Marx Question

[Slobo Is God]

How can unique objects be owned and shared collectively and equally by 100s of millions of people? How is this possible?

[SonofRage]

The same way a national park or a public playground is.

[Slobo Is God]

Should individuals and females be treated as public parks and playgrounds?

Let me give you another example. Let's suppose that there is only one space shuttle mission to the depths of space (Mars or beyond the solar system). And let us suppose that the division of labor has been abolished and 100 million people want to be astronauts. How are 100 million people going to share this space shuttle?

[SonofRage]

I'm a bit disturbed that you put individuals and females as being seperate things but I assume that's not what you meant. People are not property, so it doesn't apply.

As for the astronaut issue, just because everyone wants to be one doesn't mean they would be able to get through the training and requirements.

[Monty Cantsin]

S.I.G i don’t think you understand division of labour.

Its about breaking up one job into many, one form of division of labour. Adam smith through that job should be broken up into small jobs; example ford broke up the building of cars into many parts, making the production faster. But this created problems because it treats people like machines. I could tell you all about it but you should look up Frederick Taylor’s classical management theory, Adam smith his book wealth of nation’s chapter 1.

[Slobo Is God]

I think I have a solid grasp of the division of labor concept. It's really not too complex an issue.

What I'm saying is, let us suppose the division of labor has been abolished. And that therefore people are free to pick and choose the type of labor that they find liberating. Let's suppose everyone decides they want to be an astronaut but there is only one space shuttle. How do we share this?

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Slobo Is [email protected] 30 2003, 08:27 AM
I think I have a solid grasp of the division of labor concept. It's really not too complex an issue.

What I'm saying is, let us suppose the division of labor has been abolished. And that therefore people are free to pick and choose the type of labor that they find liberating. Let's suppose everyone decides they want to be an astronaut but there is only one space shuttle. How do we share this?
umm division of labour has nothing to do with how many people wont to be astronaut so it would be the same as today. people would still go through all the training and tests so only the best wannabe astronaut would get through.


( look up those sources i talked about i still dont think you get it)

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Slobo Is [email protected] 30 2003, 07:27 PM
Let's suppose everyone decides they want to be an astronaut but there is only one space shuttle. How do we share this?
Bring up a realistic situation. Such a situation is not possible...at all.

I, for one, do not want to be an astronaut. I just demolished your hypothetical scenario. It will never happen.

But suppose there is too great a demand for journalism, for example, and not many people want another kind of particular job?

The answer is simple: the community can encourage study of the particular job; lower the workload; make it more interesting -- more stimulating for the mind; reward the occupation with increased funding for better working conditions; have added incentives like better equipment, etc.; to increase want for that particular occupation.

Plus, you will have stop and think; 'do many people have the required skills to be able to write terrific journalistic pieces consistently?' My answer would be no. Maybe they are 'not good enough', even with training.

Better yet, if there are too many journalists plying their trade, then some of them will have to lump it and take up another interest. When openings for journalism come up again, they are always free to apply.

[Slobo Is God]

Just because you don't want to be an astronaut, does not mean that there aren't thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people that DO want to be an astronaut.

Will these thousands of people compete to be the few (elite and inherently unequal) astronauts that get to treat the space shuttle as private property? If they are competing, and laboring to compete, how is this any better than capitalist competition?

[cormacobear]

because everyone starts on an even key there are no advantages do to wealth and access to eductaion. from each according to their ability implies the best person for the job will rise to the top because of personal merit not socail advantages. It is a matter of equal status we need to change peoples perceptions of societal roles and make being an astronaught equal in social status to a garbage man. a job is a job they all have to get done.

[Bradyman]

Slobo, you also have to understand why people want to do a particular job.

In a capitalist society, people would pick a job because it gives them the most amount of money. Instead of becoming a Red Cross doctor in Zaire, people tend to become plastic surgeons.

In a communist society, people would pick jobs because they believe they are good at that area; they would pick a job under the basis of merit. If someone is a damn good railroad worker, he'd recieve much merit for his work, and that will drive him to do work. But, if there are thousands upon thousands of astronauts, there would be little merit in that job since everyone is doing it. Thus, upon seeing this, people will be propelled to pick another job where they can garner more merit or prestige.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Slobo Is [email protected] 31 2003, 10:30 AM
Just because you don't want to be an astronaut, does not mean that there aren't thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people that DO want to be an astronaut.
I want to be a professional football (soccer) player, but I'm just not good enough.

It's the same with the supposedly hundreds of thousands of people (before you said that everyone wants be an astronaut!) -- many just won't be good enough, and tough luck if there aren't enough places.


Will these thousands of people compete to be the few (elite and inherently unequal) astronauts that get to treat the space shuttle as private property?

No, they should be recallable by the community if they are not treating their job with respect.

Just because a few astronauts get to fly a space shuttle into space, this does not mean it is their private property. It is owned by the community, and the community would expect proper treatment of a communal property.


If they are competing, and laboring to compete, how is this any better than capitalist competition?

There's nothing to gain but prestige.

[Slobo Is God]

I want to be a professional football (soccer) player, but I'm just not good enough.
Supposing there are dozens of people equally qualified (as there always are). How would you choose who gets to benefit from the property and who doesn't?


There's nothing to gain but prestige.
So honor and prestige becomes the new capital?

[Slobo Is God]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 01:53 AM
Slobo, you also have to understand why people want to do a particular job.




In a capitalist society, people would pick a job because it gives them the most amount of money. Instead of becoming a Red Cross doctor in Zaire, people tend to become plastic surgeons.
If this is true, why do the vast majority of Red Cross doctors come from capitalist Western countries?


In a communist society, people would pick jobs because they believe they are good at that area; they would pick a job under the basis of merit.
Do you think that people in the West choose to become athletes because they don't believe they are good at that area? Certainly we can find instances in capitalist Western societies where people adavance based on merit.


If someone is a damn good railroad worker, he'd recieve much merit for his work, and that will drive him to do work.
This sounds like capitalism to me.


But, if there are thousands upon thousands of astronauts, there would be little merit in that job since everyone is doing it. Thus, upon seeing this, people will be propelled to pick another job where they can garner more merit or prestige.
But Marx says that in a Communist society people can do whatever they choose.

[Bradyman]

Yes, Slobo, there are many people in this world who have the luxury of choosing a job based on merit.

But, if you were to take a look at these people, they don't have to worry about putting food on the tables, they don't have to worry about a shelter over their heads. The Red Cross doctors, yes, they are doing their job based on merit, but if they didn't have clothes on their backs or money in their pockets, do you honestly think they would be out in Zaire helping children? Of course not. They'd be here getting a job that pays well so they can live. You must have the basic necessesities before you can do what you want.


But Marx says that in a Communist society people can do whatever they choose.

Yes. You are completely right. But you are missing my point. So they can choose whatever job they want, I was just commenting on WHY people choose the job they want.

[LSD]

In a communist society, people would pick jobs because they believe they are good at that area; they would pick a job under the basis of merit.

Do you think that people in the West choose to become athletes because they don't believe they are good at that area? Certainly we can find instances in capitalist Western societies where people adavance based on merit.

Some do, some don't. The point is that under communism, everyone would choose their jobs based one what they can do and not on a paycheck. The fact that something can exist under capitalism does not mean it can't exist under communism,




If someone is a damn good railroad worker, he'd recieve much merit for his work, and that will drive him to do work.

This sounds like capitalism to me.

No, because merit is an internal and not external stimulus. He knows he is good at what he does, others tell him he is good at what he does. He is not getting a bigger house.




But, if there are thousands upon thousands of astronauts, there would be little merit in that job since everyone is doing it. Thus, upon seeing this, people will be propelled to pick another job where they can garner more merit or prestige.


But Marx says that in a Communist society people can do whatever they choose.

Right, but the reasons they pick those jobs.....

Basically the point is that under communism everyone can make this choice, under capitalism most are forced into one job or another lest they starve.