Should the donkey walk to get the carrot...

[drain.you]

Carrot or whip?
Should society be ruled by insentive to work and greed (like under capitalism) or by fear (like under soviet and nazi states)? Or is there another way?
I mean, people will work if you say you'll pay them and they want the money and are greedy for material goods so they will work but if you ask someone to work and tell them they will be punished if they dont work (sent to a concentration camp or something) then they will work the same. Which is better?
For a commuist society we couldnt have it operating by greed or hoping that the people will just do the right thing. Is fear something that would be needed to be used in order to control a communist society?

[Dyst]

Sick idea. You sound like a dictator.

Whatever happened to wanting justice?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Fear only insofar as it was used in the vaguest of senses. The prevailing idea being that non co-operation has provided us with centuries of conflict and suffering, and that preservation of a benificial society does require work.

The idea that the populace is blind, and will always be short sighted is because they have almost always had a ruler. When people are responsible for themselves, they almost always become more aware of the factors affecting this, and of themselves. Some prove incapable in areas, but this has never been something that society as a whole has't coped with. By the very nature of post-revolutionary society, people will become more politicised and conscious.

People will work because it benifits them. They will be more capable of seeng why they should work because of their increased political and self awareness. Of course a form of pseudo-morality, or at least a preference for the people to carry on working may well exist to some degree. Working hard for charities is often seen as saint like, especially by the middle classes. All work in a communist society has a wide reaching benifit, so work is closer to what charity work is supposed to be now.

[Vanguard1917]

For a commuist society we couldnt have it operating by greed or hoping that the people will just do the right thing. Is fear something that would be needed to be used in order to control a communist society?

Fear is a product of human feelings of helplessness. People fear things that they can't understand, control and conquer.

Communist society, by definition, is a society in which human beings take control of their lives. They conquer the world, and genuine human history begins with communist society.

In communist society, people take control over their lives and destinities. The more people fear, the less they feel they're in control.


All work in a communist society has a wide reaching benifit, so work is closer to what charity work is supposed to be now.

No, i don't think work in communist society has anything to do with 'charity work' at all. Charity exists so that the rich can feel better about themselves by helping the poor, pathetic, helpless masses. In communist society, where people take control over their own lives and labour, charity becomes defunt... completely.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:56 PM
No, i don't think work in communist society has anything to do with 'charity work' at all. Charity exists so that the rich can feel better about themselves by helping the poor, pathetic, helpless masses. In communist society, where people take control over their own lives and labour, charity becomes defunt... completely.
Perhaps better with the "marks or italics. In the context it was meant, and I appologise if that was not clear from the post, I said it is what charity is perceived to be like. I actually commented on the true nature of charity briefly before trying to make sure my example was not to be understood in that sense, but rather in the one that it is perceived by those that think it was a good thing.

I assure you, you have taken the wrong meaning.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Sick idea. You sound like a dictator.

I totally agree with you. Some times i read things like this and i have to look at the address bar, make sure i havent accidentally stumbled onto a fascist website :blink:


Or is there another way?

Yes, that way would be called communism. ta daa!!


Is fear something that would be needed to be used in order to control a communist society?

Who is going to be judging who gets the punishment? why they get it, who gives it to them and so on.

This must be one of the dumbest threads ever created by a supposedly "progressive" revolutionary.

[KC]

Carrot or whip?
Should society be ruled by insentive to work and greed (like under capitalism) or by fear (like under soviet and nazi states)?

Neither.


I mean, people will work if you say you'll pay them and they want the money and are greedy for material goods so they will work but if you ask someone to work and tell them they will be punished if they dont work (sent to a concentration camp or something) then they will work the same. Which is better?

Neither!


For a commuist society we couldnt have it operating by greed or hoping that the people will just do the right thing.

People will do what they want. People won't let society fall apart. That's the point of communism. People will voluntarily keep society alive by doing what they enjoy and contributing to that society.

[anomaly]

Only the biggest authoritarian would suggest that we need to use 'fear' to keep the people 'in line' (and 'in line' with what?).

It is quite apparent that people in communist society will do what they need to do in order to survive. People are not suicidal maniacs, like some vulgar economists believe.

And might I add that in order to have a 'fear' you must have both an object and a source. What will be the source of fear other than some powerful leader who is above the people? And a 'powerful leader' is precisely what we are against.

[bezdomni]

Do the words "material interests" mean anything to you?

Besides, socialist government is democratic, why would the people scare themselves?

The question is flawed.

[LSD]

The problem with the "greed and fear" paradigm of societal organization is that it's not actually about societal organization.

It is common political theory that greed and fear are both basic social units that are indivisbly part of social control... and that's true. But social control is only tangentially related to social organization.

Greed and fear are not fundamental entities, they are rather both manifestations of self-interest. In this instance, cast in terms of the Prince Dillema.

Since a prince-subject relationship is so clearly to the bennefit of the prince, how can one possibly gain subjects? How can an aspiring prince overcome the inate human desire to be better one's condition.

Well, firstly, one can promise to make it "worth one's while" (greed). One can promise to offer security, wealth, land, etc.. in exchange for ceding political sovereignty. The other alternative is to threaten (fear). To use physical or psychological force to coerce free people into subjection.

Now, while both of these are viable options for Princes forming kingdoms, neither of them has anything to with democracy.

Democratic societies are, by definition, run by the people. They don't require coercive tools to control the population. They are the population!

The same fundamental self-interest that the "greed and fear" paradigm attempts to subvert, democratic society harnesses by allowing society to truly act for the benefit of the people.

Communist society will have no Princes and so Machiavelli's challange is moot. We need not worry about how one might "control" the people. The people will take care of that themselves.

[KC]

WORKERS AREN'T DONKIES!!!!

[Communism]

For a communist government to rule and get people to work efficently would not be done by people being driven by greed to increase their disposable income, neither would it be them working in fear of the government. Communist workers would have to see the light and work for the good of each other, it is much like building a tower in that sense, if one person is lazy or refuses to work it falls down, yet if all people work together then it shows solidarity and strength.

[STI]

The donkey should not walk for either. The donkey should be guaranteed the carrot, be free from the whip, and walk where he chooses because he finds it fulfilling and useful.

...Aren't donkeys too stupid for that?

Yeah, they probably are. But we aren't really talking about donkeys here, we're talking about humans... working-class humans, to be precise.

And we are smart enough for that.