Would revlefters be happy with full health care, employment and schooling?

[Alric]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? "Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery. But say a person in a society has a choice to work, or if he/she prefers leisure, just gets a cheque every week to cover all expenses.

[l'Enfermé]

No. We don't want to extend wage-slavery to everyone, we want it abolished. There's an obvious distinction between universalizing exploitation and ending it.

Full employment implies there are still capitalists in existence that employ workers. It implies that servitude is still in existence. This isn't an acceptable state of things for us. What we want is a society of associated producers, where no producer is divorced from the means of production and the fruits of his labour.

[The Idler]

Should slaves or serfs be happy with full heath care, employment and schooling?

[Prinskaj]

The reasons for being a communist is rarely just wanting equality, there are many much more important reason; Alienation of labour, the tendency of crisis, ecological decay, etc.
Full employment under capitalism is not sustainable, given that a shortage of labour would give the working class leverage over the capitalist, it will lead to a fall in the rate of profit, because of workers demanding higher wages and the likes. When this profit rate falls capitalist see too little reason to invest and the economy will go into a mode of crisis.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Personally - as someone from the U.S. I would be very happy to have these things without worry. It would be great personally if we had a more reformed system like in parts of Northern Europe. It would also be nice to have a car or a more comfortable bed.

Politically, though, these things are not enough, but more importantly they are incomplete and can be taken away if our rulers decide it's necessary (for example, austerity anywhere in Europe now or the US over the last generation). And more importantly than not being enough, it's just not a sustainable balence to have... if there are reforms it's because we're organized and fought for it - but to make money in the profit system, bosses also want to reduce our control and influence in this process. So it's like if you are on a sinking boat - if someone says wouldn't it be nice to be on one of the upper decks where it's dry... sure! But it's not going to stay frozen in place like that.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

if you can provide the needs of all without all revolution then do it and i'll let you know how i feel.

[cynicles]

The way capitalism works makes this functionally impossible in the long term. Much of this was achieved but it couldn't be sustained, social democratic fantasies are idealist and not grounded in reality, capitalism just isn't something you can make nicer to fix the problem.

[Leftsolidarity]

Those things and the rest of our needs can't be fulfilled without a communist revolution. Those are transitional demands.

[citizen of industry]

As Prinskaj points out, communists aren't interested in more equitable distribution. Distribution is determined by the mode of production, in our world today that usually means capitalist production.

Healthcare and jobs? Well, communists have been demanding a reduction in work hours at no loss in pay and full employment for how many decades now? But obviously, that comes into conflict with profits, and not only that, falling profits, making it impossible under capitalism. What do companies say when unions present them with collective bargaining demands? "I'd love to meet those demands, but it is impossible. We have to pay rent, stock dividends, executive salaries, loan payments, interest. We'd love to pay you ten cents more an hour and give you a sick day, but if we did we'd go out of business." And they are right. But who creates the wealth? Us. So we don't need landlords, shareholders, executives, or banks. Furthermore, since we do all the work, everytime the company is fucking up on quality, strategy, etc. we point that out and are ignored, until it affects sales and the company adopts the same shit a year later we were complaining about.

As for healthcare, Cuba has the best healthcare system and creates the most doctors per capita. They also are very advanced in cancer research. In the US, those too poor to afford insurance get shit medical treatment and can't even use the hospitals closest to them, because it isn't "covered." That's pretty unique to the rest of the entire fucking world, where proximity is considered in emergencies. But in the US, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals are based on profit, and in that sense are the most successful in the world. Many parts of the US have infant mortality rates much worse than developing countries, combined with the most sophisticated technology and resources. You have to "pay to play."

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think we have made our goal clear.

Abolition of class society and private property.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm happy right now

[Prometeo liberado]

but more importantly they are incomplete and can be taken away if our rulers decide...
Pretty much sums all up right there! DOTP, nothing less.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No, that, to be generous, would be a social-democracy on steroids. We seek the complete abolition of wage slavery, bourgeois parliamentary procedure, capitalist control of the Means of Production, and liquidation of the armed forces of the imperialist bourgeoisie. These demands, as other have said, can only be accomplished with the force of a Leftist revolution which overthrows the bourgeois dictatorship, erects a proletarian dictatorship,establishment of a socialist state, which then then "withers away" into communism.

Under capitalist rule none of what we want is possible while what you describe is either,again,impossible,or less likely to occur than an ice cube surviving in a broiling oven.

[teflon_john]

not on some leading light shit or anything, but social democracies can only provide such services at the expense of workers within third world countries anyways, right?

[l'Enfermé]

not on some leading light shit or anything, but social democracies can only provide such services at the expense of workers within third world countries anyways, right?
Only a fraction of the profits made by Western corporations that exploit third-world countries go to supporting the expenses of Western welfare states. Western workers are productive enough.

[Le Socialiste]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? "Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery. But say a person in a society has a choice to work, or if he/she prefers leisure, just gets a cheque every week to cover all expenses.

While all these things are greatly desired I think, they would not be the end goal for anyone here (at least, I hope not). Universal healthcare, job programs, and free and accessible education, within capitalism, are not only very unlikely given the present dynamics surrounding the ruling-class and the ongoing economic crisis, but they also serve to alleviate working-class suffering without altering the fundamental basics within class society. Keep in mind capitalism is above all a system reliant on profit; without the latter, it contracts and spirals into crisis. The enormous gains won by working-class peoples in Europe and America from the 30s on were the direct results of a long, concerted series of struggles that were growing in vitality and strength, continuing to radicalize in the face of deteriorating conditions, descents into dictatorship, and intra-imperial conflict. We are nowhere near that level of awareness and organization yet, and the primary task facing socialists is the question of rebuilding the revolutionary left as a viable, influential body within working-class movements and trials. Are universal education, full employment, and accessible education worthy of pursuit? I think so, but from the viewpoint that it'll help to show people how the ruling-class, the bosses and the politicians, will not so readily yield to these demands without a fight. Furthermore, these gains would be within a capitalist framework, and therefore still subject to revision, dismantlement, and eventual disintegration. These are gains that must be assembled and put into place by any post-capitalist, socialist society, where such institutions will be devoid of vices inherent in capitalism (like the incessant need for profit and profitability). Anyone who advocates these kinds of gains as the final end all of any meaningful movement is 1) delusional, 2) social democratic, and 3) not exactly someone I'd consider a part of the revolutionary left.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Only a fraction of the profits made by Western corporations that exploit third-world countries go to supporting the expenses of Western welfare states. Western workers are productive enough.

You see, this is what has been baffling me about this whole austerity crap and the rollback of social democratic-style gains like the welfare state etc. If well-educated, healthy workers who don't have to worry about being bankrupted by a medical emergency within their family are more productive, then why aren't they making more of them?

It's not as if they can't afford it. There's a fuckload of shit the ruling classes, especially in the "West", could do before they even notice any effect on their quality of life. In fact, there may even be benefits for them, not least of which is a population of workers less likely to want to string them up from a lamp post.

One hypothesis for this that I really hope turns out to be untrue is that the tentacles of international finance capital*, under the command of a transnational class of high-flying capitalists, have effectively got their slimy appendages wrapped all over everything. The fear I have with that hypothesis is that whole nations, if not entire continents, will likely burn to the ground before those Mammon-worshipping Daemons of Greed loose their grasp. When one's millions of dollars and international business connections mean that one can easily catch a flight to some new nest halfway across the globe, the prospect of the country where one is currently located collapsing in on itself becomes less of a concern. They certainly appear to have bought and paid for a succession of UK governments.

(*An industry specialising in fucking around with money rather than actually doing anything or making shit. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to have a large proportion of our economies dependent on that parasitic bullshit?)

[hatzel]

Health care I pretty much like. Employment and schooling I kind of really don't want to exist any more. So maybe I'd be 1/3 happy, I dunno...

[RedHammer]

A comfortable slave is still a slave.

The class system itself is economically irrational, unstable, and the cause of many ills in the world today. I don't want to make the working class more comfortable, or "provide for the poor". I dont' want there to be poor people in the first place - no classes, and democratic control of the workplace by the workers. And an economy which moves past the irrationality of the profit system. Comfort is not enough.

[Alric]

I think we have made our goal clear.

Abolition of class society and private property.

haha.

Yes indeed you have.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it was revolution per se that you wanted, or an end to poverty and such.

[NGNM85]

Of course I would be happy to have Universal Healthcare, etc., that would be a massive win for the working class, but I would not be satisfied with that, I wouldn't stop at that.

[Leftsolidarity]

haha.

Yes indeed you have.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it was revolution per se that you wanted, or an end to poverty and such.

A revolution is just a means to an end and it is the only means to that end.

[o well this is ok I guess]

haha.

Yes indeed you have.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it was revolution per se that you wanted, or an end to poverty and such. You do realize it is possible to have all of the above and still be frightfully impoverished, right?

[Positivist]

haha.

Yes indeed you have.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it was revolution per se that you wanted, or an end to poverty and such.

If you think an end to poverty will be achieved without a radical reorientation of social relations than your delusional. Also way to pick out one response you were comfortable responding to and ignoring a full other page of posts.

[Alric]

You do realize it is possible to have all of the above and still be frightfully impoverished, right?

No I don't follow.

How can you have free healthcare, accommodation and a living wage and be considered impoverished?

Do you mean that 'poverty' is relative to the rich, so that if there is a huge gap between the rich an poor, the poor are impoverished?

[o well this is ok I guess]

No I don't follow.

How can you have free healthcare, accommodation and a living wage and be considered impoverished?

Do you mean that 'poverty' is relative to the rich, so that if there is a huge gap between the rich an poor, the poor are impoverished? Full employment doesn't mean a living wage, bruh. Free healthcare doesn't solve terrible working conditions, bro. Free accommodation doesn't solve the squalor of the space, guy.

[human strike]

Full unemployment now!

[#FF0000]

Full employment doesn't mean a living wage, bruh. Free healthcare doesn't solve terrible working conditions, bro. Free accommodation doesn't solve the squalor of the space, guy.

Even if there was a living wage/full health coverage/free housing for people in one part of the world, I don't think that would be possible if not for the near slave-labor of people in the rest of it.

[ed miliband]

Full unemployment now!

right to work!

[Raúl Duke]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? "Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery. But say a person in a society has a choice to work, or if he/she prefers leisure, just gets a cheque every week to cover all expenses.

From a personal standpoint, putting my politics aside, I would be content with universal public healthcare, fully subsidized education at all levels, and job guarantees; if that answers your question.

But part of the reason why I have the politics I have, outside of my personal thoughts on wage slavery and other things, is that I believe it's becoming more apparent that capitalist society cannot afford those kinds of reforms that you mentioned and protections against unemployment/job precariousness anymore. This of course is just a hypothesis I have, nothing more.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, I would benefit from said reforms and I'm not a dogmatic person who puts politics first before my own life, yet as it stands I don't see that happening...instead I see an attempt by the powers that be in trying to get rid of the "safety net" and reforms fought for in the past and attempt us to get used to this "new normal" of austerity and precarity with the aim at enriching the elites at our cost which is something that I'm against both politically and personally.

So yea, it would be nice...but I'm not betting on it.

[Luís Henrique]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? "Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery. But say a person in a society has a choice to work, or if he/she prefers leisure, just gets a cheque every week to cover all expenses.

Laterally... how is full employment even remotely similar to slavery?

Back to the substance... how would full employment be possible in a capitalist society?

What would full schooling be good for, in a society where some people must perform jobs that have no need for schooling? Are garbage collectors with PhDs of any use for society? Is a PhD of any use for a garbage collector?

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs.
No.
I'm for the political and social rule of the exploited, who would thus cease to be the exploited.


If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? Hypotheticals are nice and all, but I don't buy into this mode of thinking. I can't cast aside, just for the sake of argument, the clear view of how social relations are organized.

I pretty much now that such social policies are at best transitory under the capitalist mode of production. So yes, I insist very much.


"Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery.Really? What are some of the similarities? Does the state own people as chattel slaves?

[human strike]

right to work!

Wrong to work!

[l'Enfermé]

I think an important thing is being lost on everyone in this thread. Under conditions of permanent full employment, wages would continuously increase, and profits would erode, to the point where capital accumulation and economic growth would disappear. Permanent full employment in capitalist society is thus an impossibility for any prolonged period of time.

[Sea]

Proles and animals can be free, and I'd be much more productive sniffing my ass than trying to imagine working within capitalism without working under capitalism.

[Comrades Unite!]

I will only be 'happy' when the worker stands up and takes state power and implements a Socialistic system based on Marxism.

Anything else is opportunism.

[Leftsolidarity]

I will only be 'happy' when the worker stands up and takes state power and implements a Socialistic system based on Marxism.

Anything else is opportunism.

I'd hate to party with you

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution?

What do you think? Of course, parliamentary band-aides enacted by bourgeois politicians to help do some PR work for capital doesn't accomplish a damn thing in the long term and specifically in terms of socio-economic relations and equality. Though, that would be cool I guess but I would say "more." Even though, the whole premise of this thread seems sort of silly and idealist (no offense).

[Comrades Unite!]

I'd hate to party with you

Likewise.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Laterally... how is full employment even remotely similar to slavery?

Back to the substance... how would full employment be possible in a capitalist society?

What would full schooling be good for, in a society where some people must perform jobs that have no need for schooling? Are garbage collectors with PhDs of any use for society? Is a PhD of any use for a garbage collector?

Luís Henrique

I think this is the salient point: capitalism only institutes such things as full employment, free education and free healthcare for two reasons:

1) Pressure from below: the working class fights to win reforms. The capitalists utilise politics to ameliorate the rightful anger of the working class. This normally results in more permanent reforms eg. universal suffrage, moves towards equality under the law for the LGBTQ community etc.

2) The capitalists need such reforms for a reason, e.g. full employment for growth (after WW2 for example), healthcare as an investment in a healthy workforce again for the same reason, and education because specific jobs need more training. These tend to be more temporary reforms (e.g. the European post-war welfare state) and are ditched as soon as they can practically be.

As Luis Henrique states, under a for-profit society, it makes no sense to have full education when the profit-maximising level of education is far lower, and it makes no sense to have full employment when the profit-maximising NIARU (natural inflation adjusted rate of unemployment, as defined by Milton Friedman) is actually lower than that, with the reserve army of labour needing to be at around 5-6% to keep wages, wage expections and inflation expectations down, and thus to keep inflation itself down.

[Alric]

Full employment doesn't mean a living wage, bruh.

I understand that, which is why I asked in my first post if a living wage wound be an acceptable compensation for the unemployed. If the unemployed can be paid the a salary equivalent to a real job, it doesn't make sense to talk about them as impoverished does it?

[Alric]

Laterally... how is full employment even remotely similar to slavery?



What I mean is that full employment and slavery are easily conflated, statistically. The Soviet Union had "full employment" for a lot of years, and so does Cuba. But this is merely because the state forced everybody to work. To put it another way, I would much rather be unemployed in Sweden or Norway than employed in Cuba.

[Alric]

Even if there was a living wage/full health coverage/free housing for people in one part of the world, I don't think that would be possible if not for the near slave-labor of people in the rest of it.

I think this idea is based on "Dependency Theory" - i.e. the theory that the richer or the developed countries are dependent on the exploitation of the rest of the world. I was told this was false in my economics class. I can't link, but it says as much on wikipedia.

[Alric]

You do realize it is possible to have all of the above and still be frightfully impoverished, right?

Yeah I do. In my country, for example, we have universal health care and a pretty decent welfare state. But there is still a lot of homelessness.

That is why I smile when I hear socialists praising the lack of homelessness in the USSR and Cuba. I would rather be homeless and poor a free society than looked after in a police state. I think most people would feel the same way.

[roy]

That is why I smile when I hear socialists praising the lack of homelessness in the USSR and Cuba. I would rather be homeless and poor a free society than looked after in a police state. I think most people would feel the same way.

good thing communism =/= police state

[Камо́ Зэд]

That is why I smile when I hear socialists praising the lack of homelessness in the USSR and Cuba. I would rather be homeless and poor a free society than looked after in a police state. I think most people would feel the same way.

Exactly how free are you if you have neither home nor money? Exactly what freedoms do you have in this condition that would be taken away from you even in the most Orwellian conception of socialism?

[#FF0000]

I think this idea is based on "Dependency Theory" - i.e. the theory that the richer or the developed countries are dependent on the exploitation of the rest of the world. I was told this was false in my economics class. I can't link, but it says as much on wikipedia.

Nah it says it's lost a little bit of it's weight since the rise of India and some other countries in the East. I don't think that necessarily means it's incorrect. I don't think it's entirely spot on either but there's a lot of truth to it, certainly.

[#FF0000]

That is why I smile when I hear socialists praising the lack of homelessness in the USSR and Cuba. I would rather be homeless and poor a free society than looked after in a police state. I think most people would feel the same way.

I don't really think you can compare Cuba to the US though, to be fair. I'm no fan of Cuba but, uh, I'd much rather live there as a working class person than a lot of the other countries in that region.

I also think it's pretty neat that Cuba (which, like I said, I don't have much good to say about) is a "police state" when the US has far and away more prisoners per capita.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I understand that, which is why I asked in my first post if a living wage wound be an acceptable compensation for the unemployed. If the unemployed can be paid the a salary equivalent to a real job, it doesn't make sense to talk about them as impoverished does it? Oh yo you came back? Cool.
Ok: so what's a "living wage", exactly?

[mew]

free association of labor v_v

[Alric]

Exactly how free are you if you have neither home nor money? Exactly what freedoms do you have in this condition that would be taken away from you even in the most Orwellian conception of socialism?

Very free, imo. Afterall, you still have the freedom to go out and engage with other free individuals to get these things.

On the flipside, I'd wonder how much freedom you have in a society like Cuba, that provides universal housing and employment. You have the freedom to live in your crappy housing, go to your state allocated profession, pick up your $3 paycheck, and sing about how good your nation is. Oh joy.

[Alric]

Oh yo you came back? Cool.
Ok: so what's a "living wage", exactly?

Just a payment given by the government. A paycheck without a job.

[Alric]

A comfortable slave is still a slave.

The class system itself is economically irrational, unstable, and the cause of many ills in the world today. I don't want to make the working class more comfortable, or "provide for the poor". I dont' want there to be poor people in the first place - no classes, and democratic control of the workplace by the workers. And an economy which moves past the irrationality of the profit system. Comfort is not enough.

I define a slave as being in some kind of bondage or servitude. If an individual is provided for by the state, I fail to see how he can be considered a slave of any sort.

It seems more rational to me to call the state the slave in this scenario, because the state is duty-bound to provide him with money, housing and healthcare. The individual is not required to do anything whatsoever.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Just a payment given by the government. A paycheck without a job. So a living wage is just a paycheck from the government? Regardless of amount?

[Alric]

So a living wage is just a paycheck from the government? Regardless of amount?

"Amount" is certainly a valid question. For the purposes of my hypothetical, say the amount is equivalent to a low - medium salary. Say a salary at minimum wage * 4. Say US$ 1000 per week (gross).

[Rugged Collectivist]

If an individual is provided for by the state, I fail to see how he can be considered a slave of any sort.

Pretty much all slaves were provided clothes, shelter, and other necessities. I mean, this is a glaring oversight on your part.


It seems more rational to me to call the state the slave in this scenario, because the state is duty-bound to provide him with money, housing and healthcare. The individual is not required to do anything whatsoever.

Why are we even talking about a situation where the state pays someone for doing nothing? The state gives some people welfare if they're unemployed, but this is given under the assumption that it will help you find employment. If you don't look for employment they cut you off.

[Alric]

Pretty much all slaves were provided clothes, shelter, and other necessities. I mean, this is a glaring oversight on your part.

Slaves also had no freedom. They could be bought and sold. They were considered property.



Why are we even talking about a situation where the state pays someone for doing nothing?

Because it's a hypothetical I'm interested in.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Slaves also had no freedom. They could be bought and sold. They were considered property.

Your claim was that anyone who is provided for can't be a slave. I demonstrated that chattel slaves were provided for. What does this have to do with your previous claim?




Because it's a hypothetical I'm interested in.

Okay, but then why should I have to respond to it like it matters?

[Alric]

Your claim was that anyone who is provided for can't be a slave. I demonstrated that chattel slaves were provided for. What does this have to do with your previous claim?



Since were were talking about current and future society, I thought the implication the people wouldn't also be property would have been fairly implicit, if it wasn't my apologies.



Okay, but then why should I have to respond to it like it matters?You shouldn't and don't.

[o well this is ok I guess]

"Amount" is certainly a valid question. For the purposes of my hypothetical, say the amount is equivalent to a low - medium salary. Say a salary at minimum wage * 4. Say US$ 1000 per week (gross). And this is what "living" is? Life is lived at 1000 a week? Are we assuming that 1000 a week retains a constant value? Why in the hell would we assume that?

[Alric]

And this is what "living" is? Life is lived at 1000 a week? Are we assuming that 1000 a week retains a constant value?

No factor in monetary inflation at 3%.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Since were were talking about current and future society, I thought the implication the people wouldn't also be property would have been fairly implicit, if it wasn't my apologies.

So the lack of freedom is what defines a slave? That makes a lot more sense than your previous claim that a slave can't be provided for.

In all honesty I think the term wage slavery is a bit hyperbolic, but not hyperbolic enough to discredit it completely.

[Alric]

In all honesty I think the term wage slavery is a bit hyperbolic, but not hyperbolic enough to discredit it completely.

I think It's extremely hyperbolic, but for the sake of argument I'm prepared to accept the notion that people who don't own capital in a capitalist economic system are wage slaves. So I bring up a living wage wondering if it will assuage any communists objections to the slavery.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I think It's extremely hyperbolic, but for the sake of argument I'm prepared to accept the notion that people who don't own capital in a capitalist economic system are wage slaves. So I bring up a living wage wondering if it will assuage any communists objections to the slavery.

I doubt it. This is tantamount to saying "Will an increase in the living standards and treatment of slaves appease the abolitionists?"

I'm reminded of an old IWW poster where a worker stands at a crossroads. On one side it says "A fair days wage for a fair days work" and on the other side it says "Abolition of the wage system".

[o well this is ok I guess]

No factor in monetary inflation at 3%. Why 3%? This seems entirely too favourable. By what means will we supply the unemployed with this amount? That is to say, from what source will we extract or conjure it? Will we print it? Tax it out? Obtain it via foreign investment? What will we do for the employed who make less? Raise their wages?

[Alric]

Why 3%? This seems entirely too favourable. By what means will we supply the unemployed with this amount? That is to say, from what source will we extract or conjure it? Will we print it? Tax it out? Obtain it via foreign investment? What will we do for the employed who make less? Raise their wages?

Yeah, it will be taxed from agents participating in the capitalist system, just like welfare is currently funded.


What will we do for the employed who make less? Raise their wages?

:p Most likely the employed who make such a salary would prefer to be unemployed and stop working.

No but really, the employed would be paid the living wage as well, just like the unemployed. Hypothetically, of course.

[Alric]

I doubt it. This is tantamount to saying "Will an increase in the living standards and treatment of slaves appease the abolitionists?"



But that example you give still requires slavery. In my hypothetical there is no slavery left, wage or otherwise. The individual is emancipated from capitalism full stop. But also has the option of trying to profit from capitalism if he wants.

[black magick hustla]

seeing that social democracy is collapsing like the fortress of cards it was, its meaningless to make intellectual excersize of "full healthcare, full employment" etc. when it is a complete fantasy. even if by miracle of god the first world managed to attain some of these, you have the rest of the world living in a giant ass slum.

[Positivist]

But that example you give still requires slavery. In my hypothetical there is no slavery left, wage or otherwise. The individual is emancipated from capitalism full stop. But also has the option of trying to profit from capitalism if he wants.

Here's the problem in this. For wage-slavery to be abolished, capitalism cannot exist. Capitalist production is contingent upon the exploitation of workers. I believe what your referring to is voluntaryism. The problem with voluntaryist theory from a capitalist perspective is that no one given the option of reaping the benefit of the social product in full will settle for receiving just a piece of it as they do as a worker in capitalist production.

[Positivist]

Only a fraction of the profits made by Western corporations that exploit third-world countries go to supporting the expenses of Western welfare states. Western workers are productive enough.

I'm sorry but this really isn't the case. It isn't that western workers aren't productive, its that the standard payment and working conditions which can be inflicted upon people in the third world are far more liberal than in the west, allowing capitalists to extract significantly greater profit from there exploitation. The relatively high standard of living of core capitalist countries is only possible through this hyper-exploitation.

[Alric]

Here's the problem in this. For wage-slavery to be abolished, capitalism cannot exist. Capitalist production is contingent upon the exploitation of workers.

Yeah wage slavery would still exist in the capitalist sphere, but individuals would not have to participate in the capitalist system.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Things are trending in the exact opposite direction. A great deal of industrial production has been shifted to China and other low wage countries. Healthcare and other social programs are under attack by the bourgeois state. It seems to me that the onus is on the proponent of the proposition of full employment, full healthcare, etcetera via reformism to provide some evidence that this is more than just a fairy tale.

[Positivist]

Yeah wage slavery would still exist in the capitalist sphere, but individuals would not have to participate in the capitalist system.

Yes this is what I am trying to explain. Perhaps by expalining capitalist production my point will become more clear. Capitalist production is characterized by socialized labor and definite planning within each business, while relying on anarchistic market exchange mediating the interaction between businesses and their prospective consumers. An important thing to remember here, is that while the act of production is social, the distribution of the product remains individualized (even when divided amongst shareholders or partners.)

So assuming we live in a society where people have the option of participating in a socialist sphere or a capitalist sphere, it is reasonable to suggest that there will be some intelligent, ambitious people who would be interested in competing in a market and trying out their own definite plans for production, but the question remain of who would want to perform the socialized production, and where would the prospective capitalist get the capital to purchase the labor and means of production? The only way to accumulate the necessary "start-up" capital would be through violent dispossession, or through the cooperation of a substantial amount of potential producers. For anyone to expect that these cooperating purchasers and producers would then accept the appropriation of the resultant product of there labor and investment to an individual is absurd.

So really the issue is really boiled down to a choice between a planned sphere and a market sphere. Choosing market exchange would entail cyclical crisis, and social alienation, making it a very unappealing option.

[Alric]

Yes this is what I am trying to explain. Perhaps by expalining capitalist production my point will become more clear. Capitalist production is characterized by socialized labor and definite planning within each business, while relying on anarchistic market exchange mediating the interaction between businesses and their prospective consumers. An important thing to remember here, is that while the act of production is social, the distribution of the product remains individualized (even when divided amongst shareholders or partners.)

So assuming we live in a society where people have the option of participating in a socialist sphere or a capitalist sphere, it is reasonable to suggest that there will be some intelligent, ambitious people who would be interested in competing in a market and trying out their own definite plans for production, but the question remain of who would want to perform the socialized production, and where would the prospective capitalist get the capital to purchase the labor and means of production? They would be

There wouldn't be any socialized production. Production would all be done in the private sector, like it is now. Non-participants would just be given money to purchase basic goods and services. Just your garden variety welfare state in terms of an economic system. The difference would just be that instead of welfare being a safety net, it would be a starting point.

[Positivist]

There wouldn't be any socialized production. Production would all be done in the private sector, like it is now. Non-participants would just be given money to purchase basic goods and services. Just your garden variety welfare state in terms of an economic system. The difference would just be that instead of welfare being a safety net, it would be a starting point.

I just finished my response so you can check it out now.

As for private production what you don't seem to understand is capitalist production is socialized. That is what has enabled production on an unprecedented scale within capitalism. Socialized production is production which involves the participation of multiple people. That's what social means. Appropriation is still individualised, but production is social.

[Alric]

where would the prospective capitalist get the capital to purchase the labor and means of production? The only way to accumulate the necessary "start-up" capital would be through violent dispossession, or through the cooperation of a substantial amount of potential producers. For anyone to expect that these cooperating purchasers and producers would then accept the appropriation of the resultant product of there labor and investment to an individual is absurd.



How do people get start-up capital now?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Has anyone mentioned yet that the alienation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation) of labour would still be present even with "full health care, employment and schooling"?

[Positivist]

How do people get start-up capital now?

Inheritance almost exclusivley (in this I include inhereting good credit reliability), and a couple hundred years ago the nobels and merchants expropriated European peasants.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Very free, imo. Afterall, you still have the freedom to go out and engage with other free individuals to get these things.

Consider, though, that in this scenario you're homeless and penniless. At this point, you're not likely to get a minimum-wage job, and what money you can collect for yourself is miniscule. You're lucky if you can feed yourself. Abstractly, it's possible for any individual to find work and acquire a home. Practically speaking, however, homeless paupers typically aren't able to improve their condition to the point of regaining some semblance of a normal life. (That most people blame this on the character of homeless individuals, rather than on the system that creates them, is a nigh fascistic attitude.) In a sense, you're quite free indeed: free of cash, free of shelter, free of employment, free of health care, free of basic human dignity, free of the respect of other people, etc. But you haven't answered my question: what freedoms would you have, as a homeless pauper, that a socialist society could potentially take away from you?


On the flipside, I'd wonder how much freedom you have in a society like Cuba, that provides universal housing and employment. You have the freedom to live in your crappy housing, go to your state allocated profession, pick up your $3 paycheck, and sing about how good your nation is. Oh joy.

It's a little difficult to ignore your chauvinistic attitude toward Cuba, especially given that your characterization of it isn't based in fact. Housing runs the gamut in that country from crummy to quite good, just as it does in the United States. The state does not select one's profession for them; Cubans have the freedom to pursue higher education if they want to pursue a career in, say, medicine or other fields. (They have some of the best medical education in the world, in fact.) And then a Cuban has access to free health care, such that Cubans are generally quite healthy, and access to food staples, electricity, water, etc. It's by no means perfect in Cuba, but what freedoms are the Cubans losing that they would have in the United States? They've even got a private business sector over there, recalling, perhaps, Lenin's own N.E.P. measures.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Yeah, it will be taxed from agents participating in the capitalist system, just like welfare is currently funded.



:p Most likely the employed who make such a salary would prefer to be unemployed and stop working.

No but really, the employed would be paid the living wage as well, just like the unemployed. Hypothetically, of course. I am, of course, right to assume that this wage increase will also be subsidized by taxes? I am also right in assuming the tax rate will be progressive, right?

[Q]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? "Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery. But say a person in a society has a choice to work, or if he/she prefers leisure, just gets a cheque every week to cover all expenses.

To give a slightly different answer than most: This is, more or less, what most left groups put on the front page of their publications, or yell as slogans on demo's. If we are to believe these publications, that are aimed at "the masses", then socialism is really just the accumulation of the welfare state and workers control and management through a leftwing government of said state.

No wonder you are confused.

Communists strive, first and foremost, for the revolutionary self-emancipation of the working class, form it as a class for itself that follows its own political agenda as opposed to other classes or the state. The revolutionary self-emancipation concludes logically in the overthrow of the existing constitutional order on a global scale. That is: The overthrow of all capitalist states and replace them by a semi-state that expresses the majoritarian rule of our class and which ceases to function as a state as classes are absorbed into the working class, so we end up with a classless society and with our semi-state fully collapsed into society itself.

I hope this gives a useful general overview of the communist project.

[Alric]

Inheritance almost exclusivley (in this I include inhereting good credit reliability), and a couple hundred years ago the nobels and merchants expropriated European peasants.

Yeah, I know all the reasons you guys hate capitalism. That's not what the thread is about though.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yeah, I know all the reasons you guys hate capitalism. That's not what the thread is about though.

I believe Comrade Positivist was giving you a reasonable answer to your question. That you should be so dismissive of it is strange to me.

[Alric]

Has anyone mentioned yet that the alienation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation) of labour would still be present even with "full health care, employment and schooling"?

I think it was touched on, but didn't get much traction.

As with wage-slavery, alienation would be voluntary in a welfare state such as I am proposing, since your time and your money is free as a starting point.

[Alric]

I believe Comrade Positivist was giving you a reasonable answer to your question. That you should be so dismissive of it is strange to me.


His answer is just that capitalism, and all its flaws (instability, trade cycles, inherited wealth etc ) would still exist.

What I'm more interested in is why you would not allow capitalism to exist if people are free to associate with it if they want, or otherwise.

I'm trying to get a better sense of the priorities of revolutionary leftists.

Not trying to be dismissive of anyone. I just cannot reply to everyone, so I have to focus on answers that get at the meat of my question.

I have to go to work now, will replay to your post later on.

Cheers.

[Камо́ Зэд]

As with wage-slavery, alienation would be voluntary in a welfare state such as I am proposing, since your time and your money is free as a starting point.

I have to ask: how are alienation and wage-slavery ever potentially voluntary? By definition, neither of those things can be entered into voluntarily; one does not allow oneself to be exploited if he has the means of freely choosing not to be, completely unencumbered. It is true that every man has the choice whether to be exploited or not in the sense that he can choose to either accept his predicament or take up a struggle against it, but this is analogous to saying that a Black slave would have been free in that any moment, he could've elected to die fighting against his white master and the state that facilitated his "ownership" of another human being.


His answer is just that capitalism, and all its flaws (instability, trade cycles, inherited wealth etc ) would still exist.

Looking at the following exchange, I'm not sure that what you've said really makes sense in context:


How do people get start-up capital now?

Inheritance almost exclusivley (in this I include inhereting good credit reliability), and a couple hundred years ago the nobels and merchants expropriated European peasants [sic]

His answer, and the question it followed, had nothing to do with the persistence of capitalism within your hypothetical scenario; he explained how people acquire start-up capital.


What I'm more interested in is why you would not allow capitalism to exist if people are free to associate with it if they want, or otherwise.

The problem is that this scenario is only possible in an abstracted plane divorced from the realities of capitalism. "Free association" does not exist so long as private ownership of the means of production persists. Any leftist worth his salt doesn't deal in outrageously idealistic hypothetical scenarios; he deals with what is material and practical.

[Marxaveli]

His answer is just that capitalism, and all its flaws (instability, trade cycles, inherited wealth etc ) would still exist.

What I'm more interested in is why you would not allow capitalism to exist if people are free to associate with it if they want, or otherwise.

I'm trying to get a better sense of the priorities of revolutionary leftists.

Not trying to be dismissive of anyone. I just cannot reply to everyone, so I have to focus on answers that get at the meat of my question.

I have to go to work now, will replay to your post later on.

Cheers.

Capitalism, by its very nature, is a class antagonist system. Communists do not want to simplify class antagonisms, we want to eliminate them ENTIRELY.

Capitalism and 'free-association' are mutually exclusive concepts. Besides, Capitalist society itself produces a culture that manifests many divisions: generally, bourgeois hang out with bourgeois, proletarians with proletarians, and there is still a very strong notion in our society that people should marry and associate with only those of who have the same social identities as they do, be it regarding ethnicity, religion, class, or whatever else that we see as being "different" from ourselves. These things create many sub-divisions in both the ruling class and the ruled class, but it is sharper in the latter since there are more us, and because our social existence is largely influenced by bourgeois hegemony. You are viewing things through the lens of Idealism, rather than a Materialist perspective.

[Positivist]

:sleep:
His answer is just that capitalism, and all its flaws (instability, trade cycles, inherited wealth etc ) would still exist.

What I'm more interested in is why you would not allow capitalism to exist if people are free to associate with it if they want, or otherwise.

I'm trying to get a better sense of the priorities of revolutionary leftists.

Not trying to be dismissive of anyone. I just cannot reply to everyone, so I have to focus on answers that get at the meat of my question.

I have to go to work now, will replay to your post later on.

Cheers.

Well, in the specific post you were responding to I didn't even mention the problems of capitalism, I answered your question as to how people acquire start-up capital, though since in my other post I did address these problems, I will explain to you what you seem to misunderstand.

I was explaining earlier that within a hypothetical society where people were confronted by a choice between free association of all producers, and subjugation to individual capitalists, that it is unfeasible that anyone would form the latter.

[Ocean Seal]

Those things would be quite nice, but unfortunately they are not a permanent part of capitalism and its degeneration would lead to their destruction. So no, I would not be happy living in the perfect welfare state prey to the tides of capitalist anarchy.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I like the phrase "prey to the tides of capitalist anarchy", as the history of reformism contains many examples of the bourgeois state rescinding previously granted reforms and the bourgeoisie reneging on concessions to the working class. A prime example being the shifting of a great deal of industrial production to China and other low-wage countries. Just want to reiterate a point I made in a previous post that historical experience seems to show that the notion of a full employment, full healthcare reformist paradise is a fairy tale, and that the OP ought to either concede this or come up with some facts to support his hypothesis.

[Alric]

The problem is that this scenario is only possible in an abstracted plane divorced from the realities of capitalism.


Yes! Absolutely! I understand that! My thread is purely an abstracted plane divorced from the realities of capitalism! I didn't mean to pretend that my questions were anything other than abstract and hypothetical. If I did, excuse me.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yes! Absolutely! I understand that! My thread is purely an abstracted plane divorced from the realities of capitalism! I didn't mean to pretend that my questions were anything other than abstract and hypothetical. If I did, excuse me.

If you admit this, why are you wasting our time with this? If any possible scenario existed in which it was possible to reform capitalism into a just, non-contradictory system, not one of us would look to overthrow capitalism. If this is a satisfying enough answer to your hypothetical, then I have to ask what the point of the hypothetical was to begin with.

[Alric]

Those things would be quite nice, but unfortunately they are not a permanent part of capitalism and its degeneration would lead to their destruction. So no, I would not be happy living in the perfect welfare state prey to the tides of capitalist anarchy.

Thanks.

[Alric]

If any possible scenario existed in which it was possible to reform capitalism into a just, non-contradictory system, not one of us would look to overthrow capitalism.

No, not according to the answers given in this thread. For many, class divisions in principle are the issue, not a just system. Maybe those two things are equal to you I don't know. But they are not to me.

To me there are two very separate issues:

1) poverty

2) equality

These two things are world apart. I am trying to find out which of these are most important to people on this forum. In what order, and in what relationship.

For what it's worth, my impression is that there are a variety of opinions here. Some of you prioritize poverty, some of your prioritize equality (the dissolution of class relationships ), some of you think that the two are inexorably linked and it's pointless to try to talk about remedying one without involving the other.

As a speculation, I think many of you prioritize equality out of the two, but you are reticent to answer "yes" to my abstract question because you are so eager to argue that capitalism is unstable.

If you want to add anything to improve my sense of what this board is all about feel free.

Or feel free to move on to more important things.

All food for thought.

Thanks for your time.

[Prinskaj]

For what it's worth, my impression is that there is a variety of opinions here. Some of you prioritize poverty, some of your prioritize equality (the dissolution of class relationships ), some of you think that the two are inexorably linked and it's pointless to try to talk about remedying one without involving the other.
Poverty and equality are merely constructs of the capitalist system, and they can therefore not be separated. Why are you so upset about wanting us to pick two thinks that are so clearly interlinked?
We are anti-capitalist, because the solution to those issues, and many others, require the abolishment of the capitalist mode of production.

[Камо́ Зэд]

No, not according to the answers given in this thread. For many, class divisions in principle are the issue, not a just system. Maybe those two things are equal to you I don't know. But they are not to me.


The thing is that the system is class division. It seems the answers you've received have been pretty consistent in prioritizing working class power over the issue of poverty in the sense that the subjugation of the working class by the ruling class is the very source of poverty. That there are different classes isn't just an issue of inequality of income or spending power; it is an inequality of productive relations. It means that one small group of people collectively has its finger on the pulse of human civilization; the bourgeoisie violently defends its control over human productive endeavor. The contradiction of which I wrote earlier is the contradiction between the ownership of that which is produced and the character of the productive forces responsible for its creation. The resolution of this contradiction occurs through the revolution of the working class against the ruling class. Ideas have been formulated in the past concerning ways that may allow private ownership to persist while at the same time resolving this contradiction; this is characteristic of the fascist ideal in which a bourgeoisie, morally rejuvenated by the seizure of power by a fascistic vanguard, is persuaded to use their perceived inherent capacity for creativity and production for the good of the nation. Of course, in reality what occurs is that the bourgeoisie more overtly asserts dominance over the working class through state-sanctioned terrorism. If it was possible to avoid this, if it was somehow possible to empower the working class while at the same time allowing private ownership to persist (as some syndicalists or anarchist-capitalists may insist), we would look to reform capitalism into such a non-contradictory mode of existence or to morally rejuvenate the classes as they exist now, as was the suggestion of Georges Sorel.

But, again, any leftist worth his salt doesn't deal in abstracts or idealistic hypothetical scenarios. Principle is one thing, but it is inexorably linked to what is material and practical. Ultimately, what you've asked was whether, if capitalism could ever be made to be "good" as we define it, we would still want to destroy it. And the answers you've gotten seem to me to pretty consistently say: "The only 'good' capitalism is no capitalism."

[Alric]

The thing is that the system is class division. It seems the answers you've received have been pretty consistent in prioritizing working class power over the issue of poverty in the sense that the subjugation of the working class by the ruling class is the very source of poverty. That there are different classes isn't just an issue of inequality of income or spending power; it is an inequality of productive relations. It means that one small group of people collectively has its finger on the pulse of human civilization; the bourgeoisie violently defends its control over human productive endeavor. The contradiction of which I wrote earlier is the contradiction between the ownership of that which is produced and the character of the productive forces responsible for its creation. The resolution of this contradiction occurs through the revolution of the working class against the ruling class. Ideas have been formulated in the past concerning ways that may allow private ownership to persist while at the same time resolving this contradiction; this is characteristic of the fascist ideal in which a bourgeoisie, morally rejuvenated by the seizure of power by a fascistic vanguard, is persuaded to use their perceived inherent capacity for creativity and production for the good of the nation. Of course, in reality what occurs is that the bourgeoisie more overtly asserts dominance over the working class through state-sanctioned terrorism. If it was possible to avoid this, if it was somehow possible to empower the working class while at the same time allowing private ownership to persist (as some syndicalists or anarchist-capitalists may insist), we would look to reform capitalism into such a non-contradictory mode of existence or to morally rejuvenate the classes as they exist now, as was the suggestion of Georges Sorel.

But, again, any leftist worth his salt doesn't deal in abstracts or idealistic hypothetical scenarios. Principle is one thing, but it is inexorably linked to what is material and practical. Ultimately, what you've asked was whether, if capitalism could ever be made to be "good" as we define it, we would still want to destroy it. And the answers you've gotten seem to me to pretty consistently say: "The only 'good' capitalism is no capitalism."

Yeah, I'm aware that you guys think thank implementing communism will abolish class divisions. Personally, I think this is ridiculous. But I choose not to argue it because I know it's like trying to convince a Muslum that there is more than one God apart from Allah. It's just not going to go anywhere.
Like religion, politics is more about values and hopes than facts (unfortunately).

Neither are you going to convince me of the need for any kind of armed revolution against capitalism.

But as a curious soul I am interested in all sorts of views. So I thank you for your time.

Bye.

[Prinskaj]

Yeah, I'm aware that you guys think thank implementing communism will abolish class divisions. Personally, I think this is ridiculous.
A communist society is defined primarily as a classless society, so how on earth wouldn't it abolish class divisions?

But I choose not to argue it because I know it's like trying to convince a Muslum that there is more than one God apart from Allah. It's just not going to go anywhere.
No, you dismiss the point of communism, because you haven't even looked up the definition on wikipedia.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Yeah, I'm aware that you guys think thank implementing communism will abolish class divisions. Personally, I think this is ridiculous.

Communism is not what abolishes class divisions. Communism is the condition of human civilization of those classes having been abolished.


But I choose not to argue it because I know it's like trying to convince a Muslum that there is more than one God apart from Allah. It's just not going to go anywhere.
Like religion, politics is more about values and hopes than facts (unfortunately).

Politics, values, and indeed hopes are not separate from fact, at least not necessarily. Marx, for instance, analyzed facts that could be objectively observed by anyone applying a scientific methodology to their observations, and from this arose the Marxist political agenda, the endeavor to implement this scientific understanding of the natural laws that govern human society in the practice of transforming human society. That you should compare our politics to religion suggests that not only have you elected to ignore what facts do exist to support the agendas in question, you've also elected to believe that, in the face of fact, we will hold onto our agendas like dogma. A Muslim can potentially be convinced on the probably non-existence of his god; to say that I am like a Muslim who is unable of being convinced of this is (besides smacking somewhat of religious chauvinism) means that you have decided that I am closed to any and all arguments to the contrary.


Neither are you going to convince me of the need for any kind of armed revolution against capitalism.

Now, the conclusion that you instead are the one who is closed to any argument is not one that I have reached arbitrarily, but is one to which you've openly admitted. Do not project your own prejudices onto anyone else.


But as a curious soul I am interested in all sorts of views.

The apparent attitude you've admitted to taking with regards to politics and specifically your own view with regards to revolution against capitalism and the elimination of class suggests that your curiosity has its own agenda beyond merely satisfying a desire to gain knowledge for its own sake. And your dismissive attitude towards our many elucidations on leftist theories suggests that you haven't done a very good job of gaining knowledge on behalf of any agenda at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The apparent attitude you've admitted to taking with regards to politics and specifically your own view with regards to revolution against capitalism and the elimination of class suggests that your curiosity has its own agenda beyond merely satisfying a desire to gain knowledge for its own sake. And your dismissive attitude towards our many elucidations on leftist theories suggests that you haven't done a very good job of gaining knowledge on behalf of any agenda at all.

Good point. Hey Alric, did you not see my post on alienated labour? Why didn't you comment on it?

[Alric]

Good point. Hey Alric, did you not see my post on alienated labour? Why didn't you comment on it?

I thought I did? I guess I agree with you.

As someone who has worked for months at a time on an assembly line, I can certainly relate to the concept of alienation. :p Marx's criticism of the division of labour is one of the few things he wrote about that I think is profound.
I'm always surprised at peoples willingness to do some of the jobs they do. I'd go batshit crazy.

But in relation to what I asked in this thread, things are a bit different. Division of labour is obviously inevitable in capitalism, but as I keep saying my proposal is that participation in the capitalist economy be totally voluntary.

Strangely, I think that a surprising amount of people would choose dehumanising jobs chasing the $, even if they didn't have to, cause that's just the way a lot of people seem to be wired. But it's senseless to talk about a worker being tyrannised by meaningless work when he does not have to work. He is free to paint picture, write philosophical novels, play with his nuts, walk his dog, do whatever he wants to do.

I would feel sorry for people who choose to work repetitive menial jobs. But who care? Maybe they enjoy it? I feel sorry for people who like the band Matchbox 20, too. But it's a choice.

[Rafiq]

Of course we would be more than happy with all of those things. That was never hte problem. This is what we would call a false question. The question resides as to whether capitalism can sustain all of those things, and for how long. (?)

If you pressupose capitalism is capable of all of those things, moreover, if you pressupose that any variant of a mode of production is simply a product of our will, an expression of our desires, of course your question will remain a question worth answering. But this simply isn't the case.

[Positivist]

I thought I did? I guess I agree with you.
As someone who has worked for months at a time on an assembly line, I can certainly relate to the concept of alienation. :p Marx's criticism of the division of labour is one of the few things he wrote about that I think is profound.
I'm always surprised at peoples willingness to do some of the jobs they do. I'd go batshit crazy.
But in relation to what I asked in this thread, things are a bit different. Division of labour is obviously inevitable in capitalism, but as I keep saying my proposal is that participation in the capitalist economy be totally voluntary.
Strangely, I think that a surprising amount of people would choose dehumanising jobs chasing the $, even if they didn't have to, cause that's just the way a lot of people seem to be wired. But it's senseless to talk about a worker being tyrannised by meaningless work when he does not have to work. He is free to paint picture, write philosophical novels, play with his nuts, walk his dog, do whatever he wants to do.
I would feel sorry for people who choose to work repetitive menial jobs. But who care? Maybe they enjoy it? I feel sorry for people who like the band Matchbox 20, too. But it's a choice.

Two gaping problems with this post.

1.) The suggestion that participation in the capitalist economy is voluntary.
- This doesn't even make sense to be honest. Legally, no one has to buy commodities, or accept exploitative, alienating labor, but then again no one legally has to breath or drink water either but if they don't, they'll die, and some of us have an affinity for this life thing.

2.) The suggestion that people are wired to pursue "the dollar" over favorable working conditions.
-What do you base this off of? Where are the big bucks in factory work? Its a pretty alienating job, but you'll he hard pressed to find too many factroy workers making above minimum wage. Furthermore, the notion that people are wired to single-mindedly pursue the accumulation of material wealth is quite absurd, and is in blatant contradiction to historical fact.

[Positivist]

Yeah, I'm aware that you guys think thank implementing communism will abolish class divisions. Personally, I think this is ridiculous. But I choose not to argue it because I know it's like trying to convince a Muslum that there is more than one God apart from Allah. It's just not going to go anywhere.
Like religion, politics is more about values and hopes than facts (unfortunately).


This assertion is based on the premise that politics, like religion, is by and large an inherited set of beliefs. While this can be the case, I challenge you to find any Marxist who was brought up as a Marxist, or even as a socialist. Since the collapse of the Soviet union, the transmission of Marxism as a set of political beliefs institutionalized within a society has been non-existent, with the possible exception of China (though even China has been promoting an un-marxian "market socialism" for thirty years now.) This being recgnized, how do you presume we here have become marxists, other than by rationally examining Marxist assertions against contrary assertions? How have you developed your political beliefs?

[fug]

I sure would given that there's an army of permanently unemployed people desperate for a job...

[rti]

It looks like most of you are all about justice for the exploited, and the need to provide healthcare and jobs. If a society can provide all these things, do you still insist there must be a communist revolution? "Full employment" can be a bit of a problem, cause lets face it there's a fine live between full employment and slavery. But say a person in a society has a choice to work, or if he/she prefers leisure, just gets a cheque every week to cover all expenses.

Yes because problems goes much deeper then just access to basic resources.

[Jason]

There can be seemingly full healthcare, jobs, and education in an oppressor nation, yet none of these things in the oppressed one. That's what you call a "welfare state".

For instance, the UK creates super-profits from imperalism and uses it to fund it's welfare state. The moral of the story being: "There is no such thing as a free lunch; somebody has to pay for a capitalist welfare state."