Entrepreneurs under socialism.

[eric922]

I have a question. How will entrepreneurs be rewarded under socialism. I don't mean the vast majority of people who call themselves entrepreneurs by selling cheap pizza or anything like that. I mean real entrepreneurs which are a small tiny minority of the people who claim that title.

I guess an exampe would be Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto who created the Mario and Zelda franchise and had a huge impact on the video game industry. Of course, he didn't do it on his own, he had programmers under him and workers made the actual physical games, but he did come up with the idea and he should be rewared, but how should that be done?

To be clear I'm not saying socialism would kill creativity, in fact I think it would make more people creative since they have time, I guess I'm just curious if they should be compensated any extra for that. Though, to be fair from what I've heard of him he doesn't make a lot of money, so he clearly isn't in his job for money, but he still makes a lot more than the workers assembling his games and the systems they are played on.

[Reznov]

I have a question. How will entrepreneurs be rewarded under socialism. I don't mean the vast majority of people who call themselves entrepreneurs by selling cheap pizza or anything like that. I mean real entrepreneurs which are a small tiny minority of the people who claim that title.

I guess an exampe would be Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto who created the Mario and Zelda franchise and had a huge impact on the video game industry. Of course, he didn't do it on his own, he had programmers under him and workers made the actual physical games, but he did come up with the idea and he should be rewared, but how should that be done?

To be clear I'm not saying socialism would kill creativity, in fact I think it would make more people creative since they have time, I guess I'm just curious if they should be compensated any extra for that. Though, to be fair from what I've heard of him he doesn't make a lot of money, so he clearly isn't in his job for money, but he still makes a lot more than the workers assembling his games and the systems they are played on.

You answered it about as best any Socialist could in your last paragraph.
It's impossible to take into account every little incident and action, but your sounds pretty close in theory to the ideal.

[Nox]

What about the thousands of scientists/archaeologists who have made many ground breaking discoveries out of their own pocket?

Money is only a motivation in a Capitalist system. In a Communist/Socialist system it means nothing.

[piet11111]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jonas_Salk


His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

This should be more then sufficient to answer your question on what motivates an entrepreneur under a socialist society.
Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine.

[La Peur Rouge]

I think it's great to give someone recognition for coming up with a good idea, but I don't agree that they deserve something more than anyone else other than credit for their creativity. After all what could you possibly reward someone with in a society where everyone has access to the things they need and want?

[Red Rabbit]

Basically, if Shiggy had created Mario and Zelda under Socialism, he would receive the respect and recognition for it. He wouldn't receive anything more for his creations as he (And everyone else) would already have access to everything they could want or need.

In Socialism, you create things for the fun, because you want to, or for the betterment of mankind. Not for money and not to receive more objects of desire.

[RED DAVE]

I think that Comrades should be a little less austere in discussing "rewards" under socialism. One of the rewards will be greater access to resources for further creativity. Not everyone is going to get equal access to, say, a particle accelerator. However, since creativity is and will be one of the wellsprings of socialism, we will all be on the lookout for the new, the wonderful, the liberating.

RED DAVE

[tir1944]

7 days on the Black Sea + extra portions of dry sausages or even bananas for exceptional feats...:laugh:
For real,scientists have always held a high position in the Soviet Land.
They got higher wages+bonuses etc,nice apartments...

[La Peur Rouge]

7 days on the Black Sea + extra portions of dry sausages or even bananas for exceptional feats...:laugh:
For real,scientists have always held a high position in the Soviet Land.
They got higher wages+bonuses etc,nice apartments...

Yes, but here we're talking about socialism, not the USSR.

[tir1944]

Yes, but here we're talking about socialism, not the USSR.
Speak out please,if the USSR were really socialist (assuming that it was not),how would have scientists been treated/rewarded then?

[thefinalmarch]

Speak out please,if the USSR were really socialist (assuming that it was not),how would have scientists been treated/rewarded then?
We don't know because we are not and should not be architects for a new society. In our capacity as revolutionaries, all we can do is theorise and "educate, agitate, organise". We are not here to draw up blueprints. We can speculate, but ultimately it will be the workers for themselves who decide the fate of society.

[tir1944]

We don't know because we are not and should not be architects for a new society.
What's the point of this thread then?
Also why shouldn't we be?

[Veovis]

Speak out please,if the USSR were really socialist (assuming that it was not),how would have scientists been treated/rewarded then?

Well, they wouldn't be getting wages or bonuses at all, and everyone would have a nice apartment.

[tir1944]

Well, they wouldn't be getting wages or bonuses at all, and everyone would have a nice apartment.
So "real socialism" is no wages and no bonuses?
Sounds fucked up.
Isn't the motto of socialism "...to each according to his DEED"?

[La Peur Rouge]

Speak out please,if the USSR were really socialist (assuming that it was not),how would have scientists been treated/rewarded then?

Man, you MLs are no fun.

I already voiced my opinion.


So "real socialism" is no wages and no bonuses?
Sounds fucked up.
Isn't the motto of socialism "...to each according to his DEED"?

No of course there would not be wages. Wage-labor is something that needs to end.

[thefinalmarch]

What's the point of this thread then?
To answer an individual's question.


Also why shouldn't we be?
Because the fate of our political project and indeed that of the world does not depend on the actions of leftist militants today. Only the material circumstances in a future society will determine whether or not certain proposals we make today ever materialise. Even then, many of our proposals today will, in the future, be made independently of us.

[thefinalmarch]

So "real socialism" is no wages and no bonuses?
Sounds fucked up.
Communists have always called for the abolition of the wages system, as well as the abolition of money.

[tir1944]

I think it's great to give someone recognition for coming up with a good idea, but I don't agree that they deserve something more than anyone else other than credit for their creativity. After all what could you possibly reward someone with in a society where everyone has access to the things they need and want? So,they get a proverbial tap on the back?


Wage-labor is something that needs to end. Why?



To answer an individual's question.Which is exactly what you didn't do.



Only the material circumstances in a future society will determine whether or not certain proposals we make today ever materialise.For start, these "mat. circ. of the future" don't depend on what we do now?



Communists have always called for the abolition of the wages system, as well as the abolition of money.
Yes and we have called for the abolition of the state,but firstly we actually strenghtened the state...
Anyway,give you give me some qotes or somethign on why shoul WL be abolished in socialism?

[La Peur Rouge]

So,they get a proverbial tap on the back?

If that's what you want to call it.

What more do I deserve than recognition if I do something like find a cure for a disease? What could I ask for that I couldn't just go get myself in a socialist society? Recognition for doing a great thing fulfills something that material things can't. And I think this also fits in with RED DAVE's idea about society rewarding people who excel at something access to even better tools (that possibly can't be created in huge quantities) like a particle accelerator. I just didn't see it as a "reward" really.



Why?


Have you never read Marx?

[thefinalmarch]

Which is exactly what you didn't do.
I never claimed to do so. I was addressing your post.


For start, these "mat. circ. of the future" don't depend on what we do now?
When I say "we", I don't mean the working class. I am referring to Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Left Communists, Luxemburgists, Anarchists, etc. who are presently disconnected from the wider working class.


Yes and we have called for the abolition of the state,but firstly we actually strenghtened the state...
What are you referring to here?


Anyway,give you give me some qotes or somethign on why shoul WL be abolished in socialism?
WL = wage labour?
Wage labour just simply can't exist. Besides, wages are necessarily just as much money as the worker needs to sustain his or her self and continue working for their boss.


The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour.


[...]there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.


The pre-condition for wage labour is a class of people who have no other way of living (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat), and a class of people who own the means of production (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production) as their Private Property (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#private-property).

[Ocean Seal]

Socialism allows everyone to be creative, and with production in excess we will have many more opportunities for people to become inventors, scientists, artists, and so on. If you don't want to create, then there will definitely be someone who will step up to the plate. I want to be a researcher, not because I think that I'll discover something really great and get millions from a corporation, but because I want to. Under capitalism it is less likely that I would have the opportunity to do research because of the profit motive, and because the whole country cheers when they cut "useless" science programs. Under socialism, the creative jobs should flourish as more and more openings are made.

[eric922]

Don't get me started on cutting sciences while funding more wars. It pisses me off so much, I hate how terrible our education system is in this country. Of course, I think it is intentional. A less educated population is easier to control with propaganda.

[EvilRedGuy]

Fuck Shigeru Miyamoto. Assuming hes like Valve software where they hire others to create their ideas for them, even from the start before they became mainstream. Hes workers created "his" ideas, not himself therefore it isn't his ideas. If you are creative go create the games by your own blood and sweat, we don't reward lazy CEO pigs.

Ohh and tir-whatever isn't a socialist so ignore that turd. lol.

[piet11111]

One of the rewards will be greater access to resources for further creativity. Not everyone is going to get equal access to, say, a particle accelerator.
RED DAVE

I hadn't even thought of that since i consider that a given.

Leading scientists would indeed get far more resources for their work based on scientific merit of their current and past research.

But it should still be brought up to some sort of commission to prevent favoritism.
Stephen Hawking would obviously be more likely to come up with a nice experiment for the LHC but that does not mean that we would have to give him unlimited access if he cant build a convincing case for it.

But you made a very good point dave.

[EvilRedGuy]

People wouldn't be rewarded anything more except for their trust and merit.

If someone needs specific resources to use they will simply get them though.

[robbo203]

I have a question. How will entrepreneurs be rewarded under socialism. I don't mean the vast majority of people who call themselves entrepreneurs by selling cheap pizza or anything like that. I mean real entrepreneurs which are a small tiny minority of the people who claim that title.

I guess an exampe would be Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto who created the Mario and Zelda franchise and had a huge impact on the video game industry. Of course, he didn't do it on his own, he had programmers under him and workers made the actual physical games, but he did come up with the idea and he should be rewared, but how should that be done?

To be clear I'm not saying socialism would kill creativity, in fact I think it would make more people creative since they have time, I guess I'm just curious if they should be compensated any extra for that. Though, to be fair from what I've heard of him he doesn't make a lot of money, so he clearly isn't in his job for money, but he still makes a lot more than the workers assembling his games and the systems they are played on.


The concept of "reward" under socialism really does not make an awful lot of sense unless we are talking metaphorically . Point is that in socialism economic exchange relations would simply cease to exist with common ownership of the means of living.

Socialism would be a classless society meaning you would no longer be selling your labour power to an employer for a wage. Work on any kind of quid pro quo basis would come to an an end and, with it, the idea of "rewarding" labour. You would offer your labour freely and voluntarily and you would take from the stores what you needed without payment of any kind. Work would be its own reward and in fact even under capitalism there is substantial evidence to show that so called material incentives actually undermine what is called "intrinsic motivation". That is to say nothing of the fact that they are invariably socially divisive and serve to sap morale.

With free access to goods and services under socialism the only way you can acquire the esteem and respect of your fellows is through your contribution to society. If you want to talk about "reward" in a socialist society then this would be it....

[eric922]

Fuck Shigeru Miyamoto. Assuming hes like Valve software where they hire others to create their ideas for them, even from the start before they became mainstream. Hes workers created "his" ideas, not himself therefore it isn't his ideas. If you are creative go create the games by your own blood and sweat, we don't reward lazy CEO pigs.

Ohh and tir-whatever isn't a socialist so ignore that turd. lol.
I agree fully about CEOs, but Miyamoto isn't a CEO, I don't even think he is on the board. He is a lead programmer. As I said in my OP he doesn't have a right to exploit his workers, but to call him a lazy CEO is simply untrue since he isn't even on the board of directors.

[Red Rabbit]

Fuck Shigeru Miyamoto. Assuming hes like Valve software where they hire others to create their ideas for them, even from the start before they became mainstream. Hes workers created "his" ideas, not himself therefore it isn't his ideas. If you are creative go create the games by your own blood and sweat, we don't reward lazy CEO pigs.

Ohh and tir-whatever isn't a socialist so ignore that turd. lol.

Except Shiggy DOES work hard on his games. I don't believe he's a CEO, but there are CEOs and owners of other gaming companies that do work hard on their games along with their employees as well.


Markus "Notch" Persson is an example, he owns Mojang but he also works hard on his games. Mike Morhaime from Blizzard is another example of a CEO that works hard with his employees. I guess in Marxist terms they could be considered petite-bourgoise?

In any case, there are CEOs of game companies that are bourgeois assholes, like Bobby Kotick from Activision or like you said, Gabe Newell from Valve.

[EvilRedGuy]

I agree fully about CEOs, but Miyamoto isn't a CEO, I don't even think he is on the board. He is a lead programmer. As I said in my OP he doesn't have a right to exploit his workers, but to call him a lazy CEO is simply untrue since he isn't even on the board of directors.

As i said, assuming he was like Gabe Newell of Valve software, but if hes a lead programmer that changes it completely. Changing his class to petty-bourgeois would be more correct then considering there are lead-developer hierarchies in all directions, this would obviously be changed to a collective decision-making of creation and all working on the specific games would collectively give ideas(as well as cooperating with the gaming community), lead-developers would cease to exist entirely and programmers and other artists will start their own projects working on whatever they want with (there is no copyrights and ownership rights) collectively on every corner, respectively. Those who have a idea will share it, but everyone would be able to create that idea themself. People would also get free education in game creation, with every gaming tools (modeling, texturing, sound engineer, mapping tools) and game techniques would be shared so everyone would know what things that can be done to make gaming better.

The rise of the 90's gaming were modding communities ruled the land of gaming would come and expand like never seen before, all games would be created by regular modders who will either start something from scratch or build upon something, all games will be freeware as will all software.

All Software is post-scarcity. It has no limits, it can always be duplicated.

[ckaihatsu]

Isn't the motto of socialism "...to each according to his DEED"?





I think that Comrades should be a little less austere in discussing "rewards" under socialism. One of the rewards will be greater access to resources for further creativity. Not everyone is going to get equal access to, say, a particle accelerator. However, since creativity is and will be one of the wellsprings of socialism, we will all be on the lookout for the new, the wonderful, the liberating.


I never thought I'd have more of a hard-line than Red Dave, but, going by this position, I do....

What tir1944 and Red Dave are describing would actually be the empirical *effects* of a post-class societal political material system, and not its foundational political *principles*.





I guess an exampe would be Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto who created the Mario and Zelda franchise and had a huge impact on the video game industry. Of course, he didn't do it on his own, he had programmers under him and workers made the actual physical games, but he did come up with the idea and he should be rewared, but how should that be done?


The "hard line" of Marxism posits that *all* creativity / "intellectual property" / organization is an inherent quality and dynamic of the human condition, and so deserves no formal societal recognition or reward, especially as above any other activity that could be considered as 'labor'.





Socialism allows everyone to be creative, and with production in excess we will have many more opportunities for people to become inventors, scientists, artists, and so on. If you don't want to create, then there will definitely be someone who will step up to the plate. I want to be a researcher, not because I think that I'll discover something really great and get millions from a corporation, but because I want to. Under capitalism it is less likely that I would have the opportunity to do research because of the profit motive, and because the whole country cheers when they cut "useless" science programs. Under socialism, the creative jobs should flourish as more and more openings are made.


This is a good summation of the 'hard line' -- that, once the commodification of labor has been transcended, basic human needs will be fully satisfied for all, rendering all resulting human activity as 'artistic' -- much moreso than 'scientific' -- since it would then be increasingly difficult to reach a widespread common agreement as to what is objectively progressive in a material-humanistic sense. Given ready access to the world's civilizations' resources, who would be seen as having a 'more-humane' or 'more-progressive' direction for investigation and development if no one else was under the least duress to give a shit?





Leading scientists would indeed get far more resources for their work based on scientific merit of their current and past research.


I'll agree, again, that this would probably be the *result* of a post-class society, but the inescapable 'artistic' (subjective) aspect remains about what scientific / artistic directions would be seen as having 'merit' to be realized and fulfilled on a mass scale.





But it should still be brought up to some sort of commission to prevent favoritism.


This statement presupposes that favoritism would even be possible in a sufficiently post-scarcity material environment. (Politics exists only where a social process of some sort is objectively needed to match up concentrated resources to those desiring to use them.)





People wouldn't be rewarded anything more except for their trust and merit.

If someone needs specific resources to use they will simply get them though.


I think this is more in line with a Marxist 'hard line'.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

So "real socialism" is no wages and no bonuses?
Sounds fucked up.
Isn't the motto of socialism "...to each according to his DEED"?
Why are you on RevLeft if you aren't a socialist?

You trollin'?

[tir1944]

Why are you on RevLeft if you aren't a socialist?
I am,although i (and some other people) have a different view of what socialism is.:cool:
Soviet people didn't usually get wages during War Communism,but food coupons and the like.Though it's clear what they preffered,what anyone would prefer actually:real wages.


You trollin'?
Nope.

[Whatabouttehmenz?]

Under communism in which everyone's needs are covered, no reward would be needed exept for recognition.

But since you are saying socialism, i think your talking about the stage between capitalism and socialism. In that case they would propably be rewarded with a higher wage or a certain percentage of the money earned from the product he/she has made.

[Rooster]

So "real socialism" is no wages and no bonuses?
Sounds fucked up.

Why does it sound fucked up? Have you read any of Marx's economic works? Shit, have you even read the communist manifesto? Just a cursory glance reveals things like this:


Originally posted by Marx

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital


Isn't the motto of socialism "...to each according to his DEED"?

No, it's according to their need.

[Honggweilo]

let me just say this

an artist creates an idea, the "entrepeneur" exploits it.

[tir1944]

Why does it sound fucked up?
Because it'd suck to work for no wages?


Have you read any of Marx's economic works?
Yes,i've heard of him.


Shit, have you even read the communist manifesto?
Yes but i don't see how a 19th century pamphlet should be the ultimate argument from authority.



But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital
Is there capital in Socialism?


No, it's according to their need.
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

[Rooster]

Because it'd suck to work for no wages?


Yes,i've heard of him.

Man. Go read this and come back to us:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm


Yes but i don't see how a 19th century pamphlet should be the ultimate argument from authority.So says the marxist-leninist


Is there capital in Socialism? Do you read what you're writing?


Originally posted by Marx

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital Is there wages in socialism? No, because it creates capital. So what ever you're thinking is just some form of capitalism.


No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contributionYou're just referencing the first part here when before you referenced the second part. This is where the quote comes from:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm


Originally posted by Marx

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! It's about a third down the page. If you change the word "need" to "deed" then that radically changes the meaning of the phrase.

[tir1944]

Man. Go read this and come back to us.
And how about you make a real point/argument?


So says the marxist-leninist
What?


Do you read what you're writing?
Yes.How about an answer?



It's about a third down the page. If you change the word "need" to "deed" then that radically changes the meaning of the phrase.
That's for Communism.In Socialism,as i've said,it's "deed".

[tir1944]

Excuse me,i don't want to come of as arrogant,i'm just a Marxist noob,i'd really like you to explain to me how and why should wage labor be abolished in socialism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Alexey Pajitnov didn't really get that much money or recognition for tetris under the Soviets.

inb4 Ayn Rand turns up

[La Peur Rouge]

Excuse me,i don't want to come of as arrogant,i'm just a Marxist noob,i'd really like you to explain to me how and why should wage labor be abolished in socialism.



"When wage-labor produces the alien wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it, capital, there flow back to it its means of employment -- i.e., its means of subsistence, under the condition that it again become a part of capital, that is become again the lever whereby capital is to be forced into an accelerated expansive movement."
"Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wages for a fair day's work!', they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system!'"

.....Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labor-power..... Now, the same general laws which regulate the price of commodities in general, naturally regulate wages , or the price of labor-power. Wages will now rise, now fall, according to the relation of supply and demand, according as competition shapes itself between the buyers of labor-power, the capitalists, and the sellers of labor-power, the workers.

Or as Fred Engels put it: "In what way do proletarians differ from slaves? The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. (see: wage)
The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole."

Wages create inequality, they're only necessary if someone at the top is stealing the product of your labor to accumulate wealth. You don't need wages when you can just go get the things you need.

[tir1944]

Thanks for the info.
I'm already familiar with some of those quotes.
But i'd like to see the alternative for wage-labor in socialism.
What could have the USSR done to abolish it,and with what could WL have been replaced?

[La Peur Rouge]

Well, there are different opinions on what should replace wage-labor. Some will advocate labor vouchers, free access, etc. Personally I believe that wage-labor should be replaced by a system of free access as soon as humanly possible.

Edit: As far as your question about the USSR goes I'm sorry I can't really help you with that one, my knowledge of the USSR is pretty limited and I don't want to give you bad information. There seems to be some comrades around that are pretty knowledgeable about the history of the Soviet Union though, so hopefully someone can jump in and answer your question.

[tir1944]

Ok,but was the USSR really capable of replacing the WL "system" with something else in,let's say 1929 or 1936?
Was this even plausible?

[Rooster]

And how about you make a real point/argument?

If you want to be less of a marxist noob then you can at least read some of Marx's easier texts.


Yes.How about an answer?

I gave you an answer. If you want to learn more, go read that thing I posted. It's not very long. Do you want someone to hold your hand through all of this?


That's for Communism.In Socialism,as i've said,it's "deed".

Says who? Why is it deed? In what way is communism different from socialism?

[tir1944]

Thank you dear sir for this much useful information,however i have explicitely expressed my interest in hearing opinions about the possibilities for the abolishment of WL in a very specific historical context:that of the USSR.


Says who? Why is it deed?
Lenin,Stalin,Trotsky even...



In what way is communism different from socialism?
It is a specific transitional period "between" CAP and COM.
It also inherits the "birthmarks" of CAP,there's still the State etc,etc...

[Rooster]

Thank you dear sir for this much useful information,however i have explicitely expressed my interest in hearing opinions about the possibilities for the abolishment of WL in a very specific historical context:that of the USSR.

The USSR is a dead horse. You can go back to Marx and that pamphlet that I posted and have a good read. Stop being so lazy.



Lenin,Stalin,Trotsky even...And that makes them right because?


It is a specific transitional period "between" CAP and COM.
It also inherits the "birthmarks" of CAP,there's still the State etc,etc...

Specific in what way? Explain how the mode of production differs between socialism and communism and explain to me how you can transfer from socialism to communism.

[tir1944]

The USSR is a dead horse.
But i'm interested in that horse.
I'm familiar with the Com.Man.,thank you,however i asked for explanations about something else,namely what exactly could have been the real,historical alternative for the USSR in regards to the abolishment of WL.


And that makes them right because?
Because it makes sense? I dunno...
You tell me why is their line wrong?


Specific in what way?
Well,in a way that it ain't capitalism or communism,obviously.


Explain how the mode of production differs between socialism and communism
I'm not sure,but in communism,i think, there's no state and things "roll" by the "...to each according to his need..." motto.


and explain to me how you can transfer from socialism to communism.
If i knew that i'd be a millionaire.:D

[tanklv]

I look at it this way:

Right now I'm "unemployed" - but I spend most of my time helping out my friends doing what I enjoy coupled with my knowledge to improve their lives/living condition. Not all the time, mind you, but for extended/long bursts of concentrated time.

I fix their plumbing. I paint their kitchen. I replace their roof with the help of others. I watch their children when they must work or be away from home. Whatever the occasion demands/needs arise.

I enjoy that. It occupys my time. I'd love to do that all day if my healthcare, shelter, food would be taken care of or provided for - all without any "wages". I like it better than when I was "working" at my profession.

Right now I feel underutilized and lilke garbage since officially, I'm no longer "needed" or "desired". I need "money" to pay for all that stuff. I used to enjoy my work most of the time - and got paid quite well for that. Now, due to circumstances, I see life entirely differently - and remember how I felt and dreamed as a child before I was taught I had to "work for a living".

That might help explain what life - and any "rewards" - would be under socialism/communism.

Or am I off base here?

[Revolution starts with U]

Idk if this has been brought up but...

Behavioral scientists are nearly unanimous in saying that explicit material reward actually stifles creativity. Reward effort, not success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded

[ckaihatsu]

I look at it this way:

Right now I'm "unemployed" - but I spend most of my time helping out my friends doing what I enjoy coupled with my knowledge to improve their lives/living condition. Not all the time, mind you, but for extended/long bursts of concentrated time.

I fix their plumbing. I paint their kitchen. I replace their roof with the help of others. I watch their children when they must work or be away from home. Whatever the occasion demands/needs arise.

I enjoy that. It occupys my time. I'd love to do that all day if my healthcare, shelter, food would be taken care of or provided for - all without any "wages". I like it better than when I was "working" at my profession.

Right now I feel underutilized and lilke garbage since officially, I'm no longer "needed" or "desired". I need "money" to pay for all that stuff. I used to enjoy my work most of the time - and got paid quite well for that. Now, due to circumstances, I see life entirely differently - and remember how I felt and dreamed as a child before I was taught I had to "work for a living".

That might help explain what life - and any "rewards" - would be under socialism/communism.

Or am I off base here?


This is a telling narrative and one that most people can relate to, I think.

The money economy (capitalism) is good for enabling consumers, but most of us have to first commodify ourselves in those markets to consumers before we can become consumers ourselves. As commodities laborers are standardized, scrutinized, measured, graded, labeled, etc., like any other parcel of goods.

It's no wonder that many would find their innate creativity stifled in this process, and would want to develop themselves fully at their own volition, *outside* of the commodification process altogether.

And even those who want to participate in economic activity may find that they can't quite do so as they'd like, in creative, constructive, and self-directed ways -- the quintessential entrepreneur -- because of the mass commodification of economic activity, homogenizing markets on blanket-like monopolizing scales.

Since the basic needs of life and livelihood are handled through these commodity markets, people find that they *must* fit into the wage labor system if they are to have any chance of living decently, at their own chosen direction in life.

A worldwide workers revolution would relieve *everyone* of this necessity of commodifying themselves since workers could *collectively* run society's implements for the mass public good, transcending all requirement for and dependence on the market mechanism. All current economic activity could then be organically *political* instead -- meaning that people would freely decide *how* to contribute their labor to others, and even do so collectively, at mass scales, for mass production to the masses.

Entrepreneurship itself would be fully *liberated* since there would be no monopoly-type impediments to a full creativity and implementation oriented to people's specialized needs and requirements. Such initiatives would be unfettered, with equitable access to society's implements, on par with any other desires for the same kind of access. Entrepreneurial motivations would also benefit from full interaction -- and even co-participation -- with end users who would be the intended recipients of such initiatives.

Freed from having to deal with the inanimate middleman market mechanism, creativity of production could finally reach out directly to the consumer in large-scale ways that are only seen today at the *smallest* of scales, where costs are low enough to allow a limited working *outside* of the market system.

[Honggweilo]

Alexey Pajitnov didn't really get that much money or recognition for tetris under the Soviets.

inb4 Ayn Rand turns up


I am an architect! sweat of my own brow! killing atlas! paracites, paracites!

[Honggweilo]

besides the whole discussion, let me get back on Miyamoto

how can anybody claim that the guy who hasnt produced anything creative or new since fucking pikmin is a creative genuis? he has just been milking old titles dry since the gamecube, and very badly might i add. Now he just wants to focus exploiting housewives, fat kids and rabid fanboys in buying useless overpriced add-ons for their crappy console every week, but still the nintendo fanboy's take his crap fed with a golden spoon. And dont even get my started about their new console... which he publically appoligized for...

the only guilty pleasure from nintendo i get is pokemon, which is a horribly exploitive franchise, but atleast they try to be a bit innovative there.

[eric922]

besides the whole discussion, let me get back on Miyamoto

how can anybody claim that the guy who hasnt produced anything creative or new since fucking pikmin is a creative genuis? he has just been milking old titles dry since the gamecube, and very badly might i add. Now he just wants to focus exploiting housewives, fat kids and rabid fanboys in buying useless overpriced add-ons for their crappy console every week, but still the nintendo fanboy's take his crap fed with a golden spoon. And dont even get my started about their new console... which he publically appoligized for...

the only guilty pleasure from nintendo i get is pokemon, which is a horribly exploitive franchise, but atleast they try to be a bit innovative there.
I think the reason Miyamoto hasn't done as much in recent years. However, he did create two entire genres. The platformer with Mario and action-adventure with Zelda. And for what little it's worth, he did come up with Nintendogs, but that isn't very original. As to his recent lapse, I've heard he is working on a new I.P.