Communist Ethics

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Modern emperical evidence suggests that certian people are more capable at accomplishing certain tasks. Although communist theory recognizes that the absence of janitors, for instance, results in society not functioning properly, does it account for the inequality amongst individuals? For instance, using the labour theory of value, something is worth the amount of labor it takes to produce it. Person A produces things faster than Person B, and, consequently, is better at producing labor value in an individual timespan (therefore contributing more to society). However, communism, by placing the means of production in the hands of everyone, provides individuals with greater production capacity.

Still, the inequality amongst people remains, and, as far as I can see, there will still be situations where resources are in high demand but limited avaliability (due to circumstances unforseen, et cetera). When something is scarce but in high demand, what stops the people who are superior (in terms of production capacity) from demanding more. However, one may argue that production capacity does not entail the definition of contributing to society. That is true. Let us expand to a utilitarian way of thinking. Utilitarianism states that society should seek the maximization of pleasure for the greatest number of people. The person contributing to the most society, in this way, may also feel more deserving of certain rewards.

One may ask why they deserve them when, after all, their existence was casually determined - a matter of chance, so to speak. The less capable individual did not choose to be that way. I would argue that they do not deserve them. However this does not create a logical justification for someone to not want or take more (as they led to the production of more). While it may be simply luck that a person was born rich, for instance, the capitalist has little incentive (or perhaps moral obligation) to do so unless that action will have no affect on their person welfare. Ie. they should give when it doesn't hurt them to do so - which many capitalists are failing to do while others take up the challenge, to some extent (Gates).

My logic may seem incoherent or even capitalist, to an extent, but I mainly wanted to get my thoughts out into the open so I can discover where I am going wrong or even solutions to my theoretical and philosophical confusions.

[Avtomatov]

You cant arbitrarily state why someone deserves something. The best definition is that whatever the state decides you deserve is what you get. Why? Because that is efficient and it works. I think we can work this part of capitalism into socialism.

Too me that part of communist theory that states people deserve things based on how much they work wont work. And why? There has to be a reason. I offered a reason for the opposite, its efficient. The rest of communist theory is just fine and would work fine.

Too me communism or socialism is more about equality of opportunity then it is about equality of outcome. Even in the USSR more important work was paid more. There can be inequal outcome, and there can still be no classes. In capitalism one class oppresses the other. In socialism, even though some people are richer, there is no oppression.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:05 AM
There can be inequal outcome, and there can still be no classes. In capitalism one class oppresses the other. In socialism, even though some people are richer, there is no oppression.
So I understand your point of view, can you explain how certain sectors of society can get paid more than others without this leading to different classes? Also, why under socialism is there no oppression? Am not sure if you mean oppression in general or solely class-based oppression, but, either way, I can’t think of a socialist society where oppression hasn’t been absolutely rife…

[Hit The North]

Inequality isn't a quality which arises naturally between constrasting abilities, but an evaluation of those abilities imposed by social ideologies and arranged through relations of class power.

Under Communism, for instance, the hierarchical division between physical and mental labour will disappear.

Production is a social force, not an individual force and to talk about individual productivity is bourgeois nonsense.

Posted by Generalissimo:


Too me communism or socialism is more about equality of opportunity then it is about equality of outcome. Even in the USSR more important work was paid more. There can be inequal outcome, and there can still be no classes.

You say that like the USSR was the acme of communist civilisation, or something. It wasn't.

Under true communism equality of opportunity and equality of outcome will exist side by side out of necessity. You can't have true equality of opportunity if they are underpinned by material inequalities. It's one of the fundamental lessons of capitalism!

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:05 PM
The best definition is that whatever the state decides you deserve is what you get



That's a horrible sounding quote. I think it sounds better to say that society will decide how work is to renumerated, not the state, which wouldn't exist anyway in a communist society.



The less capable individual did not choose to be that way. I would argue that they do not deserve them. However this does not create a logical justification for someone to not want or take more (as they led to the production of more)

Personally, I think that a good economic system (especially right after the revolution) would be a participatory economy (parecon (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm)). In Parecon, you are renumerated only for effort expended in order to produce. This is the only factor since this is the only thing that you can actually control, and so it's the only thing with which reward for will bring incentive to produce more (along with respect from your peers).

[Mesijs]

One thing that also could be done is sectorization to the very bottom.

Make companies, mills etc one enterprise, and let everyone get the same loan.

So for example, you have 100 people working in a mill, they all get the same, from the cleaner to the architect. They also work under the same working conditions. When someone is lazy, the council votes whether he has to do some additional work for the same loan or not.

[Avtomatov]

Well in socialism you wont be able to use youre extra money to buy extra opportunity, or to make more money. Since the meens of production will be publicly held. Things like education and health care will be equal, those things give you opportunity in life and a rich person gets more of it in capitalism. So i dont think we would really call it classes when there is no class oppression. When people have equal opportunity they are free.

Throughout history different classes, bourgeois and proletariat, Master and Slave, Nobility and Serf. The ruling class oppresses the other class, so i think if the class oppression is gone then they arent really classes, as it would be a choice make less money, no ones keeping you there. I know i got some of those classes mixed up but the point is there

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:17 PM
When someone is lazy, the council votes whether he has to do some additional work for the same loan or not.
Isn't that a form of authoritarianism? The person may simply be extremely inept and unable to produce as much benefit to society.

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

Indeed, it sounds quite authoritarian. I think the key to understanding why gift economies can work so well is that most work done today is totally unecessary, serving to create a huge surplus for profit's sake - which the bulk of humanity, "middle class" included, never sees - and also simply to keep us in line. My father once worked for a government airplane engineering firm. One of the managers said to him, "See this? This is really just welfare. Look at all those smart people. Imagine if they were in the streets, doing whatever. Just imagine what would happen."

Oh, maybe freedom?

Anyway, we live in a post-scarcity world - that is, concerns like "where is all the food going to come from" aren't as difficult to meet as they used to be, thanks to advanced technology and the massive surplus capitalism has built up which could probably feed and clothe us for years. This is discussed at length in Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work."

The "Killing King Abbacus" crew (google that, I suppose) suggests that we start living in life without measure. This was discussed in Against Civilization - primitives wouldn't count or keep track of how much they provided each other with, because in a world of not knowing how much food would come in and who would get it, their survival mechanism was depending on the limitless generosity of their peers. (Also, if someone tried to brag about providing a lot, they would not accept the gift, because they saw the person as attempting to ascend to authority status.)

Now, with all our technology we don't really need to depend on limitless generosity as a survival mechanism anymore. However, we can still pull it off for the fun of it. Require nothing of anyone! The activites people perform for their intrinsic values (the pleasure of doing it) will produce enough for us to survive. Or, if the whole world is truly sick of farming, all the technological research and capital that currently goes into weapons research for capitalist domination can instead go into building an automated infrastructure - tractors and seed-spreaders controlled by satellites, it's already begun. We can pull off a work-free world, with people doing what they feel like and not worrying about external market value equality. Let nothing be exchanged.

Nietzsche said that the origin of the conscience and all the guilt-ridden moralities stem from trade. They stemmed from lender's need to have his debtor repay him. At first violence (emotional as well as physical) was used, and then people internalized the violence and it became guilt. Let us do away with all this counting and live in what we do for the pleasure of it.

The Situationists have some excellent quote about how the young generation displays such exuberance that it shall learn to steal simply for the joy of giving. I think that's right on the mark of what we need.

So more important than declaring "all wo/men are created equal," which implies that there is some surveilling eye imposing a value on everyone, is closing that eye, and letting people live as if nobody is keeping count.