How to reply to the "Garbage Collector" argument?

[RedSunrise]

Hello everyone,

There tend to be two arguments that "educated" conservatives (aka. those who know what it is) use against Communism. The "Human Nature" and the "Garbage Collector" arguments. There have been previous threads on the topic:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-make-t158869/index.html?t=158869

Specifically, there have been great responses like,


I think a key aspect of this question involves a shift from a capitalist mindset to a socialist one. Under capitalism we are made to do tasks that we do not wish to do out of economic necessity. I need a job to eat, the only job on the market is trash duty, thus I am forced to become a garbage collector.

under socialism the process changes from one of coercion to community organization. The capitalist thought process transitions to become: my community wants to get rid of trash, does anyone want to take care of garbage removal? If no one does then the community can organize a rotational system where the unpleasant chore is diluted. By making these unwanted tasks a community job we would also probably seek to produce less trash- in solidarity with our comrades on duty on any given day (as well as with the planet that is common property of all)


But despite this being a perfect response (IMO), people will continue to harp on it and ignore your case. It also tends to be a longer explanation that few people will sit through. So, if I break the golden rule of "never argue with the ignorant right-wing libertarians", is there a succinct way of responding to this? (*Without* breaking their dogma? Or keeping the breaking to a minimum?) I personally find that my arguments usually break when I realize they are starting with different premises (even more so with "human nature"), so, like I said, is it possible to *not* give a lengthy explanation that works from the ground up?

Example of the argument:

However, if everyone were entirely free to follow their own passions, whose passion would be to clean publicly shared spaces, such as public restrooms, streets, sewers? There are literally countless jobs in society that no one in their right mind would voluntarily pursue out of the sheer desire to do so.
P.S. if you wish, feel free to include a good response to "Human Nature". (Especially one to a Christian dogmatic.)

Have a good day, Comrades.

[Sabot Cat]

The rotational idea is a good one, and as for human nature, the current science seems to suggest that we're inclined to cooperation, and here's at least one article you could cite from a generally well-respected source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/

[o well this is ok I guess]

lol no one is forced to be a garbage collector
garbage collection is a pretty sweet gig, if I see it come up i'm def sending in a resume

[USAneedsCommunism]

You know even if libertarians and right-wingers are right about humans being egocentrical, and selfish. Most people who support capitalist parties are not even egocentric and selfish at all, because they vote against their own self-interests. Because marxist parties parties promote free health care, free universities professions and 15 dollars per hour, among with an economic system not based on IMF and World Bank loans, an economic system based on very low inflation and many other things that are in favor of the self-interest of people. So people who vote for marxist parties are being more worried about their own selves, than people who vote for capitalist parties.

So you can tell the right-wingers that if they support capitalist parties they are going against human nature








Hello everyone,

There tend to be two arguments that "educated" conservatives (aka. those who know what it is) use against Communism. The "Human Nature" and the "Garbage Collector" arguments. There have been previous threads on the topic:

Specifically, there have been great responses like,



But despite this being a perfect response (IMO), people will continue to harp on it and ignore your case. It also tends to be a longer explanation that few people will sit through. So, if I break the golden rule of "never argue with the ignorant right-wing libertarians", is there a succinct way of responding to this? (*Without* breaking their dogma? Or keeping the breaking to a minimum?) I personally find that my arguments usually break when I realize they are starting with different premises (even more so with "human nature"), so, like I said, is it possible to *not* give a lengthy explanation that works from the ground up?

Example of the argument:

P.S. if you wish, feel free to include a good response to "Human Nature". (Especially one to a Christian dogmatic.)

Have a good day, Comrades.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Of course people will still dispose of their garbage. They'll do it for the same reason I remove the garbage from my house. It's unsanitary and unpleasant. I for one wouldn't mind driving the truck around and picking up cans with a mechanical claw. as for the unpleasant work at the landfill, that would be up to the community to decide. If there were no volunteers I would support a type of lottery where the "winners" would be given that duty for the week.

There are a thousand things that could happen but I doubt "people will throw their trash in the street until it kills them" is one of them.


P.S. if you wish, feel free to include a good response to "Human Nature". (Especially one to a Christian dogmatic.)

Deny the existence of god. You'll get nowhere if you can't convince them of that.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Whoever is willing to collect garbage gets first dibs on vintage cars once owned by the bourgeoisie. Pick up dog shit by day, cruise with style at night.

[consuming negativity]

Every church will be knocked down and turned into a giant pit where persons can take their trash to and dump it in. There are enough so that there won't be any problems with distance, and it also answers the question of what we'll do with the churches after the revolution.

---

No, but seriously, if ordinary people had to *gasp* possibly potentially take care of their own garbage, perhaps there would be some incentive to make the job not so shitty (pun intended). Community recycling centers as well as a large decrease in plastic bullshit made across the world will most likely reduce trash load pretty significantly. In addition, lotteries and rotations are an option, as are allowing people who do shitty jobs to have certain perks, like getting first dibs on new dwellings or first access to neat new consumer products. Perhaps they could only do it a few days a week on a rotation, or perhaps everybody could pitch in one week out of the year to take care of it. There are all kinds of incentives and different methods. Imagine being so unimaginative that you can't even think of how to get people to throw trash away without suggesting they slop it out the windows like apes if some poor person isn't compelled at gunpoint to go take care of it for them.

Now, for more important questions like "who will wipe my ass after the revolution?" and "how will we get food without impoverished migrant farm workers?"

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why do people clean their bathrooms? It's tiring and gross, and no one pays them to do it.

As for human nature, just note that whenever people state what human nature is, it always magically conforms to the dominant ideology of the period. Aristotle claimed that slavery was in "human nature". Lolbertarians claim capitalism is. It's all pretty transparently ideological.

[(A)]

My ignorant right-wing libertarian always makes the opposite argument.

"Who would want to work hard to become a surgeon or a lawyer or something like that when they can just pick up trash and get all the same cool crap anyway. I mean where is the incentive."

I mean I cant deny he is a great at throwing soft pitches .;)

I am a fan of the equal labor idea. Ya I may be a janitor five hours a day four days a week but at least I don't have to deal with a bunch of sick people for Eight hours.

More Labor = Less Time.
Less Labor = More Time.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't know of it has been said but in capitalist society job status is important because it measures social standing and nett worth. Hence why certain jobs are undesirable

[DigitalBluster]

There are a thousand things that could happen but I doubt "people will throw their trash in the street until it kills them" is one of them.

Indeed, and for that matter, they were doing that in the early days of capitalist industrialization, and its accompanying urbanization, when waste management was still as shitty as it had always been. People dumped bedpans out windows; dead animals rotted in the gutters. Capitalists were keen to clean up after themselves because the epidemics that ravaged these population centers killed their families as well. Improved sanitation was a product of necessity, not of capitalism. There's no reason to believe this will end just because capitalists are no longer around to die in epidemics alongside the rest of us.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think there's also something to be said about a rationally planned society ensuring that production creates far less waste. Recyclable packaging, organised composting, etc. Basically I could see that in the future there would be far less garbage to dispose of. There would still be some but the labour required could be lessened by just planning our society for a little more efficiency as opposed to profit.

[Sasha]

Purely anecdotal obviously but I loved being a binman for a few years and while i went to do somethung else voluntarly most of my co workers where absolutely gutted when they got layd off because the system became automated here.
It's a simpel physical job that's extremely rewarding in the sense that when your route is done its done, if you work hard you can be done at 2 in the afternoon and enjoy the sunshine. No bosses breathing in your neck, always outside etc etc.
Also, I had several coworkers who where not 100% for who this job was perfect, they could get rid of their energy (one of those guys was extremely ripped, like not a sixpack but every muscle toned, not only from the physical work but mostly from the pure energy he was burning up with, if he couldn't work he would start assaulting people and fall back into drug addiction etc just because he couldn't get rid of his extreme excess energy anymore)

[(A)]

People want to work.

Libertarians and capatalist's think they carry the the world on there backs but they are wrong. Workers are not lazy, apathetic or subversive by nature. They make us that way by stealing from our labor. We want to live for each others happiness; it is greed that has poisoned man's soul. Rid yourself of greed and find happiness in the love of others.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If there is absolutely no one who wants to pick up garbage in our hypothetical communist society, then that suggests that people don't feel the need to have the garbage picked up anymore, so why is that a problem? Is there an unwritten law of the universe that declares it mandatory? Society should be free to dispose of old habits of they choose to. What if we don't want to drive cars anymore, will we still be required to construct freeways even after we make that decision? If a community wants it's trash disposed of then it's going to happen, if they don't then it won't. As an example you can look at Detroit where residents have begun to organize the mowing of parks voluntarily on their own since the city no longer performs that function. People want something and if they have the means to realize it, then they do it. I mean why the fuck does it get picked up now? Because people want it.

As an anecdote, I always pick up trash as I walk around, and I see lots of other people do the same. 99% of people don't like seeing trash lay around but with a strict division of labor they don't feel compelled to perform a task they feel belongs to someone else. I don't see people falling in love with garbage in communism, so I'm not too worried about this argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

H
But despite this being a perfect response (IMO), people will continue to harp on it and ignore your case. Which only shows you the futility of a rational debate with such people, at least in this case.
My advice would be not to bother with such stuff.


Example of the argument:

Rotation of tasks and/or automation.
The underlying assumption is that people would be placed long term into such positions as they are now; that's false right from the very start. One of the aspects of such radical social transformation is also the elimination of the division of labor into mental and manual, itself necessitating some kind of a socially agreed upon system of rotation.


P.S. if you wish, feel free to include a good response to "Human Nature". (Especially one to a Christian dogmatic.)
What's there to say really? We all know what kind of a conception of nature this is. A supernatural nature in short. So any argument against such silly beliefs should be the basis (for one thing there seems to be no actual evidence for any such thing; and worse, the concept of the divine is such that it is inherently not viable to test for it).

Most of the time and probably without the tradition of religious political ideology the idea is that there is a gene for this there is a gene for that; therefore it is impossible to produce any change whatsoever.
Most of the time the most glaring problem is that such folks do not establish conclusively any kind of a dominant causation by the genetic basis which would warrant such a sweeping conclusion. Another problem is that the very framework is rotten, assuming that complex social behavior and human traits are the product of DNA which bears "information" necessary for protein creation - thus completely excluding environmental and interactive factors.

You may find this essay by Guy Robinson particularly useful (and I wish I knew how to mask the actual link since some wise asses on this site decided to censor links to Rosa's site). Google Guy Robinson the concept of nature, its mystification and demystification.

[RedSunrise]

I... I... I can't put all these fantastic responses into one argument! BUT WHICH TO CHOOSE??!?! :laugh: Guys. I said some *short* ones. OK. They are short, but there are too many good ones... I can't decide which to use :grin:

I decided to compile some general trends for reference (for myself and anyone else). Feel free to critique and continue adding more arguments.

Garbage:

-- It is rational


Of course people will still dispose of their garbage. They'll do it for the same reason I remove the garbage from my house. It's unsanitary and unpleasant. There are a thousand things that could happen but I doubt "people will throw their trash in the street until it kills them" is one of them.

Why do people clean their bathrooms? It's tiring and gross, and no one pays them to do it.

As an anecdote, I always pick up trash as I walk around, and I see lots of other people do the same.
-- It is enjoyable (to some)


Purely anecdotal obviously but I loved being a binman for a few years and while i went to do somethung else voluntarly most of my co workers where absolutely gutted when they got layd off because the system became automated here.
It's a simpel physical job that's extremely rewarding in the sense that when your route is done its done, if you work hard you can be done at 2 in the afternoon and enjoy the sunshine. No bosses breathing in your neck, always outside etc etc.
-- It is a party! :cool: (Personally, I am in favor of this idea the most)

Whoever is willing to collect garbage gets first dibs on vintage cars once owned by the bourgeoisie. Pick up dog shit by day, cruise with style at night.-- Community support

If there were no volunteers I would support a type of lottery where the "winners" would be given that duty for the week.

The rotational idea is a good one
-- Freedom(/Let them do as they want)

If there is absolutely no one who wants to pick up garbage in our hypothetical communist society, then that suggests that people don't feel the need to have the garbage picked up anymore, so why is that a problem? Is there an unwritten law of the universe that declares it mandatory? Society should be free to dispose of old habits of they choose to.

Human Nature:

--Science (this doesn't work against most right-wingers though)

The rotational idea is a good one, and as for human nature, the current science seems to suggest that we're inclined to cooperation, and here's at least one article you could cite from a generally well-respected source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/--Wishy-Washy

As for human nature, just note that whenever people state what human nature is, it always magically conforms to the dominant ideology of the period. Aristotle claimed that slavery was in "human nature". Lolbertarians claim capitalism is. It's all pretty transparently ideological.--Atheist (Which I can't use... Seeing as I am a theist talking to dogmatic theists. However, before anyone says anything, I am an awful Christian ;). Random excerpt of me: No hell, Pro-choice, anti-infallibility, old Earth, etc.)

Deny the existence of god. You'll get nowhere if you can't convince them of that.
Thank you everyone for the great responses! I admit. I didn't expect this extensive list of counterarguments now at my disposal (MWUAHA). Run Right-wing! I'm coming for you!!!!

Good day, Comrades.

[Rugged Collectivist]

If you're a Christian, you should probably have more insight into the theistic human nature question than most of us. Out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no human nature. Or do you think there is but it's not inherently selfish.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think people want to work I think people want to live and the only way they can right now is by dumping all of their time into a career or place of work (not necessarily a career could be a dead end job) that they don't give a shit about, they wake up every day and ask themselves and their friends and partners how the fuck did I end up here. They/we have to pay our bills. If we were approaching a task to get it done so that we could play the rest of the day like Sasha and Ethics Gradient pointed out, with nothing inherently 'needing to be done cause deadline cause capital' then I think people can take on problem areas of their communities day to day, week to week, month to month, etc.. like who wants to smell sewage all the fucking time? How quickly can it be dealt with? Trash pick up, what kind of group of people could knock out 20-30 blocks in what amount of time just to get it done?

[The Modern Prometheus]

The right wing Libertarians have been proven wrong time and time again in the arguments they use against Communism. For instance there was a very good study done in Canada back in the 70's where they gave everyone who was below the poverty line a living wage so that they didn't even have to work. I don't have enough posts to put up a link so google a town without poverty Canada if you wanna find it. Now to the Capitalist mind why would people work if they where given handouts as the bourgeois call them. But much to the surprise of the Canadian government the only people that worked less where pregnant moms or moms with newborns and teenagers didn't work as much either as they could afford to stay in school longer. Despite what the so called Libertarians say people don't need money to take pride in either themselves or their work.

The human nature argument is used so much by right Libertarians because without it their ideology falls flat on it's face. I have only worked at garbage collection a little bit for a few months out of 1 hot smelly summer but all in all it wasn't a bad job and i have certainly have worse ones. Some people much prefer not to sit behind a desk all day and actually like manual labour. Not everyone is going to want to become a lawyer or a doctor and without people like garbage collectors well the city would not be a nice place to live in very long. So they are every bit as essential as doctors, paramedics or firemen really. Unless you have a pickup truck and you want to bring your own garbage to the dump every week you need them. Most people don't like living in filth so someone would pick up the garbage in a Communist society just like they do in Today's capitalist society.

Also Communists are the ones looking out for their own class interests in the long run while Capitalists are happy with very short term success even if it means long term failure. So if anything Capitalism goes against not only human nature but nature itself. Instead of trying to create a better world free of Capitalism and any form of exploitation they exploit not only people but also the environment until everything is gone and the vultures are just picking at the bones. Capitalists only think about themselves as they have no class consciousness and even when it comes to bettering their own lot they still only think very short term.

[RedSunrise]

If you're a Christian, you should probably have more insight into the theistic human nature question than most of us. Out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no human nature. Or do you think there is but it's not inherently selfish.

There is a sort of "human nature", so I am not strictly against the idea. Science indicates to us that humans tend towards certain things. But, unlike Christians who don't read the Bible, I know that human nature is not "inherently" evil. (And the Bible doesn't say it is). Honestly. I have no insight into the theist position on human nature, because it is so irrational I can't think of any responses. So, to answer your question, I do tend to uhhh agree? (but cannot be certain) with the existance of human nature, but it is absolutely not selfish by default.

"you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die." (Note: you will surely die or you will surely be selfish?)

[Thirsty Crow]

Science indicates to us that humans tend towards certain things.
Which "things"?

Also, you seem to agree that the concept of human nature is meaningful, but you didn't specify it at all, except for the negative specification by selfishness. That's kinda problematic.

[RedSunrise]

Which "things"?

Ahem...
The rotational idea is a good one, and as for human nature, the current science seems to suggest that we're inclined to cooperation, and here's at least one article you could cite from a generally well-respected source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ood-after-all/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/)And...
Also, you seem to agree that the concept of human nature is meaningful, but you didn't specify it at all, except for the negative specification by selfishness. That's kinda problematic.

Uhhhh... Did you read what I said?

but it is absolutely not selfish by default.I don't see how anything that I said is problematic.......

[adipocere12]

Interesting discussion this. The way I see it is there are all kinds of ways to ensure socially desired tasks are done. If no one volunteers then incentives can be offered but these would be set democratically by the community rather than by the market or through the use of money.

[Red Star Rising]

Capitalism isn't part of human nature and this argument is wrong for the following reasons:
- Early hunter-gatherer societies (before the agricultural revolution - when we behaved in a purely natural way) we had a primitive Communist system in which everyone would cooperate with each other and work collectively.
- The argument is based on nothing. Every scientific expert in this subject says that humans are naturally social animals who are naturally cooperative and competition is not intrinsic to us.
- Capitalism hasn't actually been around that long considering how long humans have existed. Capitalism has existed for only a couple of centuries and our perception of it only really dates back to the industrial revolution, humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. 1000 years ago feudalism was perceived to be human nature.
- Even if it was part of human nature that doesn't make it just. There are lots of parts of human nature that are no longer socially acceptable - the objectification of women for example.

That usually convinces people who are just curious about Communism to some extent, a conservative has probably stopped listening by now.

And the binman/doctor argument, I agree with your system of rotation response. I usually through in that the argument is based on the Capitalist preconceptions of money and capital, something that would not exist in Communism. Usually that leads into a different discussion entirely though.