Equal Wages

[Avtomatov]

Does communism support equal wages? Or would people get paid depending on what their work is worth?

[chimx]

no wages

distribution by need

[Avtomatov]

what about when everyone has what they need. Then where does the extra money go?

[EusebioScrib]

There's no money, either.

Do you mean where does the surplus production go? I would assume it just gets stockpiled until it is used.

[Avtomatov]

No i meen what about entertainment? Dont harder/smarter/more skilled workers get more money to spend on stuff like entertainment. Like toys is what i meen. Inequality of toys do not affect equality of opportunity.

[nickdlc]

Nope the motto "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" would be the guiding slogan in communist society so if this smarter/harder working comrade wants more "toys" s/he can have them but so can any other person in the community.

[EusebioScrib]

No i meen what about entertainment? Dont harder/smarter/more skilled workers get more money to spend on stuff like entertainment. Like toys is what i meen. Inequality of toys do not affect equality of opportunity.

Well, chances are we will do little work in communism and we'll work only if we want to. We do "need" entertainment as far as we're concerned. People will entertain because they enjoy it, not because of money or production.

[anomaly]

No, communism is about elminating wage-salvery in its entirety. 'Equal wages' is an impossible idea, because it strives for social equality in a capitalist setting.

[Avtomatov]

You guys are utopianists. From what ive read of communist literature i get the idea communism is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Because some people deserve more when they work for it. Capitalism allows people to work less and make more then what they deserve.

But listening to some communists i get confused because some of them have these utopian ideas that communism will be so leisurely and we will have everything we want and that everyone will be happy. Thats not what its about to me, im not a hedonist. To me communism is about eliminating the aristocracy once and for all. Utopian Socialism is fantasy.

[EusebioScrib]

You don't seem to clearly understand Capitalism or Communism. Communism won't have money and it won't have wages. That doesn't mean it will be a Utopia.

The historic role of capitalism is to accumulate human labor in the means of production so that humans no longer need to "work" as they do today.

Think of communism in terms of many tribal socities today, although more hi-tech and without constant labor.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:09 AM
You guys are utopianists. From what ive read of communist literature i get the idea communism is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Because some people deserve more when they work for it. Capitalism allows people to work less and make more then what they deserve.

But listening to some communists i get confused because some of them have these utopian ideas that communism will be so leisurely and we will have everything we want and that everyone will be happy. Thats not what its about to me, im not a hedonist. To me communism is about eliminating the aristocracy once and for all. Utopian Socialism is fantasy.
equality of opportunity is the mantra of liberal capitalism

[Avtomatov]

But equality of opportunity does not exist in capitalism.

[EusebioScrib]

But equality of opportunity does not exist in capitalism.

Technically it does. Anybody can become bourgeois, it is very possible. Anybody can exploit other humans. Will everyone? No.

[KC]

Technically it does.

No it doesn't. Equality of opportunity doesn't exist. You see, some people have to work harder than others to get there.

[Hefer]

Equal wages or equal distribution won't work in today's society, people won't become doctors or engineers and earn the same wage as a garbage worker. It's unrealistic and utopian. I say the higher your education(which will be your contribution to society) the higher your wage. Alot people make way to much money; athletes, actors etc. A doctor who cures a disease, doesn't get the same respect and admiration that celebrities get today. Teachers contribute so much to society and they don't get paid what they really do deserve.

[WAL-MARX]

whether or not communism supports equal wages, it doesn't mask the fact that it's profoundy utopian and considerably unrealistic. classic libertarian socialism will suggest that a long term goal of any form of government that lacks private property is to eliminate all forms of work except those which are desirable and thus deliberately pursuable. undesirable jobs will be around for a long, long time, though, and a compelling sense of social responsibility and duty alone will never be enough to motivate people into these jobs. this creates the need for other incentive(s). in all practicality, undesirable jobs will never be deliberately filled without some sort of additional incentive or reward.

the immediate, and in my opinion, most practical, solution to this would be some sort of economic incentive. actually, outside that suggestion, i don't even see the possibility of solving this problem without attacking major structural issues over what-would-be socialist/communist economic policy.

[RaiseYourVoice]

i dont want to be harsh but some people should think about join oposing ideologies xD

@hefer, wal-marx

You stick too much to the capitalist lie that people need to be forced to work. they dont. capitalism actually creates the problems it argues to solve, like the scarcity of products.
people will work as much as needed. people who like to help other people will become doctors and work when they are needed. its not utopian, its just the next logic step after capitalism. capitalism was nice to make the production capacities grow, but now its not needed any more.

Equality of opurtunity is something made up by supporters of the capitalist system that want to argue that if everyone has the same chances, its fair to give them different wages. thus an excuse for inequality

[TC]

Communism as a post-socialist socal stage is purely hypothetical, so what form of distribution it takes is entirely unknown...apart from the frequently repeated quote, Marx did not speculate much on how an end-of-history communism would work, so you can't extrapolate to much from it, and besides, Marx's predictions were often false.


During centrally planed socialist economies, additional compensation beyond the standard amount of rations and currency is sometimes offered in an effort to get people to work in less desirable fields...for instance its common in socialist states for office workers to earn less than manual laborers, and for manual laborers in especally taxing jobs to earn the most...otherwise there wouldn't be enough people to fill those positions. Its also totally appropriate because the manual laborers are closest to the direct means of production anyways.

There is nothing inconsistent with socialism or marxism about managing the economy in this way and it doesn't require the types of gross inequality seen in capitalist societies. Different workers may earn slightly different amounts because they contribute to the economy in different ways, but they are still all members of the same class, capitalism has gross inequality because it has a private investment class and professionals supporting it.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:28 PM

But equality of opportunity does not exist in capitalism.

Technically it does. Anybody can become bourgeois, it is very possible. Anybody can exploit other humans. Will everyone? No.
Bullshit.

Just become one can doesn't make it equal. The inequality exists in the massive disparity between the probability of those born into the working class becoming bourgeois and the probability of those born bourgeois following the family tradition and becoming exploiters. The "opportunity" is there for the working class but it is incredibly small, basically non-existent. The oppertunity is in no way equal. Yes one can name those who have jumped class ranks with skill and much luck but it is an insignificant percentage. Equal opportunity under capitalism does not exist.

[Delta]

Yes, I think it's flagrantly clear that in capitalism you don't have equality of opportunity. This is just one of the many things that show that free markets, which is basically the justification for all capitalist thought, cannot possibly be achieved.

In a communist society, if some extremely undesirable job existed, society would put a lot of effort into it so that the hardship was minimized. Whether this took the form of minimizing the issue in the first place, using some sort of machine to do it, etc. would depend on the details of the individual situation.

And in some proposed economic systems, people share the responsibilities of jobs, so that true equality can be achieved. If some people have very glorious jobs while others don't, you don't have a very good sense of equality. If some people are much more educated than others, then again you're setting up a type of heirarchy. Of course some specialization must happen for high-quality doctors, scientists, etc., but you can certainly do more to empower people than to simply let them be a garbage collector. Everyone has a skill that they could apply in a more meaningful way.

[Avtomatov]

Okay now that some more knowledgeable members have posted, im thankful I dont have to go and write up my own manifesto, and that i can still call myself a communist, i think.

[WAL-MARX]

RaiseYaVoice, I don't mean to be harsh either, but since I've been called out...


You stick too much to the capitalist lie that people need to be forced to work. they dont.
First, you suggested that I sympathize with the capitalist notion that people need tp be forced to work. The key to understanding the difference between capitalism and feudalism is that capitalism no longer forcefully makes anyone work. Its arrival brought the introduction of a choice: work or homelessness; or more bluntly, work or starvation. Although this is not a far cry from the feudalist version of this "choice" (if you can call it that), which is work or be killed, there is a fundamental difference between the two: feudalism literally forces you to work, while capitalism merely pressures you. No one is going to kill you for not working, you can only kill yourself.

That being said, I think you could better word yourself by saying "capitalism's lie is that people need a reason to work," not to be forced... which doesn't look like much of a lie to me. so, my next point.


people will work as much as needed. people who like to help other people will become doctors and work when they are needed.
So if communism seeks to accomplish real equal opportunity, that means it will be much more realistic for everyone to try to pursue a career they would enjoy, right? That would eliminate the need for people to be "forced," as you put it, to work. But see, you missed my point about undesirable jobs not leaving anytime soon. You're right - doctors will enjoy medical procedure, teachers will enjoy teaching, astronomers will enjoy mapping the stars. But janitors? construction workers? lumberjacks? Give me a break. You can't possibly believe these people will fill these jobs because they enjoy "helping." Alternate incentives are arguably the only way to get these jobs filled, outside of the pressure that exists in capitalism.


capitalism actually creates the problems it argues to solve, like the scarcity of products.

capitalism was nice to make the production capacities grow, but now its not needed any more.
By 'products' do you mean the quantity of goods, or do you mean the quantity of corporations offering competition? The word 'product' implies both a physical commodity and a name brand product, so I don't know which you mean. If you're trying to tell me capitalism can't meet its own supply and demand, you're insane. Capitalism has brought an unprecedented level of production, like your second quote suggests, yet your first implies it can't even meet its own citizens' needs. Which is it?

Next time you suggest I support a different ideology, I think you should be more familiar with the principles and history of your own.

and to TragicClown:


During centrally planed socialist economies, additional compensation beyond the standard amount of rations and currency is sometimes offered in an effort to get people to work in less desirable fields... There is nothing inconsistent with socialism or marxism about managing the economy in this way
Thank you.

[KC]

But see, you missed my point about undesirable jobs not leaving anytime soon.

Most of which can be automated, eliminated, made more desirable or divided up throughout the community.


But janitors? construction workers? lumberjacks?

I had fun being a janitor. I have friends that love being construction workers. I don't know any lumberjacks, but I bet they're not in it for the money. Moreover, where would we even need janitors? Do we really need special people to clean up, or can the people that work at these particular places just do the cleaning themselves? I don't see a problem with this. Same thing with construction. If someone wants to build a restaurant, for example, once they receive the support of the community couldn't they just get their friends together and build it?



By 'products' do you mean the quantity of goods, or do you mean the quantity of corporations offering competition? The word 'product' implies both a physical commodity and a name brand product, so I don't know which you mean. If you're trying to tell me capitalism can't meet its own supply and demand, you're insane. Capitalism has brought an unprecedented level of production, like your second quote suggests, yet your first implies it can't even meet its own citizens' needs. Which is it?

I think he's talking about the advantage to capitalists to keep the supply of their commodity low. This leads to, for example in the farming industry, large burnoffs of excess crops. Also what he could be referring to is the unequal distribution of products. We have enough food on this planet right now to feed the world many times over. Why isn't all this excess food shipped to Africa? Because it's not profitable.

[WAL-MARX]

Most of which can be automated, eliminated, made more desirable or divided up throughout the community.

I agree, a lot of jobs that focus solely on undesirable tasks can be taken care of in one sense or another. But while alot of the jobs, say.. janitors perform at places like schools can be taken care of by a more narrowed profession, i.e. air conditioning maintenance, it's not feasible to suggest a widescale transformation in existing job structures can be implicated so easily in such a short period of time. So my question is, how? The answer to automating these jobs is obvious - with technology. But elimination? Made more desirable? Divided? The only logical way to eliminate these jobs without automation is integrating them into other closely related jobs; for instance, like you suggested, workers cleaning their own businesses. Making these jobs more desirable is essentially the same thing as providing incentives to do the job, whether or not they are economical. If you divide these jobs up evenly throughout the community you face the issue of dictating people's jobs to them, which I would like to think of as very un-Marxist. You also can't treat these jobs like jury duty by selecting people at random to do them for a given period of time, you would be throwing people into fields completely uneducated about them. For some reason I don't think people would take well to the idea that they could be pulled from a job they enjoy at any time to be trained in an undesirable field they'll be forced to work in for X amount of days/months/years.

I maintain that not only is it romantic to think we will be able to abolish jobs you wouldn't want to do, but just crazy. You may have enjoyed being a janitor, may have friends who like contracting work, and may even think lumberjacks aren't in it for the money. But how about tar roofers, miners, plumbers, etc? These are jobs that can be backbreaking and miserable, jobs that need individuals with sound judgement and not mechanical precision, and jobs needing devotion of an individual solely on a specific task. Let's be realistic. Even if we were to reach 'most', most is still not all.

[RaiseYourVoice]

That being said, I think you could better word yourself by saying "capitalism's lie is that people need a reason to work," not to be forced... which doesn't look like much of a lie to me. so, my next point.

thats bullshit, people have always reasons to work. capitalism claims that a working system isnt reason enough.


First, you suggested that I sympathize with the capitalist notion that people need tp be forced to work. The key to understanding the difference between capitalism and feudalism is that capitalism no longer forcefully makes anyone work. Its arrival brought the introduction of a choice: work or homelessness; or more bluntly, work or starvation. Although this is not a far cry from the feudalist version of this "choice" (if you can call it that), which is work or be killed, there is a fundamental difference between the two: feudalism literally forces you to work, while capitalism merely pressures you. No one is going to kill you for not working, you can only kill yourself.
oh right its much better to starve to death for not working enough, or not having a chance to work than being shot, really we so have the choice and arent forced.

btw no one can force you to work if you dont want to (only if they controll your mind), in feudalism you could also not work, there people kill you, here nature kills you =P (less that in the "social democratic" rich countries i admit)



You can't possibly believe these people will fill these jobs because they enjoy "helping." Alternate incentives are arguably the only way to get these jobs filled, outside of the pressure that exists in capitalism.
i love discussing with people that claim to know "only" ways for anything in the first place, but lets go on.
first of all your idea of disered job results only from your personall preference. i would hate to be a doctor.
Also in a world where payment is NOT the incentive any more, people will not be respected for the most money any more, but maybe for the most effort or for which job they do. respect and social acceptance are importan factors for us humans.



Next time you suggest I support a different ideology, I think you should be more familiar with the principles and history of your own.
thx for you advice but really i dont give crap about you.
and for your ideology, sorry but its no different arguing with you than any other cappie in my school thats why i suggested that.



If you're trying to tell me capitalism can't meet its own supply and demand, you're insane.

well capitalism does meet its own supply and demand, just not the demand of the people. we can produce food for 12.4 billion people, we have like half of that and people starv to death. now do i really have to tell you why that is?
capitalism needs things to be rare, we cant afford to have enough for everyone, because that would illiminate the force to work needed for capitalism.



I maintain that not only is it romantic to think we will be able to abolish jobs you wouldn't want to do, but just crazy. You may have enjoyed being a janitor, may have friends who like contracting work, and may even think lumberjacks aren't in it for the money. But how about tar roofers, miners, plumbers, etc? These are jobs that can be backbreaking and miserable, jobs that need individuals with sound judgement and not mechanical precision, and jobs needing devotion of an individual solely on a specific task. Let's be realistic. Even if we were to reach 'most', most is still not all.
sorry but you are again measuring jobs how you like them to be. most mining in our society is already done by mashines, and largely controlled by workers. for the others, you suggest jobs you think are desirable are the only ones that are. sorry but maybe you should meet some new people.


I think he's talking about the advantage to capitalists to keep the supply of their commodity low. This leads to, for example in the farming industry, large burnoffs of excess crops. Also what he could be referring to is the unequal distribution of products. We have enough food on this planet right now to feed the world many times over. Why isn't all this excess food shipped to Africa? Because it's not profitable.
ups i read that after my post. you got what i mean <_<

[Avtomatov]

In communism it will be unproductive unless more important jobs are paid more.

Dont you see, stupid people will not get to go to university because they fail. Then they can only choose certain jobs, the job they choose will depend if they like money or easy. Itll all work like that in socialism too.

There is a cycle, more money makes it easier to make more money. These people with money control the workers. Because more money meens more money, and no money meens no money, its impossible for the workers to be free from the wage-slavery. Thats what wage-slavery, and inequility of opportunity. Just because people will earn wages in socialism doesnt meen its wage slavery. Why? because the meens of production is publicly held.

[WAL-MARX]

capitalism claims that a working system isnt reason enough.
So what does capitalism claim IS enough? That they need to be forced? Well I already explained the difference between being forced and being pressured, and pressure is what capitalism does, not force.


oh right its much better to starve to death for not working enough, or not having a chance to work than being shot, really we so have the choice and arent forced.
That sentence doesn&#39;t even make sense, but I&#39;m guessing you mean it&#39;s no better to starve to death for not working than to be shot. Well if you would have read closely you&#39;d know I said yes, there isn&#39;t much difference between the two, but there is still a difference. In feudalism, government literally kills you, whereas in capitalism merely leaves you alone. Whether you die or not is of no concern of capitalist governments. If you think "the difference is the same," then ask yourself if anyone would notice if capitalist governments went around killing homeless people like English Parliament did during the Enclosures. Bullshit people would say it&#39;s the same thing.


i love discussing with people that claim to know "only" ways for anything in the first place, but lets go on.
"May be the only" is the same thing as "arguably the only," which is definitely what I put. So if MAYBE means THERE IS NO OTHER WAY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD then yeah you&#39;re right.


first of all your idea of disered job results only from your personall preference. i would hate to be a doctor.

I&#39;m actually measuring them by common sense. Statistically speaking, I think it&#39;s obvious that more people would say they enjoy being a doctor than a janitor. The jobs I listed are notorious around the world for being dirty or very physically demanding jobs. You may be right to think SOME people will choose these jobs, but ENOUGH? I want someone else to answer that question. Please, someone else tell me whether you think you&#39;ll be able to find enough people to fill jobs like plumbers by volunteering. I&#39;m begging you.


respect and social acceptance are importan factors for us humans.
That&#39;s entirely speculation, you have no evidence that the majority of people value social factors more than how they&#39;re rewarded for the job or whether or not they enjoy performing it. Who are you to say that&#39;s true? Firemen are respected in American communities, but that doesn&#39;t mean that&#39;s the reason the majority of them become one. It&#39;s also not for the pay, the average fireman makes about &#036;50,000-&#036;60,000 a year.. nothing spectacular.

And just for the record, mining may be done mostly by machines now, but it still accounts for some 207,000 jobs in America. Custodians, exterminators, construction laborers, hazardous materials removal workers, insulation workers, plumbers, and roofers- all known to be dirty jobs- employ 6,097,000 Americans; and that&#39;s not counting garbage men and many other famously dirty jobs. That&#39;s alot of people. Filling these jobs won&#39;t be as simple as finding enough dumbasses who don&#39;t know any better than to not pick them. If you want to know where any of these numbers came from, they&#39;re straight from the U.S. Department of Labor.

You&#39;re unbelievably illiterate for someone your age, and that&#39;s sad because I don&#39;t even know your age, so I&#39;ll just assume you&#39;re at least 13. Your arguments are also so underdeveloped they&#39;re barely understandable. I have to guess what you mean. It&#39;s not even worth the effort of typing another post beyond this one so I&#39;m calling it quits until someone else has something to offer.


Dont you see, stupid people will not get to go to university because they fail. Then they can only choose certain jobs

Avtomat, you may be right about people who are unable to finish school taking jobs with less requirements. I&#39;m guessing alot of the less popular jobs will be these, but the question is what kind of graduation percentages you would have coming out of high schools and colleges in a communist society. Given that people are provided with excellent/equal living and education conditions, just how many people will you have that are unable to succeed in schools and universities? If I had to guess I&#39;d say way, way less than in capitalist societies. The numbers could be very small.

[RaiseYourVoice]

&#39;m actually measuring them by common sense. Statistically speaking, I think it&#39;s obvious that more people would say they enjoy being a doctor than a janitor. The jobs I listed are notorious around the world for being dirty or very physically demanding jobs.

1. the work of a doctor is very demanding, physically and psychologically.
2. statiscally speaking? i didnt see you post any statistics about what people said they&#39;d like to be. you say its common sence, but its common sence from your point of you, nothing more, sorry.


That sentence doesn&#39;t even make sense,
to me its pretty obvious :(


but I&#39;m guessing you mean it&#39;s no better to starve to death for not working than to be shot.

to you too &#33;

also i never said there is not difference, i said its no better. capitalism makes itself the only way to survive. you cannot survive without the system, you are addicted to it, so if it leaves you alone you die. the difference is solidarity, social programs etc. that make you stay alive.


"the difference is the same,"
now that wouldnt make any sence.


That&#39;s entirely speculation, you have no evidence that the majority of people value social factors more than how they&#39;re rewarded for the job or whether or not they enjoy performing it.
My point was, if you eliminate the reward, this will be one of the most important factors in choosing a job.


If you want to know where any of these numbers came from, they&#39;re straight from the U.S. Department of Labor.
and if you now would show me a statistic that those people hate their jobs, guess what you could actually prove your point &#33;



You&#39;re unbelievably illiterate for someone your age, and that&#39;s sad because I don&#39;t even know your age, so I&#39;ll just assume you&#39;re at least 13. Your arguments are also so underdeveloped they&#39;re barely understandable. I have to guess what you mean. It&#39;s not even worth the effort of typing another post beyond this one so I&#39;m calling it quits until someone else has something to offer.

haha thats very nice. sorry i am not a native english speaker. my age is also none of your concern afaik, but seeing you argue with the age of others to end a debate i guess you are not older than 16, because that was when it seemed stupid to me.
if you want me to formulate my arguments so even you understand them i&#39;d actually need to take my time for this discussion :wacko: weird idea.


You&#39;re unbelievably illiterate for someone your age, and that&#39;s sad because I don&#39;t even know your age
just quoted for funs sake :wub: talking about sense right?


Because more money meens more money, and no money meens no money
sorry thats way to simple, you can get incredibly rich in a very short time and loose the money in the same time. thats not always the case, but you really have to be good at investing money and working with it to constantly increase your money.
Surely if you just have the money to live on and cant invest any you dont have the chance to increase the size of your bank account very fast. There is though always the possibility to move up in the capitalist system.

in communism i hope we will get rid of money and private property alltogether.

[WAL-MARX]

to me its pretty obvious

Because you wrote it. Anyone with english as their first language, maybe even second, could tell you the sentence I was talking about was a giant heap of bad grammar usage and sentence structure.


1. the work of a doctor is very demanding, physically and psychologically.

But they&#39;re rewarded with knowing they&#39;ve improved someone&#39;s health, or maybe even that they saved someone&#39;s life. What about people who clean bird shit off the roofs of skyscrapers? Do they go home happy knowing that because of them, there&#39;s one more shit-free building in the world? You go through 8 years of expensive schooling to become a doctor so it&#39;s pretty obvious the people who choose to do it must really want to do it.




"the difference is the same,"

now that wouldnt make any sence.


Well if you&#39;re not smart enough to figure it out I guess I&#39;ll fill you in. I might as well have said that difference is so small it might as well be no difference at all.


My point was, if you eliminate the reward, this will be one of the most important factors in choosing a job.

Why would people respect these jobs in a socialist society any more than they do in a capitalist one? If you take away monetary reward, you can&#39;t just automatically assume society will esteem these jobs any higher than they do right now. That&#39;s just like saying if we ran out of juice people would buy more fruit. You&#39;re linking two things together that don&#39;t have any established relationship with eachother.


and if you now would show me a statistic that those people hate their jobs, guess what you could actually prove your point &#33;

Well it&#39;s a shame Gallup hasn&#39;t put out a "If you lived in a socialist society and had the option to pursue another job, would you?" poll for all the jobs I listed now isn&#39;t it? So until they do, we&#39;ll just have to guess (a.ka. use our common sense), so let&#39;s just wait for some other people to say whether they think garbage men, custodians, roofers, hazardous waste materials removers, plumbers, roofers, and whatnot actually like their jobs. Anyone? Hm? Anyone think so? Please, do tell.


just quoted for funs sake wub.gif talking about sense right?

You&#39;d be hard pressed to find anyone else in here who didn&#39;t get it. But either way, your understanding of english doesn&#39;t much pass the level of a 7th grader, if you can even go that high. Actually it&#39;s so bad, reading your posts are painful. And the only reason I brought up your age is because I&#39;m sure you&#39;re older than what your literacy level implies, not because of anything to do with your maturity level (which doesn&#39;t look all that high either but that&#39;s a different story). If you can&#39;t speak english enough to make sense, save some face and don&#39;t speak it at all. Please, don&#39;t ever reply to one of my posts again. Ever. You will save me the trouble of having to stumble awkwardly through your choppy, crude sentences. I would&#39;ve liked to have made my first posts here about an argument of some actual substance but it looks like this thread is running dry of it. I just hope you&#39;re not a sign of what kind of people I can expect to hear from on the rest of the board. This debate is over.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

we can produce food for 12.4 billion people,

Source? I&#39;m not doubting you, I&#39;d just like a source for the exact number.

[Raj Radical]

Ok, WAL-MARX, correct me if im wrong, but from your posts it seems like your version of communism is closer to that of a welfare-state.

Considering your stance that monetary rewards are the only incentives for choosing different professions.

[Herman]

Communism as a post-socialist socal stage is purely hypothetical, so what form of distribution it takes is entirely unknown...apart from the frequently repeated quote, Marx did not speculate much on how an end-of-history communism would work, so you can&#39;t extrapolate to much from it, and besides, Marx&#39;s predictions were often false.

Indeed, Marx did say that he could not predict how this society would work. Therefore i&#39;m inclined to say that speaking of how communism will work is quite useless, since we won&#39;t decide how it will work.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Source? I&#39;m not doubting you, I&#39;d just like a source for the exact number.
some UN report i cant happen to find.. i&#39;ll come back to you when i did. (i should organise myself better...)


Well if you&#39;re not smart enough to figure it out I guess I&#39;ll fill you in.
that was an ironic remark nothing more. As you could&#39;ve figure from "wouldn&#39;t" i was also implying i never said that.


But they&#39;re rewarded with knowing they&#39;ve improved someone&#39;s health, or maybe even that they saved someone&#39;s life. What about people who clean bird shit off the roofs of skyscrapers? Do they go home happy knowing that because of them, there&#39;s one more shit-free building in the world? You go through 8 years of expensive schooling to become a doctor so it&#39;s pretty obvious the people who choose to do it must really want to do it..
Earning nice money as a doctor is a big reason to do it. i saw a report about people cleaning fassades and they said they were happy with their jobs. again you are only applying your values in combination with always a new example.


That&#39;s just like saying if we ran out of juice people would buy more fruit. You&#39;re linking two things together that don&#39;t have any established relationship with eachother.

I guess you would agree with me, that money is a very important factor in our world today. It decides on how people look at you, respect you etc. So if this important factor is gone, in a consequence there have to be others, i just figured it would be that one.


Please, don&#39;t ever reply to one of my posts again. Ever. You will save me the trouble of having to stumble awkwardly through your choppy, crude sentences
sorry but you said you wouldn&#39;t reply to me last time. Now that you cant live up to your own promises you want me to do it?


This debate is over.
k boss.


If you can&#39;t speak english enough to make sense, save some face and don&#39;t speak it at all.
thanks for that if


But either way, your understanding of english doesn&#39;t much pass the level of a 7th grader, if you can even go that high. Actually it&#39;s so bad, reading your posts are painful. And the only reason I brought up your age is because I&#39;m sure you&#39;re older than what your literacy level implies, not because of anything to do with your maturity level (which doesn&#39;t look all that high either but that&#39;s a different story)
ok, you are sure i am older than you think i am, because everything you think of me tells you different &#33;


You&#39;d be hard pressed to find anyone else in here who didn&#39;t get it.
damn now i feel bad. oh no i dont have to&#33; sorry it was just another ironic remark. i got what you wanted to say but totally ignored it for funs sake sorry. reason to do that? because you tried hard to win this argument by making ME look bad, not my arguments.



Indeed, Marx did say that he could not predict how this society would work. Therefore i&#39;m inclined to say that speaking of how communism will work is quite useless, since we won&#39;t decide how it will work.
Well since capitalism also takes different forms in different regions, because its influenced by the people around in it, I think it is possible to influence the ways of communism.