Help to argue against these points?

[safeduck]

Just wanted to ask some good points and arguments I can make when people bring these points up?

- "Without money as a motive, everyone would just freeload of the system and no one would have a motivation to get a good job!".

- "A doctor has a more responsible job than a garbage man. Why should he be paid the same wage?"

- "The rich have worked hard for their jobs... why should they not be rewarded?"

- "If communism was put in place of capitalism, life would be boring."

any help? thanks :)

[TheCuriousJournalist]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html

Enjoy.

[Broletariat]

- "Without money as a motive, everyone would just freeload of the system and no one would have a motivation to get a good job!".

Here I love quoting Kropotkin



The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages. A question which would require profound study. But whereas in exact sciences men give their opinion on subjects infinitely less important and less complicated after serious research, after carefully collecting and analyzing facts, on this question they will pronounce judgment without appeal, resting satisfied with any one particular event, such as, for example, the want of success of a communist association in America. They act like the barrister, who does not see in the council for the opposite side a representative of a cause, or an opinion contrary to his own, but a simple adversary in an oratorical debate; and if he be lucky enough to find a repartee, does not otherwise care to justify his cause. Therefore the study of this essential basis of all Political Economy, the study of the most favourable conditions for giving society the greatest amount of useful products with the least waste of human energy, does not advance. They limit themselves to repeating commonplace assertions, or else they pretend ignorance of our assertions.



What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. They begin to perceive that in production a certain collective element is introduced which has been too much neglected up till now, and which might be more important than personal gain. The inferior quality of wage-work, the terrible waste of human energy in modern agricultural and industrial labour, the ever growing quantity of pleasure-seekers, who to-day load their burden on others' shoulders, the absence of a certain animation in production that is becoming more and more apparent; all this begins to preoccupy the economists of the "classical" school. Some of them ask themselves if they have not got on the wrong track: if the imaginary evil being, that was supposed to be tempted exclusively by a bait of lucre or wages, really exists. This heresy penetrates even into universities; it is found in books of orthodox economy.



This does not hinder a great many Socialist reformers to remain partisans of individual remuneration, and defending the old citadel of wagedom, notwithstanding that it is being delivered over stone by stone to the assailants by its former defenders.



They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.



But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.



Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.



For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.



As to the form of possession of the instruments of labour, they only mention it indirectly in their demonstration, as a guarantee to the cultivator that he shall not be robbed of the profits of his yield nor of his improvements. Besides, in support of their thesis in favour of private property against all other forms of possession, should not the economists demonstrate that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich harvests as when the possession is private? But it is not so; in fact, the contrary has been observed.



Take for example a commune in the canton of Vaud, in the winter time, when all the men of the village go to fell wood in the forest, which belongs to them all. It is precisely during these festivals of toil that the greatest ardour for work and the most considerable display of human energy are apparent. No salaried labour, no effort of a private owner can bear comparison with it.



Or let us take a Russian village, when all its inhabitants mow a field belonging to the commune, or farmed by it. There you will see what man can produce when he works in common for communal production. Comrades vie with one another in cutting the widest swath; women bestir themselves in their wake so as not to be distanced by the mowers. It is a festival of labour, in which a hundred people do work in a few hours that would not have been finished in a few days had they worked separately. What a sad contrast compared to the work of the isolated owner!



In fact, we might quote scores of examples among the pioneers of America, in Swiss, German, Russian, and in certain French villages; or the work done in Russia by gangs (artels) of masons, carpenters, boatmen, fishermen, etc., who undertake a task and divide the produce or the remuneration among themselves, without it passing through the intermediary of middlemen. We could also mention the great communal hunts of nomadic tribes, and an infinite number of successful collective enterprises. And in every case we could show the unquestionable superiority of communal work compared to that of the wage-earner or the isolated private owner.



- "A doctor has a more responsible job than a garbage man. Why should he be paid the same wage?"

Communists hold to the abolition of Value relationships, there are no "wages" under Communism.


- "The rich have worked hard for their jobs... why should they not be rewarded?"

Not really an argument tbqh, don't bring moralism into politics.


- "If communism was put in place of capitalism, life would be boring."

any help? thanks :)

Yes, because slaving away at a 9-5 job (if you're lucky) only to come home drained and exhausted is the most exhilarating experience ever,

[Adorno4498]

1. Without money, we'd lack commodity fetishism and thus a reason to expand ceaselessly.
2. Have you ever noticed that in the 19th century, health improved, as well as the sewage and garbage systems being established? Do you think this was the doctors? No, it was the fact that people stopped living in their shit. ;)
3. Ever heard of something called "inheritance"? Even if that profit is self made, who do you think produces the commodities. The business man? :laugh:
4. Okay. Huge wealth gap, exploitation of the third world and apathy, and the cheif concern is man's boredom. :thumbup:

[Rooster]

Just wanted to ask some good points and arguments I can make when people bring these points up?

- "Without money as a motive, everyone would just freeload of the system and no one would have a motivation to get a good job!".

There's a video on youtube that I can't post right now (I'm using my wife's computer which is in Italian), but it's an RSA video on, I think, "What motivates us"


- "A doctor has a more responsible job than a garbage man. Why should he be paid the same wage?"

Communists are against wages.


- "The rich have worked hard for their jobs... why should they not be rewarded?"

You get people working until they die, doing very difficult jobs which are usually manual labour. I think rich people don't ever work that hard. Secondly, you can look at the children of rich people, the royal family, etc. I'm sure no one can argue that the queen works hard.


- "If communism was put in place of capitalism, life would be boring."

Fuck, man. I'm bored to shit working shitty jobs with no fucking pay. I would love to be able to just lie back and live off the work of others so that I could jet around the world or sit back on a yacht with a nice glass of wine in some hot place, or lounge around in my mansion in my under pants. But the fact of the matter is, I barely make ends meet despite the fact that I create the value of keeping me alive within the first hour or so. The rest of my day I'm just creating surplus value for my boss.

[socialistjustin]

As far as the rich working hard to get where they are, show that person some social mobility charts. People rarely go from rags to riches and usually move a quintile or even up to the lowest portion of the next quintile.