How would you establish this

[beeman]

Communism is a political ideology that aims for a society without class or state, obviously. Now my first question to you is, and this may be a rather simplistic one, if you made the society classless would everyone receive the same amount of wealth?I have more to inquire but I need an answer to this question foremost.

[jake williams]

What do you mean by "wealth"?

There are all sorts of reasons that individuals might receive different levels of material consumption. Pregnant and nursing mothers have higher dietary needs than those who aren't. People with disabilities have different material needs as well.

There also lots of reasons that a society might choose to differently reward people who do different things. While any socialist society will try to make all jobs as safe, empowering and enjoyable as possible, especially in the near term some jobs will still suck a lot more than others. This might be compensated by differences in work hours, but it might also be compensated through certain material awards. Why not?

The point of socialism is that everyone has equal control over decisions about production and consumption, which could and almost certainly will mean different levels of consumption on the part of individuals with different needs, not about giving everyone the same amount.

[beeman]

What do you mean by "wealth"?

There are all sorts of reasons that individuals might receive different levels of material consumption. Pregnant and nursing mothers have higher dietary needs than those who aren't. People with disabilities have different material needs as well.

There also lots of reasons that a society might choose to differently reward people who do different things. While any socialist society will try to make all jobs as safe, empowering and enjoyable as possible, especially in the near term some jobs will still suck a lot more than others. This might be compensated by differences in work hours, but it might also be compensated through certain material awards. Why not?

The point of socialism is that everyone has equal control over decisions about production and consumption, which could and almost certainly will mean different levels of consumption on the part of individuals with different needs, not about giving everyone the same amount.

Thanks for responding. What I am getting at is, obviously some people are more intelligent than other, obviously some people are lazy/mentally ill/just plain unintelligent etc etc. Would a, lets say rocket scientist receive the same material compensation as a trash man who works the same number of hours? If your answer is yes then wouldnt the people receiving more compensation essentially be a higher class people therefore it would not be a classless society? What to do about the people who are considered the lowest class of all,homeless people. Would you still take care of them if they did not work or refused to work? If you pay them less than your average proletariat for not working or producing anything then they would be considered the lowest of all classes just as they are now. If you pay them the same compensation that would incite people to not work at all because they would not have to. I just dont understand how it would be possible to create a society that is classless because some people are better qualified at certain things etc etc.Please dont get nasty with me I am simply seeking out answers in a polite way.

[Black Sheep]

There's no way to establish an objective criteria to measure the "worth" of a needed profession to another.
classic example, doctor vs garbage man
one saves lives,studies a lot,other works in stink every day,tiring job yadda yadda

The real point is, if you are "payed"/if you receive such a compensation that ALL your (rational) needs are fully satisfied, WHY should you receive a greater one?

[Sensible Socialist]

Would a, lets say rocket scientist receive the same material compensation as a trash man who works the same number of hours?
No one would be solely a rocket scientist or a trash man. Forcing someone into menial labor for their entire lifetime is cruel. Instead, all of society pitches in to do work they find valuable and fullfilling. For the jobs that aren't as glamorous, each person chips in a bit of their time to accomplish the goal. More hands make for light work. There are no wages, by the way.


What to do about the people who are considered the lowest class of all,homeless people.
There would be no homeless in a socialist community, as housing is provided for all.


Would you still take care of them if they did not work or refused to work?
I think it would be neccessary to understand why they don't want to work. No one I know, besides those with severe depression or mental illness, enjoys sitting around a house doing nothing. People like to interact with others, or at least perform work that is enjoyable. If someone chooses to sit in a room all day doing nothing, the community needs to help them to find something they enjoy doing that can help the community.


I just dont understand how it would be possible to create a society that is classless because some people are better qualified at certain things etc etc.Please dont get nasty with me I am simply seeking out answers in a polite way.
People that are good at things will do them. If you're an amazing painter, by all means you'll be given the resources to create amazing works of art. For those who are brilliant in the sciences, I would hope they spend time researching cures to diseases and such. It would still be classless, as no one person or group has economic or social power over anyone else. People can be very different and still live in a classless society.

[beeman]

Your basing this on the fact that people are benevolent by nature. How would you stop people from becoming alcoholics/drug abusers? Would people not look down upon them? Would intelligent people not look down upon less intelligent people? The proletariat cannot control everything, what I mean is it is impossible for every single person to have a fair say in who gets X amount of this and X amount of that. There would undoubtedly be corruption if any group of people were to be able to control these funds. I see the only hope for it to work is to get extremely benevolent leaders of the country, something that goes against human nature. Those who gain the tiniest bit of power will assuredly fight to keep that power, that is the human way.

[Franz Fanonipants]

we argue that the "human way" is necessarily conditioned by the modes of production and meeting of needs that they inhabit.

there is no "human way," except to eat, sleep, drink, and etc.

so the question is, why do you seem to worship the "human way" of capitalism so much, comrade?

[twenty percent tip]

that aint the way you make love:bored:

[twenty percent tip]

its human to shit onteh flooror in the toilets. wecan doit however we want.thats why we stand up as men and womon. dont idealize. racists arehuman but human beings not species beings with freedom from out own much

[Sensible Socialist]

Your basing this on the fact that people are benevolent by nature. How would you stop people from becoming alcoholics/drug abusers?
A strong education system and extensive community support for children growing up would instill a sense of self, the same feeling that many who turn to drugs and alcohol lack in themselves.


Would people not look down upon them? Would intelligent peoplenot look down upon less intelligent people?
Not unless they're pricks and elitists.


The proletariat cannot control everything, what I mean is it is impossible for every single person to have a fair say in who gets X amount of this and X amount of that.
Most goods are produced in abundance. There wouldn't have to be a system of strict distribution if there is more than enough of a good for the community.


There would undoubtedly be corruption if any group of people were to be able to control these funds.
Which is exactly why there is no high council or group that decides who gets what.


I see the only hope for it to work is to get extremely benevolent leaders of the country, something that goes against human nature. Those who gain the tiniest bit of power will assuredly fight to keep that power, that is the human way.
You have a very dim view of the human race. I suggest you read "Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin for reasons why animals and humans have spent their collective histories working together instead of fighting in many instances.

[jake williams]

Would a, lets say rocket scientist receive the same material compensation as a trash man who works the same number of hours?
That's not a question that can be answered in advance. I can envision a society where no one wants to collect trash, and so those who do receive special compensation. I have a harder time envisioning a society where it would be easier to get people excited about trash collecting than rocket science, but I suppose it's conceivable.

At any rate, let's say we need 10% of the society to be scientists and 20% of people to collect trash. If 10% of people want to be scientists, and 20% of people want to collect trash, then there's no problem. But if only 10% of people want to collect trash, we'll need to find a way to encourage a few more people to do it.

The idea is that people will be welcomed to do whatever they'd like, but we may need to incentivize certain tasks with special benefits if we can't find enough people to do it.


If your answer is yes then wouldnt the people receiving more compensation essentially be a higher class people therefore it would not be a classless society?
No, because the quantity of consumption doesn't determine class. If you and your friend both work at a factory doing similar things, but he gets $1 an hour more than you do, you're not part of a different class. You're still both workers.

It might not be fair, but it could be. Maybe he doesn't mind doing a more difficult task for the extra dollar, while you'd rather not do it, and are willing to give up the extra dollar. If we were living in a society where people doing dirty, dangerous work, say garbage collection, were making a lot less than people doing comfortable, interesting work, say rocket science, then the former might resent the latter. However, I can certainly envision a society where people doing dirty, dangerous work have shorter hours, more vacation, and leisure time, and don't resent folks who spend a lot of their time in a lab.

In a socialist society, extra income/consumption is unrelated to one's democratic role in making decisions about production, something everyone would do. Getting a slightly bigger share of consumption wouldn't allow you to monopolize power, to have your kids gain an advantage over other people's kids, to have extra influence in decision making, and so on. It's not a different class, it's about fair compensation for different types of work.


What to do about the people who are considered the lowest class of all,homeless people.
"Homeless people" aren't a class either. There are some pretty affluent people who might choose to live in hotels and not keep a permanent residence. There are people who work full time jobs who are homeless, and people who never work who are homeless. None of them are part of the same class.


Would you still take care of them if they did not work or refused to work? If you pay them less than your average proletariat for not working or producing anything then they would be considered the lowest of all classes just as they are now. If you pay them the same compensation that would incite people to not work at all because they would not have to.
That depends. A lot of people who are homeless and unemployed right now are that way because of mental illness and addiction. Those problems would be much less prevalent in a socialist society, but as much as they continued to exist, one wouldn't be penalized for it, because no one chooses to be mentally ill or addicted to drugs.

However, I certainly know people who are more than able to work, and simply refuse it, instead living off their parents' work, welfare, petty crime, and so on. If those same people made the same decision in a socialist society - which many of them probably wouldn't, because work in a socialist society is a very different thing from work in a capitalist society - then, as the saying goes, those who don't work don't eat. One is not automatically entitled to the products of others' labour whatever one chooses to do with one's time. It's not an option in a socialist society to contribute nothing to the social product and still demand a part of it. I could conceive of a situation where it's an option to produce for one's own consumption, if there's land available, but I doubt anyone would choose it. Much higher standards of living are available in socialized industrialized economies than are available in personalized subsistence agriculture, gathering.

[hatzel]

There would undoubtedly be corruption if any group of people were to be able to control these funds.

You seem to be forgetting that groups of people also happen to exist in non-socialistic societies, and, by your own argument, there would undoubtedly be corruption if this is permitted. If, for instance, a group of people known as 'the management' control the funds, and decide what each of their workers will get as a salary. Or if another group of people, sometimes known as 'parliament,' sometimes known as 'congress,' sometimes known as 'the senate,' or by a whole range of other names, control the funds, and decide how much money will be spent building hospitals, how much building schools, how much building prisons and how much building fighter jets. For example.

I see no reason that you would consider human corruptibility to be an argument against socialism, but not against any other system. Particularly given the fact that most of these systems are actually precisely the horror that you seemed to hint at (that is to say, a select few seizing power and controlling everything), the pertinent difference being that socialism at least attempts to mitigate this risk, whilst other systems seem to embrace it. Of course there is a chance that you seek to totally remove the human aspect, and hope to see the economy organised by an incredibly advanced computer, so advanced that it can even rise above its own programming (as otherwise its decisions would be determined by corruptible and potentially misinformed humans), but as the rest of us don't live in some kind of freaky sci-fi universe, we generally try to make do with actual human behaviour.

Dealing with actual human behaviour is precisely why we don't feel it's such a great idea to vest complete political authority in an extreme minority, who are then free to do as they wish, but to spread this authority, that is to say, political decision-making, as widely as possible. Knowing as we do that the oppressor rarely acts in the best interests of the oppressed. This strikes me as a much better way to prevent some power-hungry individual(s) seizing all power than a system whereby there's an election every few years to decide which power-hungry individual(s) will be given all power until the next election. That is to say, liberal democracy. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned...

[Baseball]

No one would be solely a rocket scientist or a trash man. Forcing someone into menial labor for their entire lifetime is cruel. Instead, all of society pitches in to do work they find valuable and fullfilling. For the jobs that aren't as glamorous, each person chips in a bit of their time to accomplish the goal. More hands make for light work.





People that are good at things will do them. If you're an amazing painter, by all means you'll be given the resources to create amazing works of art. For those who are brilliant in the sciences, I would hope they spend time researching cures to diseases and such.

Obviously, the latter quoted comment cannot be true based upon the former quoted comment.

[Baseball]

At any rate, let's say we need 10% of the society to be scientists and 20% of people to collect trash. If 10% of people want to be scientists, and 20% of people want to collect trash, then there's no problem. But if only 10% of people want to collect trash, we'll need to find a way to encourage a few more people to do it.

The idea is that people will be welcomed to do whatever they'd like, but we may need to incentivize certain tasks with special benefits if we can't find enough people to do it.

Yes. One can raise compensation levels to "incentivize" people to become garbageman (or even rocket scientists). And one can lower compensation to "disincetivize" people from being rocket scientists or garbageman if more than 10% wish to be rocket scientists or 20% garbageman.





In a socialist society, extra income/consumption is unrelated to one's democratic role in making decisions about production, something everyone would do. Getting a slightly bigger share of consumption wouldn't allow you to monopolize power, to have your kids gain an advantage over other people's kids, to have extra influence in decision making, and so on. It's not a different class, it's about fair compensation for different types of work.

In such a circumstance, would not the different compensation rate reflect society valuing the labor of people differently? But if the community refuses to recognise the increased value that labor brings to it, is in not guilty of exploitation?




as the saying goes, those who don't work don't eat. One is not automatically entitled to the products of others' labour whatever one chooses to do with one's time. It's not an option in a socialist society to contribute nothing to the social product and still demand a part of it.

I see. So lets say more than 20% of the population wish to become garbageman. Does the community endorse the aspirations of those people who are after all otherwise working? But to what extent are they contributing to the social product if their labor is not needed?

[hatzel]

Obviously, the latter quoted comment cannot be true based upon the former quoted comment.

Not really, considering the former quoted comment is 'we won't force people into one job, let them do what they enjoy doing!' whilst the latter is 'if you enjoy doing something, you will be free to do it!' Seems similar enough to me, I'm not seeing this mammoth contradiction you speak of...

Still, all you work fetishists need a good dose of Bob Black. And even I'm not sure if I'm being serious here :confused:

[CommunityBeliever]

if you made the society classless would everyone receive the same amount of wealth?

Their wealth-values won't be mathematically equal, but disparities in their wealth will be basically irrelevant.


the people receiving more compensation essentially be a higher class people therefore it would not be a classless society?

No because Marxist classes are based upon the relations of production.


If you pay them the same compensation that would incite people to not work at all because they would not have to.

I outright reject the idea that humans are necessarily lazy. Instead, in communism labor will become lifes prime want.


How would you stop people from becoming alcoholics/drug abusers?

Since people are determined by their environment, a communist environment with a good education system and community support won't lead to drunks and degenerates.


Those who gain the tiniest bit of power will assuredly fight to keep that power, that is the human way.

There is no "human way."

[Manic Impressive]

I'm against incentivizing different types of labour, everyone produces what they can and receives what they need.
The people who clean the hospital enable the doctor to preform their job, without them them the doctor will not be able to treat patients. So why is the doctors job more important when both jobs are essential to achieve the same goal?

[communard71]

I think incentivizing work with better or lesser pay may be a first step, but the goal of Communistic society is one where money is relegated to an archaic tool of exchange. In a true communistic country, housing, food, healthcare, schooling, medicine etc. Are provided by the classless state, i.e., “congresses” of workers and professionals will send leaders to larger national organizations to help determine the path of the society. More anti-malarial nets are needed in area B, then they will be produced and sent there. The goal would be the eradication of the fetishized object that money has long since become.

[hatzel]

Instead, in communism labor will become lifes prime want.

Sounds terribly unappealing...what a deplorable waste of a life that would be...


Since people are determined by their environment, a communist environment with a good education system and community support won't lead to drunks and degenerates.*Cough* (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2143981&postcount=164)

That said, as a 'degenerate' is...


1. A depraved, corrupt, or vicious person.
2. A person lacking or having progressively lost normative biological or psychological characteristics....do you feel like explaining what a drug-user has done to deserve such a label? Perhaps if people didn't look on down on drug-users as 'degenerates' then beeman's claims that socialism totally wouldn't work because people would be looking down on drug-users all the time and turning them into some underclass would fall on deaf ears, don't you think?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

and about the alcohol, in france kids are drinking from age 5ish, there is no minimum drinking age, and there are less alcoholics than the us.
why? because kids are tought from a young age on how to drink, unlike kids today that are let loose into society at age 21(or younger) and dont know how to drink

as for people who dont want to work, or absolutely refuse to work in any way, i think we should let them starve

[Sensible Socialist]

Obviously, the latter quoted comment cannot be true based upon the former quoted comment.
It most certainly can be. No one will have to perform a certain task every day for most of their life, while under capitalism this is how labor is performed. Socialism allows people to engage in many different types of work. Naturally, people that are good at certain jobs or activities will spend time doing those. I never said all their time, so I'm not sure why you think both statements can't be true.

[CommunityBeliever]

do you feel like explaining what a drug-user has done to deserve such a label?

The use of a substance which results in mental decline.

Having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.


Perhaps if people didn't look on down on drug-users as 'degenerates'I didn't say that I "look on down on" them. The term degenerate is descriptive.

[hatzel]

I didn't say that I "look on down on" them. The term degenerate is descriptive.

Please consult what you said directly above this, with my own added underlining:


Having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

I would maintain that claiming somebody has abnormal and undesirable qualities, and in fact even defining them by these abnormal and undesirable qualities through the use of the noun 'degenerate,' is tantamount to looking down on them, don't you think?

[jake williams]

I'm against incentivizing different types of labour, everyone produces what they can and receives what they need.
The people who clean the hospital enable the doctor to preform their job, without them them the doctor will not be able to treat patients. So why is the doctors job more important when both jobs are essential to achieve the same goal?
I have a hard time thinking why we would need to incentivize being a doctor, most people who become doctors want to become doctors because it can be a very fulfilling job. There are problems with making education acceptable, but that's not really a problem for a socialist society.

I can think of situations where we would need to incentivize being a hospital janitor. I can think of lots of kids who grow up wanting to be doctors, not so many who want to become janitors. We can make being a janitor a more appealing job to a significant extent, make it safer and less dirty and so on, and perhaps to a degree we integrate it with being a doctor, so one deciding to become a doctor would also be a janitor. (This raises other challenges of training many more people to become doctors, because each one would do less "doctor" work, but this might be a cost worth bearing). Societies have lots of options, the point of socialism is to give us, as collective owners of the economy, the ability to choose between these options.