the pace of the job, feels much happier, and is not concerned that his wage packet is smaller. Whilst it is a physically demanding job, he claimed the sales job was pretty demanding due to the mental tedium of waiting about for the next hard sell.

This little news story was one of those light relief space fillers we have grown accustomed to. However, it was by far the most interesting thing on the news that evening. It raises some intriguing points.

The reporter couldn't understand why someone would turn their back on a big wage placket and become, “of all things” a binman. Why should refuse work be deemed less worthy than salesmanship? Why should anyone have to be asked, and justify, why they want to be a binman? A bin in summer can have a nasty, ripe smell, and it is obvious that public health requires, amongst other things, a clean environment – nothing could be worse than your Nan being plagued by rats, after all. What useful social function does a salesman have? None really, if you think about it. Salesmen are out to sell a product. Once the product is sold, the outlays are paid for and a tidy, little sum is netted in profit for the product's pre-sale owner, who is probably wise enough to use another brand and who isn't the salesman. Salesmen are only necessary in capitalism.

A salesman is, or so it goes, more educated than a binman. There is a social stigma attached. Only Dumbo empties bins. (Our here is not a Dumbo of course.) It is a rotten snobbishness that overlooks a variety of things. The unemployed watching the news that night would jump at the chance to get a job. Perhaps some of them might be inspired to try a refuse job, even though the thought of rotting chicken and cat crap turns their stomachs. But then they could always change their job to salesmanship if they grow tired of bins, right? You see, what we want to do is pretty much irrelevant. You are employed only if you are exploitable. Jobs are plentiful in booms but come a slump you are put on the dole. You might get tons of papers from school, but does that mean you will get the job you want (and if you do, will the work conditions rapidly change your expectations); get a job; or even get educated? In any case schooling does not equate with education.

Hopefully our hero will continue to enjoy his job. Of course the Aarhus refuse workers' strike some five years ago reveals the true nature of work in capitalism. There is a ceaseless struggle between capitalists seeking to up the tempo of work and reduce wages (in these days of permanent inflation, all they need do is freeze wages and workers will feel the pinch) and workers seeking to get their own back (by smoking on the WC and stealing the bog roll) or organising to implore conditions and pay.

Work should not really be equated with employment. Work will be an essential part of life in socialism; it will be a part of the individual's development and a necessary, healthy expenditure of energy. Employment is wage labour (the ability to work is a commodity the workers are forced to sell – we are all “salesmen” in reality), commodity production instead of production solely for use. As such it has alienating factors associated with it; e.g. Monday to Friday is “their” time, whilst the weekend is your time, where you can enjoy working in the garden or painting. Employment is based on the division of labour. The upshot being workers are tied to one job for years on end, instead of being people able to do all kinds of things, which socialist society – run by conscious decisions instead of blind forces – will allow. (Of course it is a moot point as to how far the division of labour can be removed from socialism; not every one can have the steady hand and requisite knowledge of a surgeon.)

One of the strangest objections to socialism is “who will do the dirty work?” The man of this piece was not entirely motivated by cash. His sales job made him miserable; he loves his new job. We can speculate that there will be people willing to do dirty work in socialism. The hours required will be considerably reduced as the waste of unemployment and salesmanship, amongst many other occupations, will not exist in the moneyless, free access society of socialism; there will simply be more hands to do the unpleasant but necessary stuff. The objector is always a bit strange: “I don't want to live in a world without wear and starvation, and where my needs are satisfied, if it means I have to do dirty work once a week.” Socialism can do lots of things, but not make crap smell of roses; that is one little fact of life we'll have to put up with.

[Amphictyonis]

I tried playing poker but wasn't good at it. I tried to take up sports but wasn't good at it so I decided to try to own other human beings by forcing them into indentured servitude via inheritance and private property. I didn't have any private property or inheritance. In my case I was once a slave but worked hard enough to buy my own freedom. I excelled above the rest of the slaves and now I live like a king on earth. Now I'm giving my slaves the freedom to choose what products to buy after I pay them a fraction of the full value of their labor. This is how I live like a king, I take much of their wages while doing absolutely nothing....well, it is "risky" though.

[Toppler]

Also, if communism supposedly makes people stupid and all that bullshit, then why the fuck was the USSR the first country to launch a satellite and later a man into space?

Even before when I knew anything about politics or anything else about the USSR except that they were "Russians", I already admired their space program as a space obsessed dreamer little kid (and I still love space).