Who would work in the factories?

[Americancommi]

I've been reading alot about communism and I agree with alot of it's ideas. It just seems rediculous to me that someone like Bill Gates can have 50 billion dollars when others starve to death. My question is however, in a communist society who would work in the factories? I know in a communist country there would be free education, but with this who would want to work in the factories. I know some might enjoy working their, but how would their be enough people? Also does the government regulate the jobs, I mean does the government tell you what what you have to do to keep their from being say 100,000 chefs but no garbage men?

[LSD]

Although a good deal of manual labour will doubtlessly be automated, there will certainly still be factory work that needs to be done.

In a communist society, such work will be undertaken by those with an interest in the field in question or those who chose to contribute time to it. You see, it really depends on what kind of factory we're talking about here.

For example, many people who are involved in, say, computer programming may also choose to spend some time by the computer factory to help contribute to construction as well as to tweak the designs.

Likewise, someone with an interest in cars would go down to the car factory to realize his ideas on the subject.

Under capitalism, people are forced to reduce their interests to hobbies. They're required to keep their secondary interests to minor size as they cannot afford to do anything else. In communism, however, there is no capitalist class and there is no ownership of production so anyone with an interest in the subject can go and get involved.


I know some might enjoy working their, but how would their be enough people?

Because, unlike in capitalism, there is no need to articially inflate demand or duplicate labour serving "competition".

If there are too many people in a specific field of work, it will be immediately apparent. There would be lines at the factory and waiting lists at the door. And since humans are naturally impatient creatures, a good number of people will decide that it's not worth the wait and will go and work on something else.

Similarly if there are too few people working, then scarcity will develop and people, mainly people who want whatever is now scarce, will go and help make more of it. Also, those who are working in whatever field will convince people they know to help them out.

It's the natural self-regulation of society. People don't like to be overcrowded and they don't like to be isolated or wantiong. And so when the technology and social progress are right, society doesn't need "masters" or "markets" to run itself.


Also does the government regulate the jobs

Of course not.

Communism is a classless and state-less society. There is no government whatsoever, let alone on managing the economy.

Again, society will self-regulate through natural almost homeostatic economic movement and through democratic self-governance.


I mean does the government tell you what what you have to do to keep their from being say 100,000 chefs but no garbage men?

Not at all.

There would not be 100,000 chefs because there wouldn't be enough people to eat all that food. An excess of chefs would lead to an overcrowding of the field and disinterest and boredom among newer and less driven chefs.

These individuals would, rather, gravitate towards less filed occupations in which their talents and dedication would be better appreciated.

And in terms of "who would be the garbage men", I again, would propose that a good deal of the "unseemly" work could be quite automated and that a lot of current "municipal" work could be made common individual labour.

So, for example, instead of putting your garbage bags in front of the curb, you could carry them down to the bottom of your street and place them into a communal dumpster. The dumpster could then be transported with no need for the "garbage men" to touch the waster or even to leave their vehicle.

Obviously not every job can be made pleasant, but a good deal of improvement can be made when "profit" is no longer at issue.

[Americancommi]

What you have said makes a great deal on sense. Also I know everyone is working for the greater good, but could the government offer any incentives to workers? Like say another ration or a vacation or something?

[amanondeathrow]

Also I know everyone is working for the greater good, but could the government offer any incentives to workers? Like say another ration or a vacation or something?

Like LSD said, a communist society would have no central government which would have the power to provide any bonuses for workers.

In a country making the transition to communism (socialism), whether or not the government provides incentives is relative to the specific conditions.

It is defiantly conceivable that a newly founded socialist state would need to provide some incentive for workers to undertake low level jobs. But this should only be necessary as the government is consolidating power.

[Americancommi]

Well with no form of central government who would organise everything. By this I mean who would make sure the materials get to the right factory from where they are harvested?

[LSD]

could the government offer any incentives to workers?

Once again, there is no government to "offer" anything.

And, personally, I would be opposed to a "reward" system as it only serves to re-institutionalize work. There should simply be no body with the authority to give out "prizes" for specific tasks.

Communism is not about controlling wants, it's about fulfilling wants in a truly democratic and egalitarian manner. That means that someone's access to resources should not be dependent on what kind of work they do or even if they do work at all.

Obviously someone who slouches around all day and does nothing would not be particularly popular. But I highly doubt that that kind of person would be particularly common, either. I can tell you, I've had times in my life when I had nothing to do, but I still undertook projects. Imagine what I could have done if I'd had the resources of society at my dispossal!

Making leisure timn or "rations" dependent on labour takes us right back to capitalism, albeit a slightly more meritocratic one. But communism is not about "nicening up" capitalism, it's about abolishing the despotism of capital.

[LSD]

Well with no form of central government who would organise everything.

The people, democratically.

Specifically, the various production decisions would be made by the workers in that field in consulation with the general population.

Again, this comes back to the nature of material development. This level of organization was simply impossible one hundred or even fifty years ago, but with current computing technology and certainly with the technology of the future, the people will be able to run their own economy with no need for "leadership" either state or capitalistic.

Unlike in capitalism, there is no incentive for anyone to "lie" or "inflate demand". It is a perfectly honest economic model because it is a pefectly equal economic model in which inflating economic indicators doesn't serve any interest.

Accordingly, the farmer will not request more tractors than he needs because he'd have nothing to do with the surplus.

Likewise, personal wants can be accurately computed and a teetoller will not get any alchohol and a computer nerd will get a better computer.

Again, it's about satisfying wants in the most rational and objective manner possible. Equality doesn't mean uniformity, it just means equal access to the resources of society. How these specifics are portioned out and in what order shipments are made will be decisions for society to make. And they will undoubtably be based on the specifics of individual cases.

A respirator, for instance, will be delivered before a gameboy, and printing paper for a progressive newspaper will almost certainly ship out before paper for a Christian magazine.

We cannot know the exact details of how it will work, but at this point in history, given what we already have, we can say with a reasonable amount of certainly that it can work.

[Americancommi]

I didn't mean it as having those things fully dependent on working, I just meant it as a slight reward to help motivate those, who maya not care as much about the greater good(the more selfish individuals).

[Americancommi]

thanks for your post lsd, it was another very informative answer. One more questions. I have heard that in many socialist countries their are still those who feel they wan't or derserve more than others and set up ways to get more. I have heard that a communist country would have to have a "reeducation" to avoid such things, but how would this be done without brainwashing people.

[LSD]

I didn't mean it as having those things fully dependent on working, I just meant it as a slight reward to help motivate those, who maya not care as much about the greater good

Again, though, I think that that's a dangerous precedent to set.

I communism is not entirely free then it will inevitable revert back to some form of class society. Unless production is entirely composed of free voluntary actors, the door is open for exploiation and manipulation.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, there's really no need for such "motivations". Society is already motivating enough and, again, there really wouldn't be anyone in a position to "hand out" the "rewards". Also the nature of communism is such that no one has any monopoly on resources. Anything that could concievably be offered as a "bonus", is something that any individual could go and get for themselves anyway.

Making production or supply decisions based on "earned status" distracts from rational distribution and undermines accurate need calculation.

Remember, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". There is no need to add a corollary to that maxim.

[LSD]

I have heard that in many socialist countries their are still those who feel they wan't or derserve more than others and set up ways to get more.

That's because those countries were neither communist nor "socialist". They were, for the most part, state-controlled capitalist and had virtually no concept of workers rights.

When workers are forced to work due to political pressure, it is just as exploitative as when they are forced by economic pressure. They become angry and bitter and, rightfully, attempt to maximize their personal bennefit.

There's nothing wrong with trying to take advantage of an exploitative system and no degree of "re-education" would have made the USSR or PRC any less oppressive to its people.

An actual communist society, however, will from the beginning offer everything and anything to its population. There will be no need to tray and "take what one can", because on will already have it all!

Remember, the members of the Polit Bureau were quite satisfied with Soviet "socialism". That's because, of course, they were in charge of it.

Well, in communism, everyone is "in charge" and so everyone bennefits.

That's the nature of a truly free society.

[Americancommi]

[QUOTE=LSD,Apr 4 2006, 01:47 AM] [QUOTE]

An actual communist society, however, will from the beginning offer everything and anything to its population. There will be no need to tray and "take what one can", because on will already have it all!

In order to for one to have it all however, their would have to be enough of everything to go around. It would be hard for a country to afford to have say every memeber have a car. In order for something like that to be possible the country would have to have tons of money.

[LSD]

In order to for one to have it all however, their would have to be enough of everything to go around.

True enough and, obviously, not every want can be met.

I may, for instance, one day wake up and decide I want a personal space shuttle, but, for the present time, that is not a feasibly desire.

Society, however, can pretty accurately guage what is and what isn't rationally fullfillable and will instruct production accordingly. Again, there would be no motivation for anyone to lie. It's everyone's resources in question and all distribution and production figures as fully public.

Someone who consistantly abuses societal privaleges and demands outrageous things with no justification given, will quickly find himself at the bottom of the production queue and whenever shortages occur he will feel them first.

The point here, though, is that while there is not an infinite supply of anything, there is enough of everything such that pretty much any reasonable demand can be met.

There is, after all, no "food shortage" in the world today, merely a distribution problem caused by the inherent inequities of capitalism

A communist society would, obviously, not have that a problem.


It would be hard for a country to afford to have say every memeber have a car.

Nonsense.

There are more than enough raw materials in the world for every person to have a car. Although, realistically, not everyone would need one.

The only reason that most people cannot get a car today is because of capitalist distribution which unevenly allocates "wealth" such that a small elite in the west can afford private plains and the vast majority of the "south" lives in squallour.


In order for something like that to be possible the country would have to have tons of money.

There is no "money" in a communist society. There will certainly be some measure of value, but it will not be currency-based.

Rather production limits will be based on the finite reality of objective conditions such that pure ability, and not "profit", is the sole guiding restrictor.

Again, there are limits to what can be made. But those limits can be farily accurately forecast and society can democratically decide how to work with them or, if possible, around them.

[Americancommi]

I agree with what you say about a problem with distribution. I can't help but feel sick when I hear on the news that America has an "obesity epidemic" at the same time people starve to death. But to be able to get the resources we would need to fund a succesful society, we would need to trade with the capitalists until we have a global communism. Until then however we would have to use at least the currency of other countries to buy to resources we need and sell surplus goods.

[LSD]

But to be able to get the resources we would need to fund a succesful society, we would need to trade with the capitalists until we have a global communism.

That's probably true.

It obviously depends on the specifics of the country or region in question, but it's probably a given that some resource would be particularly scarce.

If possible we should attempt to secure our own sources or pursue alternative technologies, but in some cases, yes, trade would be required.

Our priority, though, should be to avoid the capitalist "market" as much as possible. The less we "sell" of our domestic production, the better we can serve our society.

If we are forced to "trade", though, it will be in a strictly bartering capacity. We would probably export produced goods to third world countries in exchange for access to local resources. Because of the streamlined nature of our production and our lack of "profit motive", we would also be able offer far more competitive rates than the neo-colonial prices of the capitalist superpowers.

It is in our interest, after all, to foster good relations with all the people of the "south" so that, when they're infastructure develops, they can all join us in freedom.

Besides, weakening the economic support base of the imperialist powers only helps us in fostering proletarian insurrection. The less power the bourgeoisie has and the less it is able to maintain stability, the more the proletariat will recognize reality.

Remember, as a communist "country" we do not only have an obligation to our own people, but to the world as well.

[Americancommi]

I think the most cripiling blow that we could deal to capatilism would be to help turn 3rd world countries communist there by eliminating the workforce that the capitalists exploit. With the loss of this nearly slave labor a capitalist country could never thrive.

[LSD]

Unfortunately, the third world is, by definition, not materially capable of organizing functional communists societies. The technical and social infastructure is simply not there.

Once a significant proportion of the world is communist, however, we will probably be able to "accelerate" third world development by sharing technology and resources.

Until that time, however, the best thing we can do for the third world is to oppose imperialism and forment proletarian revolution in the first. The "south" needs to develop independently before it can reach a communist stage.

That means that imperialism needs to be driven out and the neo-colonies need to go!

[Americancommi]

It would work well if we could have some form of international labor laws made, kind of like how the geneva convention is the international rules of war, we need laws to end the exploitation of poorer countries.

[norwegian commie]

i see your points LSD but however i belive you are looking at things in the wrong perspective. The reason we today live in capitalism is the lack of material goods.
The over-productioning of he capitalists today can not continue, then the world would starv and lack of goods would bee increasing that is why we need a revoultion, to stop the unnessesary production of materialistic goods and focus on peoples needs.

If you belive that in a communist society most people would be free to obtain whatever goods they want, i belive you are wrong. need of school, medic and so on and so forth will be satisfyed for everyone. But in some years we will be 11-12 billion people on earth then population would stabilise.

that is like cutting toays recorsses in half. tHen we would be a problem if everyone could get what they wanted (within reasonable lines) we would run out of popular items.

People in rich countries hold on and fight for capitalism for these reasons,
in a communist society they would have less materialistic goods
in a communist society they would have no power

because if we where to live in a fair and communist way we need to distribute things somewhat equal - according to need

But if you could get anything you wanted, there where no limitations on the claiming of goods what had the capitalists been doing? nothing but evil deeds tricing the working class?

There was and is a reason for capitalism, on one hand the competetive society creates many clever inventions and results in efficient work on work placec since they need to be so too survive. In communism this is not a fact and you can relax a bit moore withut loosing your car and TV.

Pluss the prolem with dstrubution is solved (in a sevfish, unfar and wrong matter) YES but can we give everybody what they want? i
am not promoting capitalism but questioning you wiew on communist ideas

[LSD]

The reason we today live in capitalism is the lack of material goods.

No, the reason we live in capitalism today is because of the bourgroisie's success in overthrowing feudalism.

The earth has, after all, always been a finite resource, and yet capitalism has only existed for the past few hundred years.


if everyone could get what they wanted (within reasonable lines) we would run out of popular items.

No we wouldn't, we would merely increase production.

Although natural resources are not infinite, they are not as limited as the apocapyptic fear-mongers would have you believe.

Humanity is remarkably innovative. I have no doubt that we will discover mechanisms by which to overcome seemingly insoluble production difficulties.

Will that mean that everyone can have "everything"? No. But, within reason, people will be able to satisfy pretty much any want they may have.

That is, after all, the point of a classless society!


But if you could get anything you wanted, there where no limitations on the claiming of goods what had the capitalists been doing? nothing but evil deeds tricing the working class?

Yes! (althoguh "evil" is a misnomer)

The capitalists have been in no way "altruistic" in their actions. They fight to maintain capitalsim in order to perpetuate their class privalege, nothing more.

Yes, capitalism was progressive in its day, but that is not because capitalism is "good", it's because capitalism was better than feudalism. Today, however, taht is no longer an issue and it is high time that we began addressing the end of capitalism itself.


In communism this is not a fact and you can relax a bit moore withut loosing your car and TV.

Sure you could but, again, why would you want to?

There are simply too many interesting and rewarding things to do under communism for people to spend all day staring at a TV screen.

For example, many people who are involved in, say, computer programming may also choose to spend some time by the computer factory to help contribute to construction as well as to tweak the designs.

Likewise, someone with an interest in cars would go down to the car factory to realize his ideas on the subject.

Under capitalism, people are forced to reduce their interests to hobbies. They're required to keep their secondary interests to minor size as they cannot afford to do anything else. In communism, however, there is no capitalist class and there is no ownership of production so anyone with an interest in the subject can go and get involved.

[norwegian commie]

Yes i understand your points but...

Do you mean the capitalists is hiding recorces to us?

Will the living standard of norway increase or decrease?

[BlackStar]

:blink: :blink: :blink: wow, this is moslty news to me, i was always uner the influence of communism having some form of government to deal with all the kinks and flaws and regulate the economy so that all could live comfortbaly and also regulate work so that the economy didnt crash...care to explain? I belive a PURELY democratic country would crumble under peoples want for power and that there SHOULD always be a big brother so to speak to keep everyone in line. AND WAIT UP WAIT UP! in the manifesto it says that all prpoerty is seized by the STATE and distributed to the public..so there is a government...what the hell are you talking about? :o

[LSD]

Do you mean the capitalists is hiding recorces to us?

Not at all. Merely that there is no "purpose" to capitalism as you seemed to be implying.

The reason that capitalists exploit workers today is not because of "scarcity" (as, incidently, bourgeois economists do claim), but because it is in their material interest to do so.

No, there are not infinite resources on earth, but there are more than sufficient resources to seriously increase the median living standards and certainly enough such that everyone can live a decent comfortable life.


Will the living standard of norway increase or decrease?

The mean living standard will probably be around the same, although the standard deviation would, of course, be much lower.


wow, this is moslty news to me, i was always uner the influence of communism having some form of government to deal with all the kinks and flaws

Then you have been misinformed.

Communism is, by definition, a stateless society. Again, in Marxist terms, once class society has been abolished there is no need for a state as it exists solely to represent dominant class interests.

I tend to take the view that the state is actually more complex than that and can develop a distinct social role, especially in times of economic or social strain.

Regardless though, there is no controversy on the basic tenant of communism that statelessness is a fundamental character of classless society.


and regulate the economy so that all could live comfortbaly and also regulate work so that the economy didnt crash...

Firstly, you need to stop thinking in bourgeois terms.

Absent a "market" economy, there is no "economic system" to "crash". Nor will we need any "regulation" by "big brothers".

Incidently, I trust that you can grasp the irony of using Orwell's satirical "Big Brother" in a complementary manner. The point of 1984, after all, was not that the state is constructive, but that it is destructive.

Now, the left is by no means "united" on a lot of these issues. And a good portion of it still adheres to more traditional Marxist conceptions about the "transitional state" (more on that later). But what you need to realize is that regardless of our views on how we get there, we are unanimous in our collective aim:

Communism is a stateless, classless society in which production is democratically organized by volunteer workers and distribution is societaly organized to maximize the bennefit of all individuals.


I belive a PURELY democratic country would crumble under peoples want for power

Why?

In a democratic society in which all production is free and currency-economics have been abolished, what precisely would people "want" that they wouldn't be able to get freely?

You see, the reason that democracy is so fundamentally flawed in republican governments is that political democracy is always fatally undermined by economic totalitarianism.

In the presence of true socioeconomic pluralism, however, there is no motivation towards abuse. There is, quite simply, no reason to try and exert ones will over any one else.

That, after all, is the point of a communist society. The elimination of wage-slavery and the liberation of the worker is not our goal out of compassion or altruisim (although those emotions can help), but out of pragmatic realism.

Once all production is voluntary and indepdendent, there is not only no more exploiation, there is no more desire towards exploitation.

It may seem far-fetched to you, given that you've almost certainly been raised in an environment in which human independence was frowned upon (read: bourgeois republic), but it is well within our capacity.


AND WAIT UP WAIT UP! in the manifesto it says that all prpoerty is seized by the STATE and distributed to the public..so there is a government...

The section of the Manifesto you are citing refers to the proletarian state immediately following the revolution.

If you'd care to re-read it, you'd realize that Marx called for a transitional socialist period before communism could be attained. During this period, the "worker's state" would indeed engage in forced redistributions.

But, as class distinctions are eliminated, this state is meant to "wither away" such that, eventually, we attain a classless and stateless society.

Again, communism itself is fundamentally state free!

[BlackStar]

Thanks alot, i had totally forgot about that section. I appologize for wasting your precious time correcting me :( Im only 16 btw, and I've only started believing in Socialism and Communism in the last year...Still working on it all.

[Ol' Dirty]

LSD, you are the fucking man! I wanna be just like you when I grow up! :D

My question is: what links, documents and books may shed more light upon thi subject?

[Dyst]

Idolizing isn't healthy for you. ;)

Though I must congratulate LSD for making some very nice arguments and a simple (yet extremely insightfull) introduction to communism, without all the crap.