i feel lame asking..

[cbm989]

but i am confused on a few things and i need them cleared up. how exactly does the pay system work in a socialist economy? does each job have a set pay and everyone who performs that job gets the same amount? and what exactly are the implications of everyone owning the means of production? And i dont know if i understand this aspect right either, but its my understanding that you work and make your money but the government provides all neccesities...is that right? if so what qualifies as 'necesities' ? thanks in advance

[( R )evolution]

I would assume that "necesites" would be food,water,shelter and stuff that is needed to surviue without your "wants".

[cbm989]

i see, but how is housing worked out...the size of the house depends on family size and what not?

[KC]

but i am confused on a few things and i need them cleared up. how exactly does the pay system work in a socialist economy? does each job have a set pay and everyone who performs that job gets the same amount? and what exactly are the implications of everyone owning the means of production? And i dont know if i understand this aspect right either, but its my understanding that you work and make your money but the government provides all neccesities...is that right? if so what qualifies as 'necesities' ? thanks in advance

I'm guessing you're talking about communism, as you are inquiring about the means of production being 'held in common.' There is no money in a communist society. The implications of everyone owning the means of production means that you are free to employ whatever means needed to do whatever you want to do with your life. You can be an engineer one year and a teacher the next.

Here. (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=10051&entry=310&action2=perma)

[( R )evolution]

Lazar, I was under the imppersion that under "socialism" money was still in place. But unlike a capitalist society a train was bulit to better off the people not to make a profit.

[Jadan ja]

There are many different models how should socialism work.

I think that socialism means giving people "according to their work." (while communism is "according to needs"). Worker gets the amount that he has produced (unlike capitalism in which certain amount is given to people who did not produce it in form of rent, interest or profit). If i didn't misunderstand anything there is no reason why it cannot be payed in money.

I am not really sure about this, so please correct me if I am wrong.

[Jadan ja]

would assume that "necesites" would be food,water,shelter and stuff that is needed to surviue without your "wants".

I am not copletely sure about this, but I don't think that needs stop there.

Look at maslow's hierarchy of needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Capitalism, obviously, is not a system in which everyone can meet the needs on the lowest level of the pyramide (and it certaily fails to meet the safety needs, second level, of many, many people).

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [email protected] 3 2006, 01:34 AM
Lazar, I was under the imppersion that under "socialism" money was still in place. But unlike a capitalist society a train was bulit to better off the people not to make a profit.
You are misunderstanding what socialism 'is'. Money may or may not be in place under socialism, since socialism is simply the dictatorship of the proletariat. So there is simply no answer to the question 'is there money'. I hypothesize that the proletariat, in their own material interests, will destroy money, of which they had very little, and attempt to begin building communism. But, money may be used for quite some time into socialism. It will be up to the revolutionary proletariat, not us.

You say that a 'train would be built to better off the people, not to make a profit'. If this is the case, and the profit motive does disappear as soon as socialism is established, what point is there in having money at all? I expect the profit motive may not disappear so quickly. That is, 'neccesary goods' will be free of charge, but there will still be a market for luxuries. Again, that is just hypothesizing, as we do not know.

[cbm989]

alright thanks for all the replies. but if theres no money and the government supplies most of your basic needs, does this mean theres no way to own any luxury items (such as music, books, computers?)

[anomaly]

The 'government'? The proletariat would be the 'government', and anything they wanted to produce, they would produce. They would not be bound by the whims of their masters any longer.

[cbm989]

so basicly...you work to achieve what you want? so you use the commonly owned resources to create the desired object? and if im right on that...what if i dont know how to make a computer? or whatever else i may want?

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by anomaly+Feb 3 2006, 09:53 PM--> (anomaly @ Feb 3 2006, 09:53 PM)
Machiavelli [email protected] 3 2006, 01:34 AM
Lazar, I was under the imppersion that under "socialism" money was still in place. But unlike a capitalist society a train was bulit to better off the people not to make a profit.
You are misunderstanding what socialism 'is'. Money may or may not be in place under socialism, since socialism is simply the dictatorship of the proletariat. So there is simply no answer to the question 'is there money'. I hypothesize that the proletariat, in their own material interests, will destroy money, of which they had very little, and attempt to begin building communism. But, money may be used for quite some time into socialism. It will be up to the revolutionary proletariat, not us.

You say that a 'train would be built to better off the people, not to make a profit'. If this is the case, and the profit motive does disappear as soon as socialism is established, what point is there in having money at all? I expect the profit motive may not disappear so quickly. That is, 'neccesary goods' will be free of charge, but there will still be a market for luxuries. Again, that is just hypothesizing, as we do not know. [/b]
I believe that after a revolution of the proletariat, money will still be needed for a short time till the nation regains its self and contuines on the road to communism. I dont think that money could be ablosihed right after a revolution because that would create total chaos. Once, the nation is established and the dictatorship of the proletariat is put into place than we can abloish money.

[La Comédie Noire]

Never feel lame for asking a question, what Is lamer? asking a question about something you do not know about, or trying to debate something you do not know about?


socialism is simply the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Some places that are "Socialist" aren't anywhere near that, it is quite distrubing.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Machiavelli X+Feb 3 2006, 06:26 PM--> (Machiavelli X @ Feb 3 2006, 06:26 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:53 PM

Machiavelli [email protected] 3 2006, 01:34 AM
Lazar, I was under the imppersion that under "socialism" money was still in place. But unlike a capitalist society a train was bulit to better off the people not to make a profit.
You are misunderstanding what socialism 'is'. Money may or may not be in place under socialism, since socialism is simply the dictatorship of the proletariat. So there is simply no answer to the question 'is there money'. I hypothesize that the proletariat, in their own material interests, will destroy money, of which they had very little, and attempt to begin building communism. But, money may be used for quite some time into socialism. It will be up to the revolutionary proletariat, not us.

You say that a 'train would be built to better off the people, not to make a profit'. If this is the case, and the profit motive does disappear as soon as socialism is established, what point is there in having money at all? I expect the profit motive may not disappear so quickly. That is, 'neccesary goods' will be free of charge, but there will still be a market for luxuries. Again, that is just hypothesizing, as we do not know.
I believe that after a revolution of the proletariat, money will still be needed for a short time till the nation regains its self and contuines on the road to communism. I dont think that money could be ablosihed right after a revolution because that would create total chaos. Once, the nation is established and the dictatorship of the proletariat is put into place than we can abloish money. [/b]
If there are still 'nations' after a proletarian revolution, I would say that the revolution has been a dismal failure. It should bring an end to the nation state.

[More Fire for the People]

but i am confused on a few things and i need them cleared up. how exactly does the pay system work in a socialist economy?
In my opinion,
A baseline wage for everyone, bum and worker alike; I suggest about $210 a week.
At the workplace wages would be decided by the workers themselves within the limits of budget, minimum wage, and additional remuneration for community service.


does each job have a set pay and everyone who performs that job gets the same amount?
Most likely a minimum wage will be necessary for a while. I suggest a $10 wage indexed to inflation.


and what exactly are the implications of everyone owning the means of production?
Within certain limits — the budget, the minimum wage, additional remuneration, co-worker approval — each individual will decide their own wage.


And i dont know if i understand this aspect right either, but its my understanding that you work and make your money but the government provides all neccesities...is that right? if so what qualifies as 'necesities' ? thanks in advance
An apartment, water, and some foodstuffs. A life of real comfort and luxury would require one to work but no one would starve because of self-imposed unemployment.

[cbm989]

"An apartment, water, and some foodstuffs. A life of real comfort and luxury would require one to work but no one would starve because of self-imposed unemployment. "

two questions to go along with housing. what is to happen with all the existing real estate? will people be forced out of their homes and put into new government housing projects? what about huge mansions that the upper class live in? and i have people of my family in the real estate buisness. it sounds liek that buisness would be pretty nonexistent, no?

[More Fire for the People]

Will people be forced out of their homes and put into new government housing projects? what about huge mansions that the upper class live in?
The vast majority of people won't because there is no reason to do so. Now as to mansions? I think some of them should be turned into museums and others turned into youth centers.


it sounds liek that buisness would be pretty nonexistent, no?
Probably. The distribution of plots of land for construction would be decided by the community itself or a construction committee.

[cbm989]

thanks for all the answers guys. i have a much better grip on all this stuff.

[Abood]

Socialism is different from communism. Socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. in socialism, the government owns the means of production and distributes them "from each according to his ability to each according to his DEEDS", which means that the harder u work, the more u get.
in communism, there is no government and the means of production are controlled by all the people... "from each according to his ability to each according to his NEEDS".

i wrote an essay about that called "What is Communism?" and u read it, i hope u got ur answer from there :)

[cbm989]

^ ahh that would make sense. i read your essay. it was awesome. But i know TONS of people have made this comment but i think i have to...out of sheer curiosity, im nto exactly sure what the motive be in communism...the motive in socialism is clear, you work harder you get more. this is what i THINK the motive is in communism, tell me if im correct: In order to get what you need as in "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" you have to work. meaning you wont get anything out of the system if you dont put anything into it. am i right?

[Abood]

^ ahh that would make sense. i read your essay. it was awesome. But i know TONS of people have made this comment but i think i have to...out of sheer curiosity, im nto exactly sure what the motive be in communism...the motive in socialism is clear, you work harder you get more. this is what i THINK the motive is in communism, tell me if im correct: In order to get what you need as in "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" you have to work. meaning you wont get anything out of the system if you dont put anything into it. am i right?

almost. in communism, everyone gets what he wants out of the system; but communism believes in the theory that people will work because they need to. the only reason people in this world work for money is because they need money. if people didnt need money, because everything is free, then they will realize that they will have to work in order to live, for example, they will need to make clean water, distill oil to get petrol etc etc... they will also be able to do what they wish and like, for example, a guy who likes music will be able to make music more, as there is no more routine like in a capitalist society. In a capitalist society, a person who dreams of being a rockstar will probably lose his dream by people telling him "get real, u wont be paid enough", but in communism he doesnt need pay to live, so he does it!
i hope u understand :)

This is my 200th post :D :P

[cbm989]

i do understand now but what about less desireable jobs? tons of people would love to sit around and compose music all day....but we cant have that many musicians. who is gonna do the dirty work...sanitation and what not?

[ack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:15 AM
You can be an engineer one year and a teacher the next.
How would that work out?
Wouldn't we just end up with a ton of people in "glory jobs" and nobody to manage our sewers and no hog farmers and the like to help produce our food?

[anomaly]

Most of the 'dirty work' will be done by technology.

For example, let's consider dealing with garbage. Hopefully, we can move to a recycling system completely, in which case we'd simply build the plants and operate them. Each commune would have such a plant, and each person would simply bring their trash there every week or so. So, technology does most of the work.

Hog farming was also mentioned. Farming should be localized, as either each commune will farm for itself, or, since this will likely be impractical (it most certainly will be, actually), those communes with the most fertile soil can farm. These may be larger communes, in order to encompass the neccesary farmland, and they would provide food for communes around it. Communes around it, of course, would give this farming commune goods it cannot produce. In this way, production becomes more efficient and trade truly becomes free.

Hopefully our sewers will need to be 'managed' less and less due to greater technology. In this case, we'll just have a specialist to oversee this technology.

Janitorial work could be done by each and every individual, of course.

You may have seen my idea of the fuzzying of the division of labor...well, shared janitorial work and the like is exactly what I mean. Each person will have one, maybe even two, skilled labor positions. All unskilled labor can be easily provided by either technology or these same skilled people, and in this way the unskilled labor workload can be shared, and society can function more smoothely.

[razboz]

Oh heres an idea on how it could work:
A Comminitee would be set up to establish to "glory factor of each proffession" and make a chart of all of the proffession. Each one would be given a rank. Youg People coming out of the final years of education, maybe earlier would be placed at the bottom of the ladder. They would then be educated to perform the next task while still working on their first. Then they would move "up". Thus people would work hard withthe prospect of reacihing some ideal future. Of course people would be able to volouteer for the less glorryfied jobs and then they would have heightened standing somehow. The only problem i have with this system is that it does not do away with the class system which is a source of social injustice. But so long as proffessions exists classes wll too. The IDeal world for me would be one where robots take care of everything and the people are free to from these chains and everyone is equal, finally. But then we would all slowly fall to stagnation and rot away and society would implode in a slow cloud of flesh particles and the metal-kind would take over...(read Robots of Dawn, by Isaac Asimov it explains a bit of what might happen in a too perfect society)
That might (probabbly wont) happen. as i said just an idea.

[cbm989]

^that would create major class division my friend. giving people "glory ratings"? sounds like the shit we got now...