Restaurants in a Communist State

[timbaly]

How would restaurants function under communism? When I refer to communism I mean a stateless society with direct democracy. Since there would be no currency and resources are open to anyone who needs or wants them, as long as it is not waste, how would restaurants run? If anyone could go to a restaurant when theywanted to without having to pay for it, wouldn't they do it constantly. Wouldn't this create constant overcrowding? If the people can get food for free and not have to prepare it themselves wouldn't they go to restaurants everyday? Whats the incentive to make your own meals?

Some people say that you will cook at home because there you can cook what you want. in a restaurant you're limited to a menu. But many people I know could live off a restaurant menu and would do so if they could afford it.

Another idea regarding food in communism is that it could be served cafeteria style. Large quantities of food could be produced by a few chefs while most of the people can do something else rather than cook. But if you were regulated to this you have not have awide variety of choices in your diet. I suppose the idea is more productive than every person cooking their own meal, but the option to cook your own must still be there if this idea is implemented.

[truthaddict11]

i am sure resteraunts will still be around if you were given 5 dollars every night to spend on food would you go eat out every night? do people flock to IHOP or Wafflehouse for dollar pancakes? and most people today dont even cook most of their meals, usually its adding milk butter and water and there you have dinner. i really dont have the time and patience to cook an entire meal from scratch every night.
the food industry employs millions of people, many people are chefs, waiters,waitresses by career. My mom has been a waitress on and off for 20 years

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I would say local cafeteria style food distribution centers would be very effective, but then people also like to cook, so let them. If society can afford all you can eat buffets, great. If not, you ration food out, and if it isn't enough, a personal garden should tie up the lose ends. (Even if it is a bit petty bourgouise like).

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:07 PM
i am sure resteraunts will still be around if you were given 5 dollars every night to spend on food would you go eat out every night? do people flock to IHOP or Wafflehouse for dollar pancakes? and most people today dont even cook most of their meals, usually its adding milk butter and water and there you have dinner. i really dont have the time and patience to cook an entire meal from scratch every night.

So you think people wouldn't eat out every night. I think they would do it far more often than not, though not every single day. The food you cook at home normally doesn't taste as good as food cooked by proffessional chefs. The foods you add water to don't taste as good as a real cooked meal. Now if people were able to get the professionally cooked meal for free don't you think they would do it very frequently?

[cormacobear]

it would be a simple matter of it being a larger portion of your entitelment. Or restaurant use could be rationed to.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 10:45 PM
[
So you think people wouldn't eat out every night. I think they would do it far more often than not, though not every single day. The food you cook at home normally doesn't taste as good as food cooked by proffessional chefs. The foods you add water to don't taste as good as a real cooked meal. Now if people were able to get the professionally cooked meal for free don't you think they would do it very frequently?
no i dont think that people would eat out everynight, people dont even do that now even if they can afford it. i dont think that will change under communism

i think big "cafeteria style" meals are a bad idea we arent in summer camp anymore plus i dont want to eat overheated slop all the time. for food distribution i think a special card or id up to technology standards of the current time and virtually fraud proof will be used, you will go into a grocery store pick up what you need for the day, week, weekend, ect and everything you buy will be recorded on that card, kind of like a debit card. I think that would be a good way to prevent food hoarding.

[Kez]

depends if u can be arsedd to go out and eat everyday, id find it quicker to do it at home

plus in a resturant u cant eat naked can u?

[Faceless]

Just a thought but surely the more people eat in restaurants, the less they eat at home. Wouldn't you just shift resources according to where there is demand until you have a happy medium? I'm sure that people wouldn't just eat until they're fat but in a Socialist economy productivity would be so much greater that it would most likely be possible to support an obese population although few would disagree that people try to watch their weight. The only problem is in the 3rd world where it is only just possible to nourish the population. Hence Marxism was designed for the industrial society.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

As much as you hate "overheated cafeteria food", I'm sure you wouldn't mind it if you would be starving otherwise, e.g. 3rd world country.

[toastedmonkey]

I often think of a currencyless society, it works great as an idea, but has a few pratical issues.

A solution would be a credit system, you have so much credit depending on how hard you have worked and how deserving you are (obviously this will be difficult to judge and measure). You can spend this credit on whatever you want; night clubs, resturants, days out etc. Whatever you wanted.

the debit card idea mentioned by truthaddict, would work fine, if you need more food, you would have to justify why, or why youve been wasteful with what you had.

[redstar2000]

I suppose the first consideration would be how many people want to cook professionally and how hard they want to work at that.

It's a rewarding occupation to some...especially when they can bring their creativity into play. But "assembly-line" cooking is unlikely to be a "popular choice". Assembly-line anything is unlikely to be a popular choice.

"Heat & eat" meals have improved a lot over the last 40 years and more people eat them than ever. I'm one of them...I would rather sit at home in my bathrobe with a book to read while I'm eating. Of course, I add spices, additional toppings, etc. to "jazz up" a dish beyond the typical American blandness of flavor.

To many, dining is an important part of their social lives...the food is less important than the company. They will want some place to go just to be with the people they like.

One model might be the "food court"...a large common dining area with small kitchens scattered around the periphery where food prepared by professionals is available--or even where you could prepare a meal for yourself, or a group of friends could prepare a larger meal to share among themselves (clean up your mess afterwards!).

The "high-end" restaurant is likely to be a casualty of the revolution...it would, for better or worse, be seen as a "symbol" of the old order. After five or ten decades of communism, it might make a limited come-back...when the class associations have had time to dissipate. People will continue to have "special occasions" in their lives that they want to celebrate in "appropriate" surroundings.

I do think "card-swipe" technology is actually quite crucial to communism...both to ration scarce goods in the early days and, more importantly, to keep track of what people both desire and use in the long run. Whatever kind of economic planning that we decide is best, reliable data is required to make it work.

Finally, I can't help but wonder if it is possible to raise "fast food" to the status of food? A few capitalist chains manage to at least approach this--most are awful of course...you may as well eat the packaging. If this could be done--and automated!--that would provide a ubiquitous "fall-back" alternative. I'd happily settle for a platter of spicy chicken wings, some fries and biscuits on many an evening. In fact, I make that at home now. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

A solution would be a credit system, you have so much credit depending on how hard you have worked The offering of bonuses for luxury goods maybe but I am of the opinion that in a socialist society (after reactionary influences are dead) food would not be a major concern. Rationing should be absolutly equal for food though because labour has a social content. How do you equate the hours of one labourer with those of another?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Although it is necessary to reward certain occupations in a socialist society more then others, e.g. scientists, vs someone manning a toll booth. I feel it is necessary to distribute food on the basis of need only, regardless of what someone has done for it.

[Chewillneverdie]

sigh, i like to eat guys, and i dont like to eat shit, when i dish out money for a good meal, i expect it to be fucking good. Should someone at mcdonalds make as much as a guy making sushi. I dont think so, you know how hard it is to make sushi perfect? Really fuckin hard. If i made as much as i would working at mcdonalds, i would be pissed, and prob spit in your food lol. If all you did was work, eat the same food, sleep, repeat, the new government will crash.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 07:18 PM
Although it is necessary to reward certain occupations in a socialist society more then others, e.g. scientists, vs someone manning a toll booth. I feel it is necessary to distribute food on the basis of need only, regardless of what someone has done for it.
i disagree, communism should be classless by rewarding those in "better" jobs more than those in "lesser" jobs you are creating classes all over again.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 11:34 AM
communism should be classless by rewarding those in "better" jobs more than those in "lesser" jobs you are creating classes all over again.
exactly.


you have so much credit depending on how hard you have worked and how deserving you are (obviously this will be difficult to judge and measure).

This doesnt mean a scientist should get more that an engineer, both of these occupations will be equally as important as each other.

faceless: It would be respective to the job your in, comparing a scientist to a engineer is wrong because, because they are doing entirely different things, you would compare the engineer with another engineer, and a scientist with another scientist.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Destroying classes is the eventual goal, but it for people who have lived with a capitalist mindset for their entire lives, it will be necessary to pay people for the quality and quantity of their work. It will be great when we can truely live to the paradigm of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" however, until people will contribute 100% of their ability and take only what they need, the govt. will need to manage who gets what, and try to engineer things to go as smoothly as possible, trying to eradicate poverty, and ending extravagant waste. If we pay scientists as much as we pay toll booth operators, then naturally, most everyone will want to take the easy way out. Furthermore, it is not practical to pay an engineer who does the minimum amount possible to someone an exceptional worker. Eventually, I think the best solution would be for the government to place people in jobs base on a combonation of tests to show their interests and ablitities, and society's need for someone of a particular skill. Once there, a quota system could be set up. Then everyone would truely be equal. However, this system would require considerable government planning, and rearranging the economy quickly would risk a total economic collapse. Therefore, I would advocate the immediate implimentation a socialist economic system based on the jobs that the people had under capitalism (most working class jobs at least), and then start phasing out the socialist system after 5 years, as we can start placing people in jobs that people are best at and society needs, and establishing quotas based on the people's needs.

[Faceless]

you would compare the engineer with another engineer, and a scientist with another scientist. But by using credit (another word for currency) this is the very way in which (albeit inadvertenly) you are equating x hours in this job with y hours in another. Say scientists (by coincidence) have a lot of cleverer than average people in field X than an average scientist receives less credit but another field Y has more evenly spread intelligence and credit is shared on an equal basis. The scientist in X is not treated as the average scientist in Y. I believe that you have to treat men as equals on products such as food, accomodation (arranged according to NEED) and all basics at minimum.

[Al Creed]

Im guessing, since restaurants will not be serving food for profit, will this spell the end of Fast Food Restaurants such as McDonalds?

I hope so.

[dannie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 12:44 AM
I often think of a currencyless society, it works great as an idea, but has a few pratical issues.

A solution would be a credit system, you have so much credit depending on how hard you have worked and how deserving you are (obviously this will be difficult to judge and measure). You can spend this credit on whatever you want; night clubs, resturants, days out etc. Whatever you wanted.

the debit card idea mentioned by truthaddict, would work fine, if you need more food, you would have to justify why, or why youve been wasteful with what you had.
but if you create a system like that, i think that in the long run, you will create classes

if someone works like he is able to work, but his job isn't considerd equal to someone elses job and gets less credits, chances are that the higher-credit jobs wil form some sort of class, because they have more credits to spend

the how deserving you are part is better, because a family with 5 kids and a mom and dad that don't work really hard because they can't earn less than a family with 3 kids and a mom and dad that work hard because they can

don't mind my crappie english

[Faceless]

I hope so. More resources will go into quality than profit. Imagine what a Big Mac would be worth (with currency) considering what its made of. 3 or 4 pence / cents

[dannie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 11:04 PM
Im guessing, since restaurants will not be serving food for profit, will this spell the end of Fast Food Restaurants such as McDonalds?

I hope so.
it will bring the end to these chains but not to what they serve, it will be people's own choice to eat burgers if they like to eat burgers

[Chewillneverdie]

should peoples lives be picked out for them? their jobs and their house? I dont think so

[toastedmonkey]

Perhaps, it would be an idea for the community to decide.

The community around a worker, will have an understanding of how hard they have worked and of how deserving they are, the communities could then put forward some kind of reward of "credits", with which the family could do what they wanted.

[Faceless]

Perhaps, it would be an idea for the community to decide. The qualitative value of labour underpins the Labour Theory of Value and whilst, as a means of equalising things, it may be neccessary to reward the exceptional workers it can not be based merely on output. You are probably right in saying it should be judged qualitatively too.

[Chewillneverdie]

people need motivation, that is where the Soviet Union fucked up in my opinion. If my life was already decided by the day i was born, i would be fucking pissed.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Im not sure exactly how things worked in the Soviet Union in that sence, and I really doubt your job is chosen (if it is chosen) from when you are born. If it is, it would be after you are finished with your education, but is it really that bad? Just think of it this way, at least you will have a way of life ensured for you. As much as we would all like to do whatever we want, economic anarchy would go over with a socialist economy like a flying brick. We need to take up the occupation that society needs us to do.

[redstar2000]

We need to take up the occupation that society needs us to do.

Translation: we need to do whatever our "superior" thinks we ought to do.

No.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[toastedmonkey]

Even if people are needed for certain occupations, it would be wrong for them to be forced into it.

Everyone should still be able to choose what occupation to go into, if there is an occupation shortage (like doctors in the uk). There would be encouragement for young people still in education to go into those jobs, perhaps heavy "advertising" around them?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Come on, there is nothing wrong with a well managed economy. Economic anarchy can only work well in a capitalist system. No, you shouldn't have to take the occuption that your superior wants you to, you should take that occupation that is you would have an affinity to, and that city manangement most desperately needs people for. The final placement for someones placement into a job would give consideration to both aspects, what you want to do, and what needs to be done.

[Chewillneverdie]

yes yes midnight, force em to do a job, come and tell me im gonna have a pointless life to serve the "motherland" youll get a shotgun round to the face. That is if you try to force me. Tell the american people they are gonna have to be this or that and you'd almost always get the same reply. "Fuck you i wont do you tell me" seems to fit what you are saying. lol

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

There is nothing wrong with saying here's your job, take it or leave. If everyone is paid the same, then naturally everyone will opt to be a toll booth operater rather then a sewage treatment specialist. You also have to realize, there are some people who can are willing to take 7, 10 years of training of a highly skilled job, and there are others who either lack the capacity or the ambition to do so (or money, in capitalism). What if not enough people want to be farmers to cultivate enough land to feed everyone? What if we end up with more toll booth operaters then there are toll booths? What if the timber industry doesnt harvest enough wood to build housing for everyone? I believe a socialist economy must be something that is carefully planned by city management to make everything come together perfectly. How would a football game be played if everyone just ran around as they pleased? Likewise a socialist system is like a team. Everyone must work together towards a common purpose. Naturally, some people aren't team players, so they can be deported somewhere where they can kiss some corporate ass or squander in poverty.

[timbaly]

The conversation about food and restaurants seems to have turned into this argument about what jobs you will have. I must disagree with MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr. i don't see why you should be forced into taken whats given to you, there must be choice in the equation. Even if you forced to a job using skills that you're good at it wouldn't be fair. I've been an exceptional math student, but i hate math, it would crush me to be forced to become a math teacher for life. People should be encouraged to get jobs that are lacking in people, but never forced into it against his or her own will.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I'm saying take what you like into consideration, but put society's needs into consideration too. If you suck at math, then obviously you wont be a calc teacher. What I am saying is that society's needs into consideration too. A person should be placed into the job that they are most suited for, that they enjoy, and that society needs. Making would-be scientists into clumsy milkmaids, and would-be toll booth operators into inept scientists obviously won't work. (I know I've just butchered both groups of people into unfair steriotypes, but this is only an example folks.) If everyone is paid exactly the same, then naturally everyone will take the easiest job possible, and trying to manipulate wages without an all out free market on labor, would be very difficult, and to allow the market to dictate what certain people make in order to try and balance things out that would be rather unfair, and it's just not the Marxist way. (I.E. we need 30,000 farmers, try and figure out the best amount to pay farmers so that about 30,000 people will want to be farmers.) The point here is to encourage people to take up more difficult, specialized occupations, but yet not make it so that certain people are in riches, and others, in rags. Now you bring up the point that maybe there is a family with a single mother supporting 5 children. Now, what I propose is as far as wages are concerned, break up the family into 5 separate entities, and include education as "work" that should be paid for, with a rather small wage, more of a symbolic significance then anything else, as an incentive to do well in school (great esp. for dysfuncional families that do not encourage their children). Then, the parent would have their wage, and the children would get their token amounts of money, and the standard of living is relatively equal. Granted that education up to Ph.D. , daycare, food, housing, and medical all are free under any responsible Marxist society, children shouldn't be a huge strain as they are now, for a working mother who can't afford daycare. I'm not saying that being a single parent raising 5 children would be easy, I'm just saying it would be a whole lot easier then under the capitalist system. I realize that this is like trying to describe the universe by declaring that it is rather black, but its a start.

[Chewillneverdie]

fuckyou midnight, ill decide my future, no one else will. come on tell me what to do with my life, trust me, ill do whatever the hell i want, as long as its reasonable. Also if i like to do it, "uh sir will you come with me, we need a new frycook for the rest of ur life" lol thats what ur telling me will happen? well FUCK that

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think unspecialized jobs like that could be rotated amongst lesser skilled workers, to reduce the tedium for them. Okie dokie Chewillneverdie, just do whatever you want! We don't want to manage a government run economy! Why, free market for all comrade! We don't want to tell anyone what to do! Lets just let you start your own businuss, and hire workers as you please who "enjoy" working there, and since we are all such nice people, we won't try and dictate how much you pay them because we aren't tyrants! After all if it weren't for you, those scumbags wouldn't have jobs! You can just treat them like the slime that they are! Freedom! YAY! Revolution! Cool dude!
Pfft...capitalist....

[andresG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 11:37 PM
If everyone is paid exactly the same, then naturally everyone will take the easiest job possible...
I think this is true under capitalism, where we must work in order to survive.

Hell, if everyone was paid exactly the same, you could bet I would go for the "easiest" job. :lol:

But under communism I think work would become soemthing we like and enjoy.
Work would be something that really interests us.

What's the difference between being forced to work in capitalism and being forced to a job in communism?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Working is an obligation, everyone has to do it. Being forced to work in either case wouldn't be much different. If you don't want to take a job, go live in the woods, farm your own food, build your own house, and dance naked amongst the trees, and live completely independent of society, more power to ya, but don't expect any government food or housing anytime soon. Keep the medical, since we are compassionate folks, and I don't think enough people would do that to totally crash the educational system built for the masses, so again, I say leave education free to woodsfolks because we are compassionate folks. If they ever choose to join society then, there will be a job waiting for them. However, don't expect they can raise kids in a hermatic enviroment. The state needs some authority in order to ensure the best development of all children. Meaning an the full 12 year state run education no matter how much their hillbilly folks stomp their feet down and complain that their kids are larnin some newfangled scientifimatic godless garbage. Who knows, maybe they might go to college, and one day marry someone outside the family.

[Chewillneverdie]

lol capitalist, jesus how many times do i have to explain, im not communist, im not anarchist, im not realy anything. Im buddhist, but that just teaches me to care for other people and not to harm people. So of course i wouldnt force anyone to do something they didnt want to, I work at a golf course, its boring and i get paid shit, lol i dunno if i could ever find it interesting, thank god i get to work for an architect this summer making $14 an hour, dont worry i donate almost half of what i make lol. Just gotta save up for college.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Do you really need a religion to teach you not to harm people?? More then anything else, a Communist wants to help society before themselves, and job placement enables them to do just that.

[Chewillneverdie]

before i converted to buddhism, i slit my wrists and was suicidal, then when i read his teachings, (the Buddha) and i just started following him and meditating, no gods or that shit, just trying to live my life to the best i can and understanding my life. Doesnt Communism also say that society is more important than themselves?

[andresG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 09:34 PM
Being forced to work in either case wouldn't be much different...
Will you have a whip in hand, ready to discipline those disobedient workers?

[Chewillneverdie]

whip the workers the workers will whip you

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

No, if you don't work, you just won't get anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

Chewillneverdie


Doesnt Communism also say that society is more important than themselves?

Communism says that the existance of society for allis more important than youself.

Do not listen to MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr he has no idea what a communist is!

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:37 AM
No, if you don't work, you just won't get anything.
so if i dont work under capitalism i'll starve,
if i dont take the shit job forced on me in your "communism" i starve

you arent a communist you just want to be another boss.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, if you don't have to work, you won't work. You MUST work, thats just how things work. There is no way around it. You must work to survive. That's not a very difficult concept to understand.

[truthaddict11]

no ,under capitalism you must work in order to survive. have you ever had to work to survive? do you even have a job?

communism isnt forced labor , i dont know why i should have to work YOUR stupid assigned job or YOUR stupid hours just to survive.

[Chewillneverdie]

yeah, i realy dont follow stupid orders, so the guy assigning my life better be really careful. lol does midnight know anything? he trashed buddhism than just stopped when we asked him what he knew about it he just stopped talking about it

[Chewillneverdie]

so midnight if i end up getting cancer and not being able to work? will i end up dying since im not working and able to afford food, i wish u thought before you spoke

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If you have cancer, then obviously you cant work, and you are supported by the state, and the treatments you need are free. However, if you have a laziness disorder, society cannot be expected to cater to you. Why would anyone work if they didn't have to?

[The Feral Underclass]

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

You do understand you're not a communist don't you?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

OK, Anarchist Tension, what would be your ideal economy? Obviously you aren't in support of my view of a nationalized economic system, and you say you don't like the free market system. Come on, one or the other. Unless you have something else in mind? If you have something better in mind, then be my guest, explain away.

[Xprewatik RED]

You could give people limits to how much they could attend a certain restraunt per year. Maybe the cafeteria style restraunt could be any day. But maybe a classyer restraunt could be limited to 12 times a year so that people use it for special occasions. There has to be some sort of orders to things. You still will have a boss and you will still have deadlines or else the factory you work at takes more resources to run than it can create. If workers at a powerplant decide this week they are going to sleep that cannot be tolerated, doesn't matter what they say if a population has hospitals to run the common good overrides a few peoples decision to exercise their will.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Lol. I think the restaurants topic was left back in the dust a few pages ago :P

[Xprewatik RED]

hehe..it seems i always get to a post when its dead...

[timbaly]

I've already said that i disagree with MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr but i will say that advertising professions that need more workers is definetely a good idea. it shouldn't be advertising that glamourizes the job. it should be realistic, telling you wht is required, that way people know what they're getting into. plus those who lack the skill for the job would be more likely to not even consider that certain job.

[bush youth]

Promoting jobs seems reasonable to some extent, but even then, if we could all be artists or musicians, who would want to clean the streets?

Would greed kick in again… when it becomes known that a worker for a crappy job is wanted, only the people with the best will would take the “crappy job” leaving the greediest and most bitter people with all the good ones?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, I would imagine that crappier jobs would be conpensated with shorter hours and higher pay. I don't imagine that you would have to force a person to take one job necessarily, but try to engineer things so that they have some options availible to them.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by bush [email protected] 4 2004, 03:33 AM
Promoting jobs seems reasonable to some extent, but even then, if we could all be artists or musicians, who would want to clean the streets?
Surely we couldnt all be musicians and artists, you would have to be talented to in these areas to have an occupation in this area?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

We can all be musicians and artists through government funded social programs to bring the arts to the people.

[crazy comie]

Evrything should be done by From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. in the final stage of society the highest state of communism. But before that pepole will get paid on time and intensity of labour.

[The Feral Underclass]

My point about you not being a communist is because you keep harping on about the state...the state and communism oppose each other fundamentally...a bit like tomatoe ketchup and vanilla ice cream only vastly more profound.

As for economics I am an anarcho-communist....read conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin and then you will know.

Conquest of Bread (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

To you, yes, but not to everyone.

[The Feral Underclass]

No...this is what is so fucked up...it isnt only to me...it was to karl marx and all the ther communists that followed him....it is the point of the ideology, that's why it was thought up...im not making it up....THAT'S WHAT THE IDEOLOGY IS!!!

[truthaddict11]

why are people talking about wage pay under "communism" ive always thought that one point of communism was to end wage slavery :rolleyes: and dont different wages for different jobs creat classes? :rolleyes:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You can't just abolish money and expect everyone to run along and to their happy-go-lucky lives. It is the eventual goal, but you just can't work it like that with 6 billion people and a pre-existing capitalist system. Different pay for different jobs doesn't create classes. What creates classes is the bourgiouse owning all the capital and the proletarian selling their ability to work for the capitalists in order to survive, while the bourgiouse reap all the rewards. Besides I don't think wage differences should be that great anyways, just enough to encourage people to be theoretical physicists instead of toll booth operators. Furthermore, the system should give people everything free and equal of what matters, health, education, food, housing, etc, and the token amount extra would be all that is varied.

[truthaddict11]

is there a shortage of scientists??? :o

people can chose there jobs without the incentives of "higher pay" since you are offering goods and sevices for free then why the hell would you offer higher pay for other jobs? maybe people chose jobs that arent scientists doctors or some other profession because they dont like it, higher pay isnt gonna change it. i took medical magnet courses all through school and after i graduated i didnt want anything to do with health professions regardless of how much they get paid.

[crazy comie]

Anarchist tension is right marx wanted to abolish the state and money.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Marx wanted to abolish the state and money, but that he didn't say how to do that. It just isn't possible, so we'll have to settle for the dethroning god and destorying capitalism, and being internationalist as possible about it. About rewarding people who take more specialized jobs with higher pay, face it, people are greedy, and greed motivates people. You might want to be a doctor no matter what, but the majority of people would rather spend their days in toll booths. The other alternative is to force people to live up to their potential, and give people the opportunity to only take jobs that would use their full capabilities. It is foolish to place a genius in an assembly line, and likewise to put a mentally retarded person in a position at a research facility. Just give people the opportunity to take jobs that would take advantage of their full potential. Geniuses might enjoy their jobs at the assembly line, but it would be very selfish for them not to do what society needs them to do most. That being to specialize in a field and take furfill their place in society as best as they possibly can. Ideally, we might all like to be doctors, scientists, and toll booth operators, but I doubt anyone spends their days dreaming about becoming a trash collector. Therefore, the government needs to try and match most effeciently, the jobs with the people who can do them.

[toastedmonkey]

the majority of people would rather spend their days in toll boothsI cant imagine why anybody would enjoy working in a toll booth, it doesnt sound like fun, its repetitive, boring etc. dont presume your opinions to be that of the majority.

It is foolish to place a genius in an assembly lineSmilarly, i doubt very much a genius would be content with working on an assemably line, and hence they would not apply for the job, their talanets would be recognised, and communism gives them the freedom to excel in that area.

the government needs to try and match most effeciently, the jobs with the people who can do them.There wont be a government.
And they wouldnt randomnly assign people to jobs. People would go into areas which they are best at, throughout life and education, they will learn that doing what they are best at is the best for society, so naturally they will already be in the best place.
They would be content because they are no longer gready (the new socialist man?), they know they are doing the best they can, which will be the most important thing to them, which will make them happy.

[STI]

Well, the government could issue 'Resteraunt tokens' or something, and, say, 1 token will buy 1 meal at a restaraunt, and each person would have x number of tokens per month.

[crazy comie]

It is possible for state and moeny/private property to be abolished and if you don't think that then you arn't a communist.

[Chewillneverdie]

so what purpose would you have, if no matter what you did everything would stay the same whether you worked your ass off or not?

[crazy comie]

It is simple you work for moral insentives and becuse it is what is best for you and society and you get given what you need/wan't.