A Four Level Communism [Archive]

redstar2000

6th December 2002, 22:47

Supernova66, I rather like your idea...though I'd suggest some modifications.

The dirty, shitty jobs...the ones that we CAN'T do without if we are to have an organized society at all--THEY should be the guys who get the top pay. You know how morons are always asking us: "well, under communism, who's going to clean the sewers?" Yes, and who's going to pick up the garbage, drive the trucks, stock the shelves, empty the wastebaskets, sweep the floors and the streets, fix the air-conditioner and the toilet, etc., etc.? That section of the working class that has the dirtiest, most boring, and most hazardous jobs should INDEED get the best pay.

And, obviously, the folks who have the BEST jobs--rock star, professional athlete, newspaper editor, university professor, doctor, lawyer, etc.--get the LOWEST pay.

Everybody else in between; with perhaps a 4 to 1 ratio. (If garbage truck driver gets $80,000/year, university professor gets $20,000 a year.)

Not only would it be the most egalitarian distribution of income in human history, it would be ONLY FAIR. :cool:

theewokchief

6th December 2002, 23:02

so the people who have the 'best' jobs get the shittest pay. Then, a few years after the revolution, you have no one wanting to be a doctor. A decade, two decades on and you have ewer and fewer doctors. Eventually you have no doctors. Who wants to go through 5-6 years of medical school when they can get better pay emptying bins? Seems there is a major flaw in your plan.

Valkyrie

6th December 2002, 23:03

WE won't be able to hold grudges from the past or the same problems will exist. We need a level playing field.. all jobs should hold the same weight of value or there will indeed be competition and class divisions. I would think the distasteful jobs should be rotated on temporary base so we ALL have to do them at one point. But I hate everyone anyway.. so, that would be my revenge.

redstar2000

6th December 2002, 23:23

theewokchief, do you think that the reason people become doctors is because of the money?

Well, sure, SOME do. But let's face it, saving lives is FUN. It's challenging, difficult work...exactly the kind of thing that primates like us love to do when we get the chance.

Besides, if a shortage of doctors really became a problem, we could always bump them up to $40,000 a year. (Level 2)

Paris, rotating the shitty jobs is certainly another possibility...everyone is on the back of that garbage truck or down in that sewer one or two days a month. But I wonder if that way of doing things wouldn't generate MORE resentment than a modest pay differential. Speaking personally, I'd RATHER do something fun and be at the bottom of the pay scale than have exactly the same pay as everyone else and have to get down in that sewer! And I wouldn't begrudge a penny for those folks doing the shitty jobs that I would hate doing. But that's me. :cool:

theewokchief

6th December 2002, 23:34

i dont doubt the majority get into medicine for the noble aspect of life saving, but even they with think twice about doing it for shit pay. I mean, doctors in the uk, and nurses, get shit pay now,and they are struggling to recruit or retain. Most of our doctors are foregn born, they come here to train and then stay, because compared to back home (we have lots from Zambia) the pay is incredible. But we have less and less of british origin because of the problems with pay. Not that the foreign doctors arent excellent, they are, but money is a factor whther you like or not.

So then you bump them up to level 2. For how long? How will you pay for it? What about the ones who come in afterwards on 20, they wll be pissed, the old ones wont accept a pay cut if your increase is temporary.
Its not as simple as it looks

Corvus Corax

6th December 2002, 23:43

Red Star, surely what you are suggesting is what we have now, just the opposite way round. It would have the same problems that exist now, just with different jobs. WE would have excess people wanting the shitty jobs, as they become 'less shitty', and less people wanting to be rock stars etc, meaning a decline in entertainment.

theewokchief

6th December 2002, 23:45

no-one will ever stop wanting to be a rock star. But if it means we have no Creed or Puddle of Mudd it could be good.........

Conghaileach

7th December 2002, 00:11

And none of those fucking manufactured pop groups.

theewokchief

7th December 2002, 00:13

oh we'd have them, but it would be the government manufacturing them.

timbaly

7th December 2002, 01:42

Having four different levels of pay depending on what your job is can not be called communism. Everyone is not economically equal. The person getting paid 80,000 is getting 4 times as much income as a person with a level 1 job, which causes a class gap. The people with level 4 jobs have a huge economic advantage over those with a level1 or 2. This is far from a classless society.

redstar2000

7th December 2002, 01:49

CC, I don't think you realize how BAD those jobs really are. An excess of people wanting to ride garbage trucks and clean sewers is NOT going to be a problem.

twc, what are the people on England who "would" have become doctors if the pay was not so bad--what are they doing instead of going to medical school?

And do you really WANT some guy who's in it for the money sawing on your cranium?

Less people want to be rock stars--sounds like a good idea to me. I suspect entertainment would IMPROVE. And of course we would not have those fabricated groups in any event, unless they fabricated themselves.

The principle to me seems sound: if you do the hard and dirty work that society needs, you make top pay. If you are lucky enough or talented enough to get to do the fun jobs, then you do it for the fun, not the money. What could be fairer? :cool:

Corvus Corax

7th December 2002, 01:50

Exactly

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th December 2002, 19:10

I strongly disagree with this absurd idea!
Every duty in society is equaly important. Weather it's picking up your trash or saving lives, it's equaly important and should be equaly paid to prevent social classes maintain everyone socialy and economicaly equal.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th December 2002, 19:17

I don't think that the unions or the government or whoever decides on your pay should be able to decide what is and what isn't a fun job. Paying someone more than another person will innevitably create higher classes and lower calsses.
Of course we don't want a guy that became a doctor for the money to saw off our cranium, so thats why evryone is paid equally. So why would someone want to be a garbage man more than wanting to be doctor or vise versa, the pay would be equall.

redstar2000

7th December 2002, 22:06

From some of these reactions, you'd think I was proposing a PAY CUT for somebody.(?)

Look folks, the present ratio in advanced capitalist countries between the lowest paying jobs and the highest paying jobs is what? 500 to 1? 1000 to 1? 5000 to 1? Compared to THAT, 4 to 1 is a difference almost too small to measure.

Secondly, consider the factor of wealth: the ratio between Bill Gates and the begger on the street is 50 BILLION to 1...and THAT will be altogether eliminated.

So we have a sewer worker making 80,000 a year and a university professor making 20,000 a year. That means a nice house and car for the sewer worker; a small apartment and a bus pass for the university professor. Is the sewer worker going to be part of a new ruling class? Is he going to "exploit" the university professor? GET REAL!

Besides, the sewer worker can't DO anything with his money except enjoy some personal luxuries. He can't start a business, hire workers, start producing things for profit, etc. He can't gain the economic foothold necessary to become a "new capitalist class". And, if he doesn't spend it all by the time he dies, whatever is left over goes back to the treasury...he can't "buy" a luxurious life for his kids. If his kids want the "big bucks", it's back to the sewers.

The government doesn't "decide" except in a formal sense what is and isn't a fun job...WE ALL KNOW THAT ALREADY! We all know who gets paid shit now...and what those jobs are like!

No, every duty in society is NOT equally important. For example, the decline in the death rates from infectious diseases does NOT date from the era of antibiotics--say late 1930s to early 1940s--but rather from the second half of the 19th century (!) because THAT is when modern sewage & water systems began to be installed in large cities.

In other words, a doctor using modern techniques may save your life or mine...but what saves MILLIONS of lives is the fact that the water is safe to drink and our urine and feces are disposed of safely. And some human being is busting his ass to make sure that keeps happening! "It's a dirty job, but SOMEBODY has to do it."

Or, just consider your next meal. Somebody grew it, packaged it, moved it onto the back of a truck, moved it off the back of a truck, put it on a shelf, rang it up, put it in a sack for you to carry out, etc., etc. You might well do without rock stars and university professors and even doctors...try doing without FOOD. Let me know how it works out while you still have the strength to keyboard.

I also remind you that we're talking about (1) a 4-level system--a great many people would be level 2 or 3 as well as the really bad, but high-paying jobs at level 4; and (2) even a bottom 1-level job that you do because it's fun would still pay enough to live confortably, if modestly. No one suggests that doctors should have to live like minimum-wage workers live NOW!!!

Equal pay for everone might sound "egalitarian"--but it would only BE egalitarian if EVERYONE had to spend as much time shoveling shit as they get to spend sitting in front of a terminal modeling galaxy formation...having a great time and getting paid for it. :cool:

Revolution Hero

7th December 2002, 22:57

I have read the whole discussion and came to the conclusion that the majority of you don’t know Marxist theory well enough and not serious at all. The whole thread is based on the complete confusion of thought.

SOCIALISM:
People, whose work will be connected with an intellectual labor, will get higher salaries, than those, whose work is connected with the physical labor. The workers of a socialistic state will live better than exploited workers of the bourgeois state, anyway.

COMMUNISM:
There will not be any differences in financial status of the intelligentsia and proletariat, as there would be no classes at all. Everyone will be financially equal, being equally rich.

These are the basics, you all should study them in depth.

redstar2000

8th December 2002, 11:59

Where WOULD we be without YOU to guide us, RH?

:cool:

theewokchief

8th December 2002, 16:10

Is the sewer worker going to be part of a new ruling class? Is he going to "exploit" the university professor? GET REAL!

Course he will, although i doubt ayone would be a professor for very long, we'll all be emptying dustbin bags.

Redstar, your argument relies too much on idealism wich very few people have, or keep, for vary long. It simply will not work. Even in an ideal world.

Supernova66

8th December 2002, 18:08

I believe that the people who work in an environment where their life is at risk deserve higher wages. A job that consists of fliping burgers is not a high risk job, but a job that does not involve a life risking proceedure. Do you get what I mean.

''..G.K..''

Corvus Corax

8th December 2002, 19:06

Yes but how is emptying bins high risk?

Valkyrie

8th December 2002, 19:15

Wait a fucking minute.... flipping burgers? Don't tell me we are going to have McDonalds in our communist society?

I would hope when we attain a full communist society that the money system would have already been abolished.

Red Revolution

8th December 2002, 20:58

I agree with victorcommie, we are talking about financial advantages of one man over another, but surely we want that to be abolished. The idea of my pure communist state, no currency, loyalty to the job is rewarded in other ways.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

8th December 2002, 21:33

Sorry but your 4 level communism cant work.

First of all thats financial not reachable. The workers group will always be the biggest and those boring and dirty work that you are talking about are mostly in governmental service. Can you imagine a nation that has of the 100.000 inhabitants 60.000 workers. How can you pay such idiotic high paychecks with the 40.000 other ones who all earn much less?
For instance to pay a garbage man in governmental service you will need the tax of 4 high jobs. And because there are more workers than high jobs you will never be able to pay them all and isnt it a waste to spend all your taxmoney on paying workers/you still need to think about hospitals, factorys ,schools ,maintaining many many things like roads ,electricity ,watercompany`s etc etc.
And at this way you are producing a new high class.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because a high job will be unattractive now in your new empire you will have no high educated ppl because such jobs dont pay off and you will belong to the suppressed class.

I think that all pay checks should be near each other so you will not produce a wealthy class.

But.....
Your idea is good if you think of the following situation:
A low-educated person can choose between a job with a higher pay check or a pleasant job.

Plz give me ur opinion about my idea and my arguments. :)

(Edited by CCCP at 9:40 pm on Dec. 8, 2002)

Corvus Corax

8th December 2002, 21:41

I agree, we don't have that level of finance, to pay so many people such a high level of finance!

redstar2000

8th December 2002, 22:36

I have no objection to the abolition of money; but I suggest that having thrown it out the front door, it will creep back through the window under another name. Only if EVERYTHING is free on demand in unlimited quantities would money become entirely superfluous...and, in 5 or 10 centuries, THAT could happen.

Most of these rather incoherent criticisms seem to rely on the proposition that the ONLY reason people want to be doctors, university professors, professional musicians, etc. is BECAUSE the MONEY is TERRIFIC.

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but that is BULLSHIT. A simply enormous number of them have said publicly that they love what they do so much that they'd do it for FREE. To argue that "nobody would want the fun jobs if they could make more money cleaning sewers" is simply a STUPID argument.

Even worse is the argument that "we can't afford to pay the shit workers a bundle." No one knows at this point WHAT we can afford...except that we CANNOT afford to treat the people who KEEP the society going as less than the MOST important part of the working class.

I'm getting a distinct feeling here that some of you folks are squealing like stuck pigs because you sense a threat to your OWN class position...you are, perhaps, looking forward to one of the fun jobs AND you want the big bucks that go with those jobs under capitalism.

If that's how you feel, here's what you do: KEEP CAPITALISM! :cool:

Supernova66

8th December 2002, 23:54

I appologize. Obviously my idea is not a good one. The only reason I came up with this was the fact that so many times, communism has failed because citizens get greedy and believe that they deserve more than the other. Do you agree? My idea was simply to reduce this selfishness. Again I appologize for starting this undoubtably stupid idea.

<<G.K.>>

Supernova66

8th December 2002, 23:58

By the way, I didn't mean we would have some fucking God damb ACNE proudcer "McDonalds" in it. I meant a job that would fit that criteria. McDonalds is just another way of saying to the amercans, here, take our country with your fucking God damb burgers.

<<<G.K.>>>

Supernova66

9th December 2002, 00:07

Also, for all those people that were talking about manufactured groups, you are completely correct. I am in a band myself, and our music is real and wise. Through my music I hope to spread communism and socialist ideas.
Thank you very much sypher for the copliment, but like people have proved my idea obviously just won't work.

<<<G.K.>>>

Corvus Corax

9th December 2002, 00:17

HAHA Red star, you make me laugh.

You have to resort to calling our ideas stupid, and the only proof you have that they are is coming from Media sources. So they said publically that they like doing it, I don't know if you know this, but there are such things as LIES. Quite a lot of people use them, especially people earning megabucks. Oh, and don't go and do a Stalin on me trying to connect all people with different views than yours to Capitalism, because that is purely out of your rage.

Thank you for your time

C.C

Supernova66

9th December 2002, 00:20

Who are you talking to Corvus Corax?

redstar2000

9th December 2002, 03:44

He's talking to ME, Supernova66.

Ok, CC, they're ALL lying--a gigiantic conspiracy to disguise their own greed. Sure, whatever you say. :cheesy:

And I am part of a "stalinist" conspiracy to give you a hard time. Whatever you say, CC. :cheesy:

But Supernova66, I AM sorry to see you apologize for your idea--it is NOT stupid, it's a damn good idea. Don't be intimidated by people who wave the red flag at you without so much as a shred of justification.

Make them DEMONSTRATE their counter-argument...or laugh them to scorn. That's what I do with posers. :cool:

Blackberry

9th December 2002, 04:05

Quote: from Supernova66 on 11:54 pm on Dec. 8, 2002
I appologize. Obviously my idea is not a good one. The only reason I came up with this was the fact that so many times, communism has failed because citizens get greedy and believe that they deserve more than the other. Do you agree? My idea was simply to reduce this selfishness. Again I appologize for starting this undoubtably stupid idea.

<<G.K.>>

Your idea is certainly a good one. There is flexibility in your idea, which other people are implying there is not.

Such a system could also be used to attract more people to a certain occupation where more jobs is needed. For example, if many more jobs are needed in the health department, then the wage of a health worker (eg, Doctor, Nurse), could be risen to attract more Doctors and Nurses. If there are too many people in the garbage occupation, then the wage could be lowered to make the job a little less attractive, so there isn't an overflow of garbaemen and women.

This idea should certainly be given a little credit. And as someone suggest, a extra step towards a communist state (or a stateless society).

canikickit

9th December 2002, 04:38

Less people want to be rock stars--sounds like a good idea to me. I suspect entertainment would IMPROVE. And of course we would not have those fabricated groups in any event, unless they fabricated themselves.

You've got my vote.

But seriously, I think a lot of Redstar's bastardised version of Supernova's theory makes a great deal of (bastardised) sense. At least the premise, not neccessarily the pointlessly extravagant assumptions that have been made by some people.

Yeah, nice.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

9th December 2002, 11:04

Redstar 2000 suggests that ppl only take high jobs because they get high paychecks.

But in my idea there isnt difference in the paycheck of a nurse and a proffesor. This way ppl can choose a job that fits their needs and quality's.

But ofcourse garbage man and cleaner is a pretty boring and dirty job and thats why they should get payed just a little bit more.

I suggest to read my previous piece once (again) and this time try to think what I am saying.

You havent launched one attack against my idea or didnt even say what you think about it.

Supernova66

9th December 2002, 16:07

Thank you Redstar and Neutral Nation. You are right. My idea is simply designed to bring on a communist society.

<<<G.K.>>>

Man of the Cause

9th December 2002, 18:44

This is topic is actually one of the best one's started that I have read, because it brings something more to the Marxists theory, this exactly why I am in this forum; To learn and develop new, modern ideas to socialist theory.
Then, for your idea. First, we would have to decide what job is crappy, what job is easy, because every job is equal in it's usefulnes. If you ask the normal man in the streets " what makes a good job?" He'll propably say "The money the pay for it". So this creates the problem of jobs turning less atractive (crappy) because the smaller salary. I think the idea posted by Neutral Nation to make the salary system flexible could prevent this problem. For example, if the number of nurses starts to drop and the number of plumbers is rising, we could lower the plumber salary and rise the nurse's salary etc... Of course, this "Supernovaism" could last only for a short time. But when should we start it? Before Socialism? No. I think the the time between socialism and communism would be the best time for this.

Supernova66

9th December 2002, 19:48

Is this idea "Supernovaism" being named after me (Supernova)? If it is thanks. But that doesn't matter. Man Of The Cause, that is another socialist concept. When demand has lowered and demand for something else has risen, less attention is paid towards the one with less demand, correct? So if we need more doctors than we need sewage workers, we cut the sewage worker's wage and use the money to pay the doctors. Making the doctors job more interesting and much better to take on.

We would have to know what kind of jobs are in high demand before we make a decision on what is needed.

But what about the origional concept of high risked jobs (Metal worker. Where his/her life is at high risk.) compared to low risked jobs (Teacher. Where his/her life is at no risk.).

Obviously wages must be based on demand not quality, correct?

<<<G.K.>>>

redstar2000

9th December 2002, 22:17

"High risk" is part of what I would define as a "shit job" that DESERVES the highest compensation possible: I don't now recall which jobs fall into that catagory but it's easy enough to look up: coal miners, meat packers, oil & chemical workers, firefighters, railroad workers, construction workers, etc. are all at high risk of death and/or crippling injury. There are certainly others.

[Police, by the way, have LOW death rates but retire on "disability"--bad back--whenever an investigation of corruption and/or brutality gets uncomfortably close. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. :cheesy: ]

But my "bastardization" of Supernova66's idea would involve MORE than direct physical danger...though that's VERY important. Clearly, a communist society with a gram of decency would have extremely rigorous occupational safety regulations...that would actually be ENFORCED!

The poor sod out there sweeping the street is not in any mortal peril to speak of, but you can bet he's not having a wonderful time in his life either...especially when the weather's shitty. Yet, if no one did it, how long before the sidewalks and streets became impassible?

Remember that thread "the Marxist Apartment"? (I think it was in the Socialism vs. Capitalism forum.) Life requires a LOT of routine maintenance if it is not to collapse in filth, disease, and ruin. The people that KEEP that from happening are the most important people in ANY society and WE should acknowledge that...in a MATERIAL way.

This doesn't mean that people are ONLY motivated by financial rewards; in fact, I already volunteered to take one of the fun jobs at the BOTTOM of the pay scale. I'm sure there are MANY who feel the same.

Perhaps someday we can automate/computerize all the shit jobs and no one will "have" to spend their lives like that. UNTIL that happens, I think elementry justice DEMANDS that the people who have the worst jobs get the best pay, and vice versa. :cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:19 am on Dec. 10, 2002)

Supernova66

10th December 2002, 16:05

Give me a better definition of a "shit" job. Redstar, what you have said is what I was trying to say in the begining. But a shit job can sometimes be taken up by the society its self.

<<<G.K.>>>

redstar2000

10th December 2002, 23:34

Definition-> "shit job"

1. Heavy physical labor

2. Outdoor work, especially in bad weather.

3. Work in environmentally dangerous/unpleasant circumstances.

4. Work in potentially life-threatening circumstances or situations.

5. Work that is boring, monotonous, repetitive.

6. Work that is highly scheduled, rigid in its time demands.

7. Work that carries with it an aura of "low" social prestige.

Definition-> "fun job"

1. Work that is interesting, absorbing, challenging.

2. Work in pleasant, comfortable surroundings.

3. Work that is flexible in its time demands.

4. Work that carries with it an aura of "high" social prestige.

It would take some effort, but we could quantify those characteristics and come up with a single number to describe each kind of job...and adjust pay up or down as appropriate.

:cool:

Supernova66

11th December 2002, 16:09

You are right on redstar. That is exactly what Supernovaism is. We could work on this.

<<<G.K.>>>

Bolivia 67

11th December 2002, 17:46

You all seem to have interesting ideas on how to change the structure of day to day life. But I think that no matter what we did, the masses would still complain. Personally, I think the best way would be to come up with a number of solutions and ask the public to decide, and whatever they chose then try to implement it in a way that suggests it benefits those who did not like it. We need to please the majority as they are who it is done for!

Man of the Cause

11th December 2002, 18:20

What about bureucrates and office workers? Is their job a shitty or an easy one? According to Redstar's definition it is both: It's not very dangerous and it doesn't need any physical labour, but it's in the same time very boring and repetitive and it doesn't have much social prestige in it. So how should we pay 'em? Or is even the life of a bureucrat exiting in a pre-communist world?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

11th December 2002, 19:29

I think that jobs that no one wants should be a little more high payed than the rest of the jobs. I mean jobs like garbage man and sewer cleaner and that sort of shit. These are jobs wich are very needed and the whole society of today would letterly collapse without it. So a little more money would be nice for them. And some extra money for rescue workers.

In definition there is a boring side on each job, for me discussing would be a nice way to spend my life. But to the mass it seems doll and that means that i would get payed in ur system.

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th December 2002, 21:19

If there happens to be some lack of people taking certain occupations, perhaps there should be some sort of bonus, but deffinitely not a higher salary. No job should be payed more or less. That WILL create classes, which is very un-Marxist. I'm not saying that a man with a couple of thousands of bucks more than another WILL become an oppressor, though he could, couldn't he?
For instance, if a man with more money than the average man abuses his financial gain, he could bribe or currupt others and himself as well. The wealthy would create a class of their own which would lead away from socialism and directly into Capitalism.
A curency-less society would be yet more ideal.
Like I said before, every duty is equaly important and should be equaly rewarded.

Revolution Hero

11th December 2002, 23:17

There would be no economical differences between the people who would be engaged in the intellectual and physical labor in the true COMMUNISTIC SOCIETY. All people would be financially equal.

redstar2000

12th December 2002, 01:02

Remember when Supernova66 suggested his idea, he proposed a "4-level" system. Thus:

1. Shit Jobs--Highest Pay

2. Mostly Shit--but some fun: 2nd Highest Pay.

3. Mostly Fun--but some shit: 2nd Lowest Pay.

4. Fun Jobs--Lowest Pay.

Where any particular job would fit on this scale would be a product of complicated calculations. Clearly however, ALL political figures would be at level 4. The worst office jobs would probably be at level 2 but some would be at level 3. Rescue workers would be at level 2, of course (they get the chance to be "heroes", don't forget).

If rewards in currency bother people too much, we could always reward in kind (they do this sometimes in Cuba now). Everyone with a level 1 job is provided with a nice house, car, etc.; the celebraties at level 4 are housed and transported in a more modest fashion.

When we reach such a level of abundance that all "commodities" can be handed out more or less on demand, then currency will be pointless and disappear. Until, then, it's a very handy accounting tool and VERY dofficult to do without.

As to RH's assertion, HE better hope not--I see a ditch that needs digging in that fellow's future. :cheesy:

Supernova66

12th December 2002, 19:13

Admit it, when everyone is being payed the same for differrent jobs that have a wide variety, eventually someone/some people will start to believe that they deserve more because they have a harder job than the other.

I want to eliminate "greed" in a communist society and really the only way to do this is by paying them the amount that the deserve. Does anyone here only want to get paid about $5.50 an hour for a job that puts there life at serious risk?

Mabey we could offer bonuses to people that do very good at a job in one class (i.e., product from the company they work for, etc.). Than they would not be getting a raise but more along the lines of beneficiaries.

Supernovaism is strictly about elliminating greed by organizing it.

Revolution Hero

12th December 2002, 22:53

Quote: from Supernova66 on 5:13 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Admit it, when everyone is being payed the same for differrent jobs that have a wide variety, eventually someone/some people will start to believe that they deserve more because they have a harder job than the other.

I want to eliminate "greed" in a communist society and really the only way to do this is by paying them the amount that the deserve. Does anyone here only want to get paid about $5.50 an hour for a job that puts there life at serious risk?

Mabey we could offer bonuses to people that do very good at a job in one class (i.e., product from the company they work for, etc.). Than they would not be getting a raise but more along the lines of beneficiaries.

Supernovaism is strictly about elliminating greed by organizing it.

Quote:” Admit it, when everyone is being payed the same for differrent jobs that have a wide variety, eventually someone/some people will start to believe that they deserve more because they have a harder job than the other.”

People will receive everything they need in the communistic society. It will not matter who they are and what they do for living, they all will get what they want and what they need. Do you get my point now? EVERYBODY WILL BE EQUALLY RICH.

Quote:” I want to eliminate "greed" in a communist society”

Don’t worry, SOCIALISTIC REVOLUTION will accomplish this task for you.

Quote: ”Supernovaism is strictly about eliminating greed by organizing it.”

Don’t you think that you should learn Marxist theory?

Supernova66

13th December 2002, 17:36

RH,
I think your views are getting more biased as you write. Open up your head and ask yourself could this be a good thing?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

13th December 2002, 19:10

How do u wanna inspirate ppl to work hard??

The captalists have a simple solution: Materialism.

And what will urs be??

(Edited by CCCP at 7:11 pm on Dec. 13, 2002)

redstar2000

13th December 2002, 23:30

How will we inspire people to work "hard"?

How "hard" do you want people to work and at what? The capitalist wants workers to work "hard" because the harder they work, the greater HIS profit.

I think we communists want people to work productively...but that's not the same as making everybody bust their ass. We must see to it that working people understand that SOME work--even hard work--is IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS (many see this already).

But I'm NOT in favor of flogging people--with a whip or with a unit of currency--into production without limits. We need to remember the goal that Marx and Engels began with: freedom BEGINS with a shortening of the working day! :cool:

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

14th December 2002, 12:09

With hard work I mean productively work. Not like hard work in Japan, there is the work pressure very high. Sometimes even schoolkids commit suicide cause of the high work pressure.

But the work they do must be fun for them, but there are always jobs liked by none. The question is how to reward them. In the old-Soviet Union ppl were not very motivated to work productively. There was always too little shoes and meat.

In the captalist system. It works simple, the first one to find a hole in the market will be very rich. How will we motivate ppl to take initiative fo fill holes in the market, I prefer no materialist rewarding.

It's very natural to work hard in a job that fits ur interrest. But what about factory workers? The most of them, hate their job. Don't think that they will work hard. The only thing you have to do in a factory is working ur but off.

(Edited by CCCP at 12:10 pm on Dec. 14, 2002)

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th December 2002, 15:05

You people don't understand, people in Communism would not want more than another. They would realize that no matter what they do for a living they all desrve equal.
Greed would not exist!!

redstar2000

14th December 2002, 19:24

CCCP, don't you think it rather likely that we could do a LOT to make factory work less laborious than it is under capitalism?

But aside from that, this is one of the advantages of a 4-level system of compensation. BECAUSE factory work is one of the WORST jobs in industrial society, factory workers will be among the HIGHEST PAID workers under communism. :cool:

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th December 2002, 01:42

maybe their are millions of children with great asspirations of becoming a factory worker.

redstar2000

15th December 2002, 03:27

When I was around 10 years old, the school I went to took us on a "field trip" to an auto plant...we went right down on the floor and saw what it was like close up.

Don't remember now what the other kids thought, but it didn't look like a "fun job" to me. :cool:

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

15th December 2002, 15:06

Quote: from redstar2000 on 7:24 pm on Dec. 14, 2002
CCCP, don't you think it rather likely that we could do a LOT to make factory work less laborious than it is under capitalism? [quote/]

How? Show me the way and I will follow.

[quote]But aside from that, this is one of the advantages of a 4-level system of compensation. BECAUSE factory work is one of the WORST jobs in industrial society, factory workers will be among the HIGHEST PAID workers under communism. :cool:

Nice ,but in a socialist state the paychecks of the workers are beeing payed with the taxmoney. And you want to pay the paycheck of 25% of the population who is a worker with the taxmoney of the 75% other ppl who all earn much less and so can tribute much less tax. This will cause financiel problems wich will ruin ur first socialist state before it even started excisting.

And when u make factory work less laborious their work isn't a such shitjob anymore. But that means that u can do more work with less ppl and that will cause that some ppl will lose their jobs. And how do u wanna fix that?

And victor commie there are never enough ppl who want to work in factory.

Socialist Pig

15th December 2002, 21:13

The way to increase productivity is to make people happy. House us, feed us, entertain us. Equally. These were things that the soviet union didn't do.

Besides, all jobs are important. Shit or fun they hall have to be done. Why does one person have to be condemed to a life as a garbage man, ? Why can't we rotate people around these jobs? They require little or no training.

redstar2000

15th December 2002, 21:45

CCCP, there is NO possible way that I or anyone could give you an ENDLESS set of details about how this would work in the distant future. Questions of how things are paid for depend on whole sets of unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.

What we're trying to talk about here is a PRINCIPLE: the worse the job, the better the compensation.

This is a DEPARTURE from traditional radical theory. Socialist Pig articulates that traditional position: that all jobs should be rotated on a regular basis, with more or less equal compensation for all.

My argument, several pages ago, is that people might feel MORE resentment under that arrangement, regardless of the practical difficulties involved. I COULD be wrong about that.

To evaluate these two principles, you have to ask yourself which YOU would like to live in.

Would you like to spend your working life doing things you really enjoyed...even if that meant that MOST people had a standard-of-living HIGHER than yours? Or would you like to spend half your working life doing mindless shitty work...but have the SAME standard-of-living as everybody else?

In the years immediately preceeding the revolution, I expect this to be a furious controversy...as it has been in this thread.

So, think about the choice as a matter of PRINCIPLE...the details can ALWAYS be worked out later.

:cool:

Socialist Pig

16th December 2002, 04:53

This system doesn't seem to fit in the road to communism. After the revolution it seems far too extreme. People will still be motivated by money and I can see a large shortage in skilled labour as less people wish to become doctors, engineers, etc.

It has no place when a more of a communal society is established. It would revert back to motivation by materialism.

But I really have very little idea of what to expect after a revolution. This may be an ideal system, it may not.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

16th December 2002, 18:10

Dude there is no possible way that we can plan out every detail of a new state. But it couldn't hurt to discuss the details and share ideas and knowledge.

I agree on ur principe that how shitter job, how more compensation. But not too much. That way you even could make it attractive to go off school early to earn quik money.

We should make it more easyer and attractive too change jobs. Ofcourse a carbageman can't take over a proffesor's work, but we could make that 1 week per year ppl switch jobs. This way ppl start to develop respect for each other and each others job. A high studied guy won't call a carbage man lazy and it an easy job if he has done it too and experienced how hard work it is.

We could discus the details now, so that if we later should find a solution in a sort of emergency situation, we don't have to develop all these ideas. Now we can do it without haste. But u are right we can't discuss some details wich only can be predicted and discussed if we know about it.