A Lot of Questions!

[Lolumad273]

I didn't want to post a bunch of different threads, because I figured I'd just get really annoying. So I'm going to list a couple of questions, and hopefully someone will be able to help me out a bit! Thanks for taking some time to help me straighten out my thoughts!

1. I understand that Unions are the greatest way for the working class to gain strength right now, but I hear a lot about Teacher's unions being counter productive. People say paying them based on performance would be better. Are teachers unions bad, and would paying based on performance be better?

2. I'm not sure if communism is conducive to a global economy. For example, why would anyone want to be a delivery man, moving goods across the country, when he could pursue anything he wanted? This question also applies to most jobs. If I could pursue anything I wanted, I wouldn't want to work in a factory, or as a cashier at a store. How would these positions be filled? Which brings me to question 3.

3. Would the current standard of living be able to continue through Communism? I believe it would, because workers wouldn't produce any less wealth, it would just stay in their hands, so wouldn't the wealth just be better distributed, and overall standard of living go up?

Thanks a lot for entertaining this!

[Prinskaj]

I didn't want to post a bunch of different threads, because I figured I'd just get really annoying. So I'm going to list a couple of questions, and hopefully someone will be able to help me out a bit! Thanks for taking some time to help me straighten out my thoughts!
It's only great that you want to learn, and there is plenty of people on this forum that would be happy to answer any questions that you have.


1. I understand that Unions are the greatest way for the working class to gain strength right now, but I hear a lot about Teacher's unions being counter productive. People say paying them based on performance would be better. Are teachers unions bad, and would paying based on performance be better?
This idea that unions are the root of the problem is blatantly wrong. Other countries with much better school results have way stronger unions then any that exist in the United States. And how would you go about judging performance? By grades? Then what would stop the teachers from cheating, by handing out the results to a test?


2. I'm not sure if communism is conducive to a global economy. For example, why would anyone want to be a delivery man, moving goods across the country, when he could pursue anything he wanted? This question also applies to most jobs. If I could pursue anything I wanted, I wouldn't want to work in a factory, or as a cashier at a store. How would these positions be filled? Which brings me to question 3.
This is a very common argument, but you need to go a bit deeper into the question then that. Why do you not want to work in a factory or as a cashier? My answer to that question would be, that I have no control over anything I do, and that the job is to static. This would change, workers self-management would allow for you to decide most things yourself, and the repetitive stuff would, most likely, be equally distributed, so that the individual workers wouldn't be overworked. And in a communist society work is gradually automated to slowly bring an end to boring and static work.


3. Would the current standard of living be able to continue through Communism? I believe it would, because workers wouldn't produce any less wealth, it would just stay in their hands, so wouldn't the wealth just be better distributed, and overall standard of living go up?
Your question is to ambiguous.. What part of the world are you referring to, which class?

[Hiero]

1. I understand that Unions are the greatest way for the working class to gain strength right now, but I hear a lot about Teacher's unions being counter productive. People say paying them based on performance would be better. Are teachers unions bad, and would paying based on performance be better?


Paying teachers based on performance would simple strengthen the conditions that produce poverty and the underclass, or least reify them. Children from stable working class, middle classes and upper classes are better geared towards doing well at school (each class respectively does better then the next). Teachers can not undo social stratification, they can not out perform poverty. Children from unstable working families and form poverty stricken families are less likely to perform well at school. This is a social issue, not a under performance of teachers.

Thoose who propose such a backward system miss understand or simply ignore social causes for bad schooling performances and want to rederict a social problem onto individual teachers. It seeks to moralise the problem by punishing teachers through wage reduction. It is another way of natuarilising the class system, that thoose middle class students who go on to college did so because of better teaching.To misrecognise the whole class system for a system for a merit based system. When infact there is a whole hidden structure that reproduced the middle class through inequal access to education and being provided with the cultural and economic means to better accumulate education (certificates, training, diplomas etc).

It is not even a fundementall Marxist analysis to see through the holtes of the pay for performance scheme.

[Red Noob]

3. Would the current standard of living be able to continue through Communism? I believe it would, because workers wouldn't produce any less wealth, it would just stay in their hands, so wouldn't the wealth just be better distributed, and overall standard of living go up?


Well it depends, really. Places like in the US, most wealth is derived from foreign markets and underpaid wage slaves. Much of our wealth is the result of globalization. Under communism, this exploitation wouldn't exist.


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxp6bd9syN1qfu6vwo1_500.jpg
pic semi-related

[ArrowLance]

Well it depends, really. Places like in the US, most wealth is derived from foreign markets and underpaid wage slaves. Much of our wealth is the result of globalization. Under communism, this exploitation wouldn't exist.


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxp6bd9syN1qfu6vwo1_500.jpg
pic semi-related



Don't forget direct theft of labour such as the hiring and then subsequent deportation of US immigrants or otherwise not paying them or underpaying them with the threat of deportation or the forced labour in the Congo. These aren't even compensated for, the labour is just appropriated by the U.S.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the United States were to enter the brighter stages of the Revolution that U.S. living standards would decrease.

[daft punk]

I didn't want to post a bunch of different threads, because I figured I'd just get really annoying. So I'm going to list a couple of questions, and hopefully someone will be able to help me out a bit! Thanks for taking some time to help me straighten out my thoughts!

1. I understand that Unions are the greatest way for the working class to gain strength right now, but I hear a lot about Teacher's unions being counter productive. People say paying them based on performance would be better. Are teachers unions bad, and would paying based on performance be better?

No the unions are not bad, I suppose they vary form country to country. Paying teachers on performance is a really shit idea. Teachers should teach you how to learn, not how to be a parrot. And they should tach you some stuff about life as well. And what about teachers who work in deprived areas? Their kids are gonna be a lot harder to get through exams than kids in a nice middle class selective school.



2. I'm not sure if communism is conducive to a global economy. For example, why would anyone want to be a delivery man, moving goods across the country, when he could pursue anything he wanted? This question also applies to most jobs. If I could pursue anything I wanted, I wouldn't want to work in a factory, or as a cashier at a store. How would these positions be filled? Which brings me to question 3.

Jobs like that would be shared out, eliminated, done by robots or whatever. Maybe everyone could do a year after uni, or 2 weeks a year or whatever. maybe students could do them in their holidays.
The working week would be very short in socialism anyway. And maybe some people just like being delivery drivers. There would be no cashiers eventually because there would be no money.




3. Would the current standard of living be able to continue through Communism? I believe it would, because workers wouldn't produce any less wealth, it would just stay in their hands, so wouldn't the wealth just be better distributed, and overall standard of living go up?

Thanks a lot for entertaining this!

Living standards would go up and get more equitable. You cant expect people to want socialism if it isn't improving their lives.

Anyway, a democratically planned economy should easily out-perform capitalism and the economies of the so-called 'communist' states eg the USSR etc.

[Lolumad273]

Living standards would go up and get more equitable. You cant expect people to want socialism if it isn't improving their lives.

Anyway, a democratically planned economy should easily out-perform capitalism and the economies of the so-called 'communist' states eg the USSR etc.

That's exactly what I wanted to hear, hahaha. I obviously understand that the Capitalist class would lose their extravagant, stolen standard of living. But I'm glad the "Middle class", in the US would at the very least not see a decrease in standard of living.

It would also be great to do away with the slavery in other countries, at the hands of capitalism.

Thanks

[Catma]

The price that American or first world workers pay for goods made with cheap labor has several components.

The labor cost, probably the lowest component in most cases, would increase.

The costs of distributing and advertising and such would probably go down, since it wouldn't be cheaper to produce abroad in a country with slave wages. Advertising should be drastically lessened with the removal of the profit motive.

The portion of cost paid to the capitalists (for profit) would disappear completely.

The overall price of goods would change based on these (and other) factors. You'd have to look at each good individually and consider all the components that go into the price the worker pays - the low wages would increase, but that's only one component of a price. At the same time workers would have stable, living wages.

[Hiero]

That's exactly what I wanted to hear, hahaha. I obviously understand that the Capitalist class would lose their extravagant, stolen standard of living. But I'm glad the "Middle class", in the US would at the very least not see a decrease in standard of living. He actually didn't provide you with any evidence. A modern revolution would disrupt the common norms of society. Many middle class standards of living are based on debt, the socialist system would have to reduce that debt, they wouldn't allow national banks to just hand out loans above peoples means and secondly without imperialist expliotation banks could not back their loans anyway. A revolution anywhere in the world with enough force to disrupt the world market would mean a lowering of standard of living for US middle class.

Don't mistake socialism or communist for "welfare for all" type ideology. Most people on this website are not economist and even a socialist/Marxist inspired economist could garuntee that " democratically planned economy" could outperform capitalist and past socialist countries. Infact the past socialist countries notably USSR and China were obssessed with outperforming the capitalist bloc that they made many right wing and detrimental decisions. A new post-capitalist society should not worry about performance in a competitive sense but in a cooperative sense. That means reducing waste, using resources coorectly, allocating work based on desired output for reaching means etc.



The overall price of goods would change based on these (and other) factors. You'd have to look at each good individually and consider all the components that go into the price the worker pays - the low wages would increase, but that's only one component of a price. At the same time workers would have stable, living wages. It is a considerable task. A succesfull Socialist economy has to keep inflation low, wages steady and full employment. All while engaging in the world economy and dealing with internal and external enemy class forces. The chances of a socialist economy from fullfiling everyone's needs and maintaing happiness are always. So far socialist economies have only partially fullfiled people's expectations.

[MarxSchmarx]

2. I'm not sure if communism is conducive to a global economy. For example, why would anyone want to be a delivery man, moving goods across the country, when he could pursue anything he wanted? This question also applies to most jobs. If I could pursue anything I wanted, I wouldn't want to work in a factory, or as a cashier at a store. How would these positions be filled? Which brings me to question 3.
You've had some great responses to this question ranging from being made more desirable/controllable, shared, to being based on automation.

At the heart of it is to look at work such as this as an occasional necessity to live in civilized society, rather than as all one ever does. As Adam Smith famously said, if all you do is screw widgets all day you will lead a horrible life.

But think how many people do this kind of "rote" work when they don't have to. For example, in my town they have people who spend part of their weekends delivering food to disabled and elderly people who are home bound. In principle, what they are doing is the same thing the pizza delivery man does. But most people seem to gain some enjoyment out of occasionally making sure stuff gets done so long as it's not all they do, and enjoy making a contribution. Note this is even under the conditions of capitalism!

So while I am not a big fan of human nature arguments, people do appreciate that there is work that needs to get done, that is necessary for society. It's frankly kind of like doing the dishes if your job under capitalism is, say, a delivery driver. It's not particularly rewarding, but as long as it's occasional it's just something that needs to get done and is not particularly onerous. My guess is most people will have a similar attitude to "undesirable" work under a post-capitalist order.

[Ocean Seal]

Has anyone pointed out that the OP's name is lolumad.

[Strannik]

I like to deliver stuff from time to time. You get to go outside and meet different people and see places. Also, it is satisfying to give people what they need and you are usually successful on that job. Just wanted to point that out.

[daft punk]

That's exactly what I wanted to hear, hahaha. I obviously understand that the Capitalist class would lose their extravagant, stolen standard of living. But I'm glad the "Middle class", in the US would at the very least not see a decrease in standard of living.

It would also be great to do away with the slavery in other countries, at the hands of capitalism.

Thanks

Exactly. Take America for example. 22% unemployed, and as many people doing useless jobs like speculating and marketing for stuff like healthcare which we would nationalise, or making arms. Get rid of those and you double your effective workforce.

Then there are all sorts of other reasons why socialism would be more productive. For example we would own the banks, we could plan a gree economy with long term planning. This would mean lots of new technology like robots. In todays world its cheaper to get stuff made by 12 year olds in Indonesia than it is to buy a robot.



He actually didn't provide you with any evidence.
See above. There are plenty more reasons too.



A revolution anywhere in the world with enough force to disrupt the world market would mean a lowering of standard of living for US middle class.
You have to balance the disruption against the massive benefits.



Don't mistake socialism or communist for "welfare for all" type ideology. Most people on this website are not economist and even a socialist/Marxist inspired economist could garuntee that " democratically planned economy" could outperform capitalist and past socialist countries.
What past socialist economies? Yes it would easily outperform capitalism. I already doubled the workforce and brought in robots. The banks wouldnt be dictating the payback time, making them prohibitive. We also have economies of scale, avoiding duplication, innovation implementation and facilitation, banning of patents, elimination of the waste of war and arms production. Ultimately you wouldn't even have an army or police force. There would be robots making products designed to last, using renewable energy and socialists enjoying a short working week.




Infact the past socialist countries notably USSR and China were obssessed with outperforming the capitalist bloc that they made many right wing and detrimental decisions.
They were not socialist. However they had planned economies and Russia's economy grew faster than America's. But eventually it was slowed down by the dead weight of the bureaucracy/dictatorship.





A new post-capitalist society should not worry about performance in a competitive sense but in a cooperative sense. That means reducing waste, using resources coorectly, allocating work based on desired output for reaching means etc.

It is a considerable task. A succesfull Socialist economy has to keep inflation low, wages steady and full employment. All while engaging in the world economy and dealing with internal and external enemy class forces. The chances of a socialist economy from fullfiling everyone's needs and maintaing happiness are always. So far socialist economies have only partially fullfiled people's expectations.


There has never been a socialist country. Socialism was only attempted in Russia, and it failed because it was isolated in a backward country. Also, Stalin didnt try to fight the degeneration of the revolution, he did the opposite.

[Lolumad273]

Thanks for all the replies, they're very helpful. I guess I never took into account how productive cooperation could be, having seldom experienced it.

As far as my name is concerned, I was worried about that when I made the account. I realize it doesn't lend me any credibility, but I've used that name for every website I frequent. I guess It's sort of an online persona... Perhaps I should make a different account...

[Hiero]

What past socialist economies? Yes it would easily outperform capitalism. I already doubled the workforce and brought in robots. The banks wouldnt be dictating the payback time, making them prohibitive. We also have economies of scale, avoiding duplication, innovation implementation and facilitation, banning of patents, elimination of the waste of war and arms production. Ultimately you wouldn't even have an army or police force. There would be robots making products designed to last, using renewable energy and socialists enjoying a short working week.

Oh I see you got it all worked out... in your head

[Agent Ducky]

Thanks for all the replies, they're very helpful. I guess I never took into account how productive cooperation could be, having seldom experienced it.

As far as my name is concerned, I was worried about that when I made the account. I realize it doesn't lend me any credibility, but I've used that name for every website I frequent. I guess It's sort of an online persona... Perhaps I should make a different account...

Don't make a different account. It will just cause problems with the administration since having 2 accounts isn't allowed here. If you want to change your name, request it here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/name-change-requests-t137468/index32.html

[runequester]

There has never been a socialist country. Socialism was only attempted in Russia, and it failed because it was isolated in a backward country. Also, Stalin didnt try to fight the degeneration of the revolution, he did the opposite.

Some day Daft Punk will succeed in making a post that isn't anti-USSR.

Today was not that day.


Don't mistake socialism or communist for "welfare for all" type ideology.

Indeed. Welfare as we understand it today was specifically created to combat the influence of socialism in the 19th century.
Everyone works. Everyone is taken care of. Because we are everyone.

It's simple really.

[daft punk]

Some day Daft Punk will succeed in making a post that isn't anti-USSR.

Today was not that day.

I have never been anti-USSR. Trotsky didnt oppose the USSR, he was trying to save it from the Stalinists. However it no longer exists, thanks to the Stalinists.

Well done. Your best efforts led to a restoration of capitalism, just as Trotsky predicted.


Stalinism is anti-socialism.

[runequester]

I have never been anti-USSR. Trotsky didnt oppose the USSR, he was trying to save it from the Stalinists. However it no longer exists, thanks to the Stalinists.

Well done. Your best efforts led to a restoration of capitalism, just as Trotsky predicted.


Stalinism is anti-socialism.

"your best efforts". Are we really in this "if you aren't agreeing with me you are them" mindset?

[Lolumad273]

I will probably request a change of name if this causes me any more problems, thanks for the link!

Another question, since I thankfully left the thread title vague.

I'm taking a high school economics course, and economics is apparently how we manage scarce resources to meet unlimited wants. I'm curious as to how we would account for scarcity of say, oil, without money, and supply vs demand.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up

[Red Noob]

Another question, since I thankfully left the thread title vague.

I'm taking a high school economics course, and economics is apparently how we manage scarce resources to meet unlimited wants. I'm curious as to how we would account for scarcity of say, oil, without money, and supply vs demand.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up

Well to be honest, I don't think oil scarcity would be a problem if it was up to the working-class. At the risk of being called some petite-bourgeois liberal greeny, fossil fuels are economical, not in the slightest way sustainable or even unlimited. So drifting away from fossil fuels is how you prevent a scarcity.

Problems like these, under Communism, can be given a scientific approach rather than the bourgeois economic one. So the idea isn't to ration, it's to create an abundance.

[Lolumad273]

That makes sense, and I like the way that sounds. But the question that was posed to me was, "If everyone wants an aluminum roof, lets say, how do we decide who gets an aluminum roof, and who doesn't? Since there aren't enough resources to give everyone everything they want" It was a tough one for me, honestly.

Thanks for the responses thus far

[ArrowLance]

That makes sense, and I like the way that sounds. But the question that was posed to me was, "If everyone wants an aluminum roof, lets say, how do we decide who gets an aluminum roof, and who doesn't? Since there aren't enough resources to give everyone everything they want" It was a tough one for me, honestly.

Thanks for the responses thus far

It could be said scarce resources will be put towards whatever ends are decided as the most productive or desirable for them. This is different than how money works because neither productivity nor desire for the product or its uses decide its allocation in the market.

It isn't practical to say we will end scarcity, because it doesn't appear that it will happen simply through the reorganization of productive forces. With that in mind we have to go about figuring out how to allocate what goods and services may be in a high demand that we are not able to answer by increasing supply. Possible ways involve raffles, tradeoffs, time leases, working credits, or even a completely local democratic system.

[4th supporter]

In my own understanding scarcity would end in a socialist society simply because( and i use simply very lightly) the socialist mode of production would use the large profit the means of production create into a surplus due to the lack of capitalist profit in the new equation.