Equality in socialism?

[Colombia]

How will equality in a socialist government work in today's environment?I can see how a CEO and a janitor getting equal pay is equal but this is hardly fair for the CEO who has much harder work to contend with.I have heard before that depending on the job the worker would get a certain amount of money.For example the janitor getting $5 and the CEO getting $15.This however, does not make everyone equal and classes still exist.So how does it work out?

[ComradeRed]

Well, this is an interesting thing. Have you ever thought that technology would ever take over the unpleasent jobs? I mean, people do the jobs that is favorable (i.e. everyone wants), while unfavorable jobs are automated.

[imperator]

machine labour :D

but before that you gotta get the capitalists to build butler-machines ;) ;)
that's not going to be pleasant for sure

dont think its probable.. there's more than enough human labour so corporations aren't gonna invest in research for somethin like that when they could just pay some poor sod in china half a buck every day

[ComradeRed]

I have read that it is feasible to have automated factories (they have some in the U$) and automated cleaning (also in the U$). I don't see how automated anything else is not feasible.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:59 AM
dont think its probable.. there's more than enough human labour so corporations aren't gonna invest in research for somethin like that when they could just pay some poor sod in china half a buck every day
Very true, capitalists only tend to develop technology when it becomes too expensive to employ workers.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Colombia+--> (Colombia)I can see how a CEO and a janitor getting equal pay is equal but this is hardly fair for the CEO who has much harder work to contend with.[/b]
So the CEO who sits at a desk for half the day, and spends the other half on the golf course works harder than the janitor who works his ass off for the minimum wage all night long? :blink:
You need to think things out before you post them...

ComradeRed
Well, this is an interesting thing. Have you ever thought that technology would ever take over the unpleasent jobs? I mean, people do the jobs that is favorable (i.e. everyone wants), while unfavorable jobs are automated.
Whooo! Mass-unemployment! Thatcher would be proud.......

[MolotoViruS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:30 AM
How will equality in a socialist government work in today's environment?I can see how a CEO and a janitor getting equal pay is equal but this is hardly fair for the CEO who has much harder work to contend with.I have heard before that depending on the job the worker would get a certain amount of money.For example the janitor getting $5 and the CEO getting $15.This however, does not make everyone equal and classes still exist.So how does it work out?
Your statement is incorrect.

A capitalist is a person who owns the means of production. You are a capitalist when you OWN multinationals & large factories... not when you are some kind of CEO getting paid a few dollars more or less then your collegue... this has nothing to do with socialisme.

The theory of entire equel personal wealth is a theory wich can (and will) only be realised in communism (after a long period of socialism) because people will consume based on their needs not based on their greed.

Socialism wants to nationalise all means of production, everyone owns the means of production, society owns the means of production. Only if you can control the economy, you can control the politics.

[Morpheus]

In socialism, CEOs would be abolished.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 16 2004, 02:29 PM
So the CEO who sits at a desk for half the day, and spends the other half on the golf course works harder than the janitor who works his ass off for the minimum wage all night long?
You need to think things out before you post them...


No it is you who must use your brain.I was just using it as an example.If you are so slow here is another example.

A janitor and a surgeon.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:30 AM
How will equality in a socialist government work in today's environment?I can see how a CEO and a janitor getting equal pay is equal but this is hardly fair for the CEO who has much harder work to contend with.I have heard before that depending on the job the worker would get a certain amount of money.For example the janitor getting $5 and the CEO getting $15.This however, does not make everyone equal and classes still exist.So how does it work out?
There will be not CEOs or Janirots, or pay, or value, or money.

[Colombia]

Then why would someone want to become a surgeon when they can get an easier job such as becoming a janitor?

[Djehuti]

Being a janitor is damn crappy anyway, you dont get anything except an easy pay.
Why would anyone freely choose to be a janitor if you could be occupied with something more intresting and developing? In a communist society, without wages, i think that there will be a bigger problem to take care of all crap on the floors then to replace a mans lungs.

Cuba is far from communists, but there a surgeon dont earn much more money then a janitor for an example. But nevertheless i think Cuba have more surgeons per capita then any other country. I really think that there is few surgeos that choose their job because of the pay.

[Colombia]

You guys just don&#39;t get the point do you? <_<

[ComradeRed]

Look, cleaning up crap is just as important as saving people&#39;s health. Think of a society sans janitors&#33; :shudder:

[Essential Insignificance]

How will equality in a socialist government work in today&#39;s environment?

For starters; it may be best to try and expunge all capitalistic sentiments from your mind.

You should, now, come to realize that capitalist society and the potential communist society are polar opposite, in regards to how the general populace stands to the means of production.

The socialist environment that "we" envisage, subsequent to proletarian revolution, will be again "glacial" opposites to that of capitalist society.

The proletariat must if revolution is to be "fully" and "completely" carried out, follow two concrete principles.

1. The first is political power. The proletariat must raise itself to the position of the ruling class, in other words, the subordinate class must assert its power to win the conquest for democracy and correspondingly--political power.

2. The second step is too use this political supremacy, firstly, to take by degrees all captial from the old ruling class and put it under the control of workers state and, secondly, to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible.

As you can see, the social environment has changed extraordinarily promptly, in a relative short amount of time.



I can see how a CEO and a janitor getting equal pay is equal but this is hardly fair for the CEO who has much harder work to contend with.

Does the CEO really have to work harder? How so?



Well, this is an interesting thing. Have you ever thought that technology would ever take over the unpleasent jobs? I mean, people do the jobs that is favorable (i.e. everyone wants), while unfavorable jobs are automated.


ComradeRed you must purge all these bombastic notions of robots or other automated machinery doing all of the "unpleasant" jobs that humanity find "unsatisfactory" to do themselves, from you thoughts.

For now; it&#39;s just too utopian.

Marx himself was in awe and amazed by the capability and potential aptitude of bourgeoisies machinery--if used solely for the benefits of society--as he saw it as a way to shorten the standard working day--not to eradicate it&#33;

If revolution were to breakout in France tomorrow and instantaneously next week Germany, would you anticipate that machines would do all the mind-numbing and monotonous manual labor, to suffice the wants and need of an whole population?

I don&#39;t think so. Nor should you.



Very true, capitalists only tend to develop technology when it becomes too expensive to employ workers.

Not at all.

The capitalist class by virtue of the very "temperament" of capitalism; must, be constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production.

The social progress, in all differing epochs, is driven buy material progress, that is, buy the resources and means of production that are at there deposal i.e. technology, machinery, labor and constant capital.

The productive relations that man enter into unwilling and free of their direct control, progress with a certian level of inexorableness.

Both the productive forces and relations of production development, directly autonomous of mans tactical or planned objectives.


There will be not CEOs or Janirots, or pay, or value, or money.

I "foresee" that there will be no CEO&#39;s, or anything similar to that title ; but what about janitors??&#33;&#33;

I think I see what your getting at here.

In a communist society each person, individuality, will not a "specific role" in society, like in capitalism, where they must complete day in day out, for years on end the same job to meet the daily requirements to continue existence.

Under capitalism; you are defined exclusively by what your one solitary occupation is; except for those, who must work three jobs just to stay alive&#33;

In a communist social order, one day I might be farming, the next cleaning toilets, and the next teaching a class of children.

There are no immutable, specific roles in communism&#33;

There will still be pay and value in a communist society; but nothing like what it is like now.

Pay, so to speak will be what your receive for you laboring, what ever that may be.

If you don&#39;t work, you shalt not eat&#33;


Then why would someone want to become a surgeon when they can get an easier job such as becoming a janitor?

Why not?

They may love it and find it highly stimulating and satisfying for themselves and society.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:00 AM
How will equality in a socialist government work in today&#39;s environment?I can see how a CEO and a janitor getting equal pay is equal but this is hardly fair for the CEO who has much harder work to contend with.I have heard before that depending on the job the worker would get a certain amount of money.For example the janitor getting &#036;5 and the CEO getting &#036;15.This however, does not make everyone equal and classes still exist.So how does it work out?
Have you ever scrubbed toilets?
I worked with a cleaning crew in a city center in office buildings, it&#39;s hard freaking work.
I was also able to witness the fall of the stock market back on a Black Tuesday some years ago and watched CEO&#39;s sweating in front of the cameras out front of the office building. I was a messenger,

As I entered the building with the janitor and we entered the elevator he bust up laughing, all these rich white people all scared for their jobs now, but on their worst days they did not live and work like him, did not have the fears of them.

His reply, " Why should I care doesn&#39;t change my life," He would just go clean somewhere else.

This was very clear, for the bottom rung, except in severe circumstances the stock market didn&#39;t affect him, as hard as it was for his employers to recognize his concerns weren&#39;t the same as theirs.

He didn&#39;t get the steak but then he didn&#39;t fret the potatoes either.
When you got nothing you got nothing to lose. :D

[Colombia]

Forget the whole janitor thing.I guess people here aren&#39;t fast enough to figure I was just using it as an example.

Essential:Look people may love the job but not enough people love the job so much as to get equal pay as a janitor.Ok I see your point on diffrent jobs each day but what about the harder jobs?Like being a surgeon,computer mechanic and so on?I find it impossible that someone could be taught to master all these fields and the schools needed to teach someone this sounds futile. All this sounds pointless to me.Why would anyone want more than one occupation.Also what if the people were discontent with the jobs.Communism will never work.

[Misodoctakleidist]

but what about the harder jobs?Like being a surgeon
How many sugeons "do it for the money?"


Why would anyone want more than one occupation.
Some people would, who cares why?


Also what if the people were discontent with the jobs.
Then they can get a different one.

[Essential Insignificance]

Look people may love the job but not enough people love the job so much as to get equal pay as a janitor.

What&#39;s that based on, what you&#39;re reasoning? Induction or deduction?

You are still, obviously, in the capitalist "frame of mind".

Do you think that a doctor, nurse, dentist etc, begin there occupation, with the sole objective of obtaining more money then some else.

Most of the "rookies" think that there going to enter the medical profession and change the world, for the betterment.

Tell me, why do you think that a doctor or a dentist should be paid more then a janitor.


Ok I see your point on diffrent jobs each day but what about the harder jobs?Like being a surgeon,computer mechanic and so on?

Are these job really harder then manual laboring in the coal-mine for 12 hour shifts. I know I would rather be at college or university studying, then do these "hard" particular jobs. What about you?


I find it impossible that someone could be taught to master all these fields and the schools needed to teach someone this sounds futile.

It&#39;s not a matter of being taught all this occupations to master them. Do you think rearing cattle, teaching a class of five year olds, or working at a cabbage depot is all that difficult to master?

Now I think I may have caused some confusion. Specialist Jobs such as doctors, nurses, dentist etc, will have to go to some kind of community collage to learn their specific practice.


All this sounds pointless to me.Why would anyone want more than one occupation.

Pointless&#33; How?

To ease the burden of individuals from the monotonous, tedious, repetitive, recurring labor that some have become so accustomed through force and social obligation.

If each does a bit, little will be needed from each. A communist axiom :lol:


Also what if the people were discontent with the jobs.

It would&#39;nt matter, they would properly be only doing it for a few months; or if need be, they would properly be transferred to another job site.


Communism will never work.

The antithesis--communism will crystallize
The synthesis--communism will work.

[ComradeRed]

ComradeRed you must purge all these bombastic notions of robots or other automated machinery doing all of the "unpleasant" jobs that humanity find "unsatisfactory" to do themselves, from you thoughts.

For now; it&#39;s just too utopian.
<_< I don&#39;t believe so. Technology has come a long way since Marx was alive and has made enormous feats which marx couldn&#39;t have even imagined&#33;

If a war broke out in France and Germany, I would expect there to be automated labor in the places that need it. Not everywhere all at once, but would ease into it&#33;

If there were a shortage of food, there would be automated farming (yes, it is possible. My brother has a Ph,d in biology and is pretty aware of the advancements in the scientific community).

Is it utopian? No, not really. Just not used in practice&#33; Afterall, suposing it was, where would the market be&#33;?&#33; :lol:

[Essential Insignificance]

I don&#39;t believe so. Technology has come a long way since Marx was alive and has made enormous feats which marx couldn&#39;t have even imagined&#33;

Why couldn&#39;t of Marx prognosticated the future like you seem to believe you have.

The imagination is an unbridled human faculty; anybody can imagine anything at their whim.


If a war broke out in France and Germany, I would expect there to be automated labor in the places that need it. Not everywhere all at once, but would ease into it&#33;

How?&#33;&#33;



If there were a shortage of food, there would be automated farming (yes, it is possible. My brother has a Ph,d in biology and is pretty aware of the advancements in the scientific community).

Automated farming--without any human intervention; I don&#39;t think so&#33;


Is it utopian? No, not really. Just not used in practice&#33; Afterall, suposing it was, where would the market be&#33;?&#33;

I really don&#39;t think, that the bourgeoisie have at their disposal, the kind of technology that you are referring too.

Just visualize the profits that a capitalist enterprise could make if they could introduce such "eloquent" technology, that you envision.

All of the capitalists Christmases would come at once&#33;

So far, we have only, generally, talked about large scale production.

What about automated "petite labor", such as cleaning, sanitary, etc.

From the robots that I have seen, designed and manufactured in Japan; well, to say the least, there not all that great.

[ComradeRed]

Why couldn&#39;t of Marx prognosticated the future like you seem to believe you have.

The imagination is an unbridled human faculty; anybody can imagine anything at their whim.
I have seen with my own eyes automation of entire factories&#33; I have spoken to scientists who acknowledge that it is possible. What more needs to be said?


How?&#33;&#33;
How would there be automated industries? Well, there would still be a need for people to insure the factories do not go astray, but the factories would replace man with machine. I don&#39;t know how to artuiculate it any further than this: have a factory that produces apparati that replace workers. The apparati are all ready in use in the U&#036;.


Automated farming--without any human intervention; I don&#39;t think so&#33;
Its an ingenious apparatus, the water is turned into hydrogen which is mixed into the soil, where the seeds are placed. The seeds are watered regularly from automatic irrigation. I suppose the only time man is needed is to pluck the fruits of the labor.


I really don&#39;t think, that the bourgeoisie have at their disposal, the kind of technology that you are referring too.

Just visualize the profits that a capitalist enterprise could make if they could introduce such "eloquent" technology, that you envision.

All of the capitalists Christmases would come at once&#33;

So far, we have only, generally, talked about large scale production.

What about automated "petite labor", such as cleaning, sanitary, etc.

From the robots that I have seen, designed and manufactured in Japan; well, to say the least, there not all that great.
You miss my point, the bourgeoisie do have this at their disposal; however, assuming the workers have been replaced WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO BUY THE GOODS? The workers are needed in capitalism as the market, where the commodities they make are sold. Without this market, who is going to purchase the goods???

[Essential Insignificance]

I have seen with my own eyes automation of entire factories&#33; I have spoken to scientists who acknowledge that it is possible. What more needs to be said?

Now, this is a very obscure "testimonial".

First, you announce that you have "seen" automated factories with "you&#39;re own eyes".

Then:

You have spoken to scientists "who acknowledge that it is possible".

What&#39;s it going to be?

You seem to be confusing yourself.


How would there be automated industries? Well, there would still be a need for people to insure the factories do not go astray, but the factories would replace man with machine.

Now, you are allowing some human involvement in the production of material life.


Its an ingenious apparatus, the water is turned into hydrogen which is mixed into the soil, where the seeds are placed. The seeds are watered regularly from automatic irrigation. I suppose the only time man is needed is to pluck the fruits of the labor.

Is that what you think farming is all about? You have no idea&#33;

Mankind is going to go to the dogs&#33;

Now, again, you have allowed some human intercession; where is it going to end?


You miss my point, the bourgeoisie do have this at their disposal; however, assuming the workers have been replaced WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO BUY THE GOODS? The workers are needed in capitalism as the market, where the commodities they make are sold. Without this market, who is going to purchase the goods???

I totally understand what your getting at; but, needless to say, you have missed my point.

[ComradeRed]

Now, this is a very obscure "testimonial".

First, you announce that you have "seen" automated factories with "you&#39;re own eyes".

Then:

You have spoken to scientists "who acknowledge that it is possible".

What&#39;s it going to be?

You seem to be confusing yourself. Remember the butcher&#39;s? Used to be a real "hands on" joint. Then came along automation where there were no "hands" laid upon the animals. Are these not factories?

Industrial factories are "theoretically" possible to have automated workers from what I have heard&#33;


Now, you are allowing some human involvement in the production of material life.
I&#39;m sorry that you could not be waltzing while the factories go astray, there would be one fellow who keeps an eye on the factory. If this is "involvement", then so be it.


Is that what you think farming is all about? You have no idea&#33;

Mankind is going to go to the dogs&#33;

Now, again, you have allowed some human intercession; where is it going to end?
Have you ever heard of hydroponic farming? This is automated hydroponic farming. Both are feasible and the former has been practiced.


I totally understand what your getting at; but, needless to say, you have missed my point. No, I got your point I thought that you didn&#39;t get mine. The problem with that is that it would no longer be capitalism&#33; It would become, that&#39;s right, communism of sorts.

[cubist]

i don&#39;t know, IMO it all boils do to how socialism comes about,

equality for example will not come around, if socialism is imposed on society like in china/russia/cuba history and common sense tecahes that if there is a position of power availible then equality is allready infringed,

if democracy votes socialism in then it may be better but still this power issue is the problem.

however if the poltical cycle takes place as i infact believe it will and from capitalism shotcomings comes its demise and from its ashes communism rises then equality its entirely possible as the world will not trust those that ruined it last time,

thats all my crazy opinion,

[socialistfuture]

in a successful socialist society - people have all different roles and jobs that constantly changed, eg one day u might be an artist the next a cook.

things would be done on a collective basis. this would be different in different areas (not countries cause they wouldnt exist if socialism was successful).

well we got lots more work to do.

[Essential Insignificance]

Remember the butcher&#39;s? Used to be a real "hands on" joint. Then came along automation where there were no "hands" laid upon the animals. Are these not factories?

I&#39;m actually not too certain what you&#39;re talking about here; it&#39;s best to clarify, before going any further.


I&#39;m sorry that you could not be waltzing while the factories go astray, there would be one fellow who keeps an eye on the factory. If this is "involvement", then so be it.

Indeed, "so be it".


Have you ever heard of hydroponic farming? This is automated hydroponic farming. Both are feasible and the former has been practiced.

I must admit, my knowledge of rural productive forces, properly aren&#39;t "up to scratch".

But you have only described one rural feature, where, for the most part, human labor is not considered necessary any more.

[ComradeRed]

I&#39;ve just read up on farming, and it turns out that some of the duties the automation would have to do (e.g. smelling the seeds, etc. things which require human abilities) couldn&#39;t do. There would need to be some supervision to make sure there is not illness in the crop, etc. But the tidious tasks of watering it every day, et al. would be eliminated.


I&#39;m actually not too certain what you&#39;re talking about here; it&#39;s best to clarify, before going any further.

Factories, and places of artisanship, can be automated. Machines can take the place of human beings. The only place where I don&#39;t see machines are in the mines. Nonetheless, it is feasible (indeed has been done&#33;) that machines can take the jobs that no one wants. Things like janitorial work could be accomplished with machines but requires a little more time. Other things like agriculture can be done. Industrial jobs like making cars are feasible. THe only people in the factory, from my understanding, at this point is supervising the machines (i.e. making sure the machines do not fail). There would not be any "bad tasks" which anyone has to do.

[Essential Insignificance]

I&#39;ve just read up on farming, and it turns out that some of the duties the automation would have to do (e.g. smelling the seeds, etc. things which require human abilities) couldn&#39;t do. There would need to be some supervision to make sure there is not illness in the crop, etc. But the tidious tasks of watering it every day, et al. would be eliminated.

Like I have previously avowed--repeatedly--you have only stated one (rural) productive function where automation machinery would replace, for the most part, human productive power.

I&#39;m all too willing to acknowledge the feasibility of machines soiling seeds, watering seeds/crops, and even the assembling of harvest when mature/ripe for human consumption.

There doing that now&#33;

But human industrious power is still indispensable and necessary for the appeasing of human wants and needs.


Factories, and places of artisanship, can be automated. Machines can take the place of human beings. The only place where I don&#39;t see machines are in the mines.

In mines; why not? :lol:

[Colombia]

Would people such as managers, and presidents exist in a ideal socialist countrty?