Quality of Work

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I think a sort of 'Renaissance man' mentality that you guys are suggesting is understanable.

However, don't you worry that under this system the skill level would decline in a lot of occupations that need them? If you get a burned hamburger, that's one thing, but do you really want someone fixing your car who is just dabbling in it a few hours per day or week? Would you agree that some professions (doctors, for example) benefit from lots of training and practice?

I understand that there is an inclination to believe it is 'elitist' but even in my own profession, there are levels of expertise that only come from experience and educational training. Under your system would we at least be allowed to separate people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly?

Another situation I was thinking about, under this system, case in point: the restaurant industry.

Wouldn't it be hard to depend on reservations for dinner? What if not enough people show up for work at the restaurant that night because no one was interested in making French cuisine or something else that evening? I understand that you would probably say 'That's personal freedom/choice' but I think a certain amount of dependability in our daily lives is important to society running smoothly.

Yes, desire and enjoyment do make people better workers, but lack of experience and know-how are also a factor. Seriously, can anyone just do any type of work just because "they like it"?

Wouldn't the quality of skill level deteriorate under your system?

[CapitalistPatriot]

The things is, communists just regard how much work and effort you put into something, instead of skill. And frankly that is just flawed, because a CEO puts just as much work and effort, as a guy picking up a box.

[TheGreatOne]

The amount of work the CEO does is exponentially more than the worker. While the worker puts in 8 to 10 hours per day and 5 days per week, the CEO or any other capitalist is working nearly non-stop doing things that the average worker would be lost trying to deal with.

[TheGreatOne]

Sorry, account got hacked again. I better change my pass.

[Morag]

Your looking at the hours of work we propose as necessary to keep society going and coming to the wrong conclusion. We want people to be properly trained in what they do- you'll notice a lot of unions insist the employers train, retrain and do checks to ensure the workers have the skills required to do their job. Nurses, where I am, are routinely and randomly checked, on the insistence of the union, to be sure they have they training necessary. if they don't, they are retrained. It's simply.

Doctors, pilots, and all sorts of other occupations require years of training and experience. Once they have it, it doesn't matter if they work one hour a day or eight or ten- they have the training they need and the experience. What communism proposes is that theya ren't forced to work as many hours as possible to pay the bills, so that the nurse who now works 18 hour shifts instead works five hour shifts, and can do other things in their spare time, instead of sleep.

[Publius]

Your looking at the hours of work we propose as necessary to keep society going and coming to the wrong conclusion. We want people to be properly trained in what they do- you'll notice a lot of unions insist the employers train, retrain and do checks to ensure the workers have the skills required to do their job. Nurses, where I am, are routinely and randomly checked, on the insistence of the union, to be sure they have they training necessary. if they don't, they are retrained. It's simply.

Doctors, pilots, and all sorts of other occupations require years of training and experience. Once they have it, it doesn't matter if they work one hour a day or eight or ten- they have the training they need and the experience. What communism proposes is that theya ren't forced to work as many hours as possible to pay the bills, so that the nurse who now works 18 hour shifts instead works five hour shifts, and can do other things in their spare time, instead of sleep.

How would nurses not have to work 18 hours a day? What do you propose, "People get sick less"?

Nurses work so much because there are so few of them in comparison to how many Baby Boomers are now getting old.

And as a fact of life, nurses have to work a lot of hours. Nurses have to be at a facility 24 hours of every single day. It can't be helped.

The only to alleviate the problem of overwork is train more nurses. Let's think about this for a second. If we wanted more nurses, what we do? Increase the incentive to be a nurse.

Right?

So let's see, under capitalism, nurses get paid more (and they do.) Nurses make very good money, as a rule. This is a good incentive to be a nurse.

Now, under communism, nurses would be paid the exact same amount as any other worker. This is a very bad incentive. You have to go to school for years, work long hours, almost every day, for no more pay then you'd make sweeping floors.

Which system seems more 'rational' or 'scientific' to you?

Does this not strike you, or any other communist, as a little odd? Why would you be a nurse, a job in which you have to work shitty hours, when you could, I don't know, not?

It doesn't make sense.

[CapitalistPatriot]

Yes, Publius said it best.

Why would you want to make such a big effort to become a nurse when you can just become a tourist guide and have the same things.

I would just play football with my friends and call myself a preofessional football player. :D

[Comrade Phil]

Capitalist Lawyer


I think a sort of 'Renaissance man' mentality that you guys are suggesting is understanable.

Are you saying you are becoming sympathetic to the communist ideal? :)


However, don't you worry that under this system the skill level would decline in a lot of occupations that need them? If you get a burned hamburger, that's one thing, but do you really want someone fixing your car who is just dabbling in it a few hours per day or week? Would you agree that some professions (doctors, for example) benefit from lots of training and practice?


I believe that the work day would only be shortened to the point of removing tedium, not to the point of reducing the level of practice. Would you not agree that after 7+ hours of work you are not really honing your skills? So long as people recieve good training, work fairly regularly and at resonably intervals the overall skill level of society will not decrease.


I understand that there is an inclination to believe it is 'elitist' but even in my own profession, there are levels of expertise that only come from experience and educational training. Under your system would we at least be allowed to separate people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly?

It would certainly be beneficial to create some sort of system where experienced workers mentor and monitor unexperienced workers for a period of time. I'm not really sure what you mean by separating people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly.


I understand that you would probably say 'That's personal freedom/choice' but I think a certain amount of dependability in our daily lives is important to society running smoothly.

Indeed, dependability in our daily lives will be extremely important. Many jobs require several or more people working in unison. What good is a surgeon if no anesthetist shows up for work? If a person does not work when they are needed, then they are not contributing to society and therefore would not have their needs provided for by society.


Yes, desire and enjoyment do make people better workers, but lack of experience and know-how are also a factor. Seriously, can anyone just do any type of work just because "they like it"?

In a communism you would be provided with all the training you need and quite obviously, experience is simply a matter of actually working. When considering that people will enjoy their work, communism will definitely produce a superior worker.

Publius


How would nurses not have to work 18 hours a day? What do you propose, "People get sick less"?

Nurses work so much because there are so few of them in comparison to how many Baby Boomers are now getting old.

And as a fact of life, nurses have to work a lot of hours. Nurses have to be at a facility 24 hours of every single day. It can't be helped.

The only to alleviate the problem of overwork is train more nurses. Let's think about this for a second. If we wanted more nurses, what we do? Increase the incentive to be a nurse.

Right?

The incentive to become a nurse would be the desire to help other human beings. Why do you capitalists think that the only reason people do anything is for money. The vast majority of people who go into medicine are people who wish to aid their fellow human beings. Money is not the primary incentive. Also, medical professionals recieve respect and prestige because their work is so directly beneficial to the community.

In a communist society, all of your needs are fullfilled, so long as you are contributing to society. Therefore in such a society, with the money incentive nullified, people could directly focus on how they wish to spend their lives. In such conditions, there will be plenty of people who will wish to train to become medical professionals because helping people is far more apealing than sweeping floors or working on an assembly line. Even in our capitalist society, there are far more applicants for nursing and medical schools than those who are accepted. The amount of applicants in a classless society where all forms of education are free would be even greater.


Now, under communism, nurses would be paid the exact same amount as any other worker. This is a very bad incentive. You have to go to school for years, work long hours, almost every day, for no more pay then you'd make sweeping floors.

You are not paid currency in a communist society, all of your needs are provided for; if you are contributing to society.

Going to school would count as contributing to society.

You wouldn't be forced to work longer hours than anyone else.

[theraven]

I believe that the work day would only be shortened to the point of removing tedium, not to the point of reducing the level of practice. Would you not agree that after 7+ hours of work you are not really honing your skills? So long as people recieve good training, work fairly regularly and at resonably intervals the overall skill level of society will not decrease.

where do you get 7 hours from? and this assumes a lot more peopel do these kidn of jobs.



It would certainly be beneficial to create some sort of system where experienced workers mentor and monitor unexperienced workers for a period of time. I'm not really sure what you mean by separating people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly.

he means rather then having everyone be a dilltenet in this or that one person would be a nurse thats the jr ob. another would be a brick layer...so on.




Indeed, dependability in our daily lives will be extremely important. Many jobs require several or more people working in unison. What good is a surgeon if no anesthetist shows up for work? If a person does not work when they are needed, then they are not contributing to society and therefore would not have their needs provided for by society.

how inhumane! that sounds just like capitlsim!



The incentive to become a nurse would be the desire to help other human beings. Why do you capitalists think that the only reason people do anything is for money. The vast majority of people who go into medicine are people who wish to aid their fellow human beings. Money is not the primary incentive. Also, medical professionals recieve respect and prestige because their work is so directly beneficial to the community.


where do you get this figure that mso doctors do it for the good feeling and nott the 6 to 7 fiure salary? I mean im sure your doctor will SAY that but im sure his mansion in suburbia and porsche make that eaiser


In a communist society, all of your needs are fullfilled, so long as you are contributing to society. Therefore in such a society, with the money incentive nullified, people could directly focus on how they wish to spend their lives. In such conditions, there will be plenty of people who will wish to train to become medical professionals because helping people is far more apealing than sweeping floors or working on an assembly line. Even in our capitalist society, there are far more applicants for nursing and medical schools than those who are accepted. The amount of applicants in a classless society where all forms of education are free would be even greater


however there would still be only so many nurses and so forth..yet you awnt to make less..intearsting.

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:52 PM


I believe that the work day would only be shortened to the point of removing tedium, not to the point of reducing the level of practice. Would you not agree that after 7+ hours of work you are not really honing your skills? So long as people recieve good training, work fairly regularly and at resonably intervals the overall skill level of society will not decrease.

where do you get 7 hours from? and this assumes a lot more peopel do these kidn of jobs.



It would certainly be beneficial to create some sort of system where experienced workers mentor and monitor unexperienced workers for a period of time. I'm not really sure what you mean by separating people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly.

he means rather then having everyone be a dilltenet in this or that one person would be a nurse thats the jr ob. another would be a brick layer...so on.




Indeed, dependability in our daily lives will be extremely important. Many jobs require several or more people working in unison. What good is a surgeon if no anesthetist shows up for work? If a person does not work when they are needed, then they are not contributing to society and therefore would not have their needs provided for by society.

how inhumane! that sounds just like capitlsim!



The incentive to become a nurse would be the desire to help other human beings. Why do you capitalists think that the only reason people do anything is for money. The vast majority of people who go into medicine are people who wish to aid their fellow human beings. Money is not the primary incentive. Also, medical professionals recieve respect and prestige because their work is so directly beneficial to the community.


where do you get this figure that mso doctors do it for the good feeling and nott the 6 to 7 fiure salary? I mean im sure your doctor will SAY that but im sure his mansion in suburbia and porsche make that eaiser


In a communist society, all of your needs are fullfilled, so long as you are contributing to society. Therefore in such a society, with the money incentive nullified, people could directly focus on how they wish to spend their lives. In such conditions, there will be plenty of people who will wish to train to become medical professionals because helping people is far more apealing than sweeping floors or working on an assembly line. Even in our capitalist society, there are far more applicants for nursing and medical schools than those who are accepted. The amount of applicants in a classless society where all forms of education are free would be even greater


however there would still be only so many nurses and so forth..yet you awnt to make less..intearsting.

where do you get 7 hours from? and this assumes a lot more peopel do these kidn of jobs.

7 hours was just a generalized estimate. Yes, it does depend on what type of job you are doing. What I should have said was once you reach a certain point of exertion (both mental and/or physical) you are no longer honing your skills.


how inhumane! that sounds just like capitlsim!

In what ways is it inhumane? In what ways does it sound like capitalism? With the absence of a government, society will have to form a strong social order. In order to protect the communsim, the people must prevent those who willingly refuse to contribute to society from recieving any of the yield which the rest of society produces. How is it so wrong that people should have to go to work when their skills are useful?

"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"


where do you get this figure that mso doctors do it for the good feeling and nott the 6 to 7 fiure salary? I mean im sure your doctor will SAY that but im sure his mansion in suburbia and porsche make that eaiser

I never said that people don't go into medicine for the money. I said the vast majority of people don't go into medicine with money as the primary incentive.


however there would still be only so many nurses and so forth..yet you awnt to make less..intearsting.

The amount of nurses trained in an area would be based on how many nurses were needed in that area.

[theraven]

7 hours was just a generalized estimate. Yes, it does depend on what type of job you are doing. What I should have said was once you reach a certain point of exertion (both mental and/or physical) you are no longer honing your skills.

sure but the whole point of work is not training..its accomplishing a job.


In what ways is it inhumane? In what ways does it sound like capitalism?

the part where you have to work to get what you need lol (the inhumane part was sarcasam)



With the absence of a government, society will have to form a strong social order. In order to protect the communsim, the people must prevent those who willingly refuse to contribute to society from recieving any of the yield which the rest of society produces. How is it so wrong that people should have to go to work when their skills are useful?

you think htis will be accompslihed without a government? you really are an idealist.


I never said that people don't go into medicine for the money. I said the vast majority of people don't go into medicine with money as the primary incentive.


and you base htis on???


The amount of nurses trained in an area would be based on how many nurses were needed in that area.

and who determines that?



"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

one of the most idiotic ideas ever

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:44 PM

7 hours was just a generalized estimate. Yes, it does depend on what type of job you are doing. What I should have said was once you reach a certain point of exertion (both mental and/or physical) you are no longer honing your skills.

sure but the whole point of work is not training..its accomplishing a job.


In what ways is it inhumane? In what ways does it sound like capitalism?

the part where you have to work to get what you need lol (the inhumane part was sarcasam)



With the absence of a government, society will have to form a strong social order. In order to protect the communsim, the people must prevent those who willingly refuse to contribute to society from recieving any of the yield which the rest of society produces. How is it so wrong that people should have to go to work when their skills are useful?

you think htis will be accompslihed without a government? you really are an idealist.


I never said that people don't go into medicine for the money. I said the vast majority of people don't go into medicine with money as the primary incentive.


and you base htis on???


The amount of nurses trained in an area would be based on how many nurses were needed in that area.

and who determines that?



"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

one of the most idiotic ideas ever

sure but the whole point of work is not training..its accomplishing a job.

Yes, but most jobs require people to acquire "on the job" experience. It is the difference between an experienced worker and an unexperienced worker. An experienced worker will accomplish the task quicker or their work will be of better quality. What I am saying is that in a communist society, an unexperienced worker can become experienced just as efficiently as in a capitalist society.


the part where you have to work to get what you need lol (the inhumane part was sarcasam)

Well we are not trying to create some sort of fantasy world where you can sit on your ass all day and have everything you will ever need. lol


you think htis will be accompslihed without a government? you really are an idealist.

What is idealistic about it? Why do you believe that society needs some sort of rulers to tell them what to do? Why can't people be self-governing.


and you base htis on???

I have no statistical evidence to prove my point. I base my point on speaking with people who are attending medical school. My point reflects their views on the mentality of people who are attending or wish to attend medical school. Basically, those who place money as their driving force for becoming a doctor will either not get accepted or will drop out once they realise what sort of commitment the life of a doctor is.


and who determines that?

The democratic workers' councils of the area.



"from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

one of the most idiotic ideas ever

Thats your opinion. In the future, your opinion will be a minority.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 08:06 PM
I think a sort of 'Renaissance man' mentality that you guys are suggesting is understanable.

However, don't you worry that under this system the skill level would decline in a lot of occupations that need them? If you get a burned hamburger, that's one thing, but do you really want someone fixing your car who is just dabbling in it a few hours per day or week? Would you agree that some professions (doctors, for example) benefit from lots of training and practice?

I understand that there is an inclination to believe it is 'elitist' but even in my own profession, there are levels of expertise that only come from experience and educational training. Under your system would we at least be allowed to separate people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly?

Another situation I was thinking about, under this system, case in point: the restaurant industry.

Wouldn't it be hard to depend on reservations for dinner? What if not enough people show up for work at the restaurant that night because no one was interested in making French cuisine or something else that evening? I understand that you would probably say 'That's personal freedom/choice' but I think a certain amount of dependability in our daily lives is important to society running smoothly.

Yes, desire and enjoyment do make people better workers, but lack of experience and know-how are also a factor. Seriously, can anyone just do any type of work just because "they like it"?

Wouldn't the quality of skill level deteriorate under your system?
Personally, I think the passage by Marx where he's whistfully outlining life in the communist future, being a hunter, a fisherman, a critic in the evening, whatever, is completely utopian (quite bourgeois!) and should not be taken seriously.

However it highlights the problem with capitalism in terms of how it limits human potential. It's one thing to specialise in medicine all ones life; another to specialise in garbage collection till you drop.

Under socialism I would expect the skills level to increase as we abolish socio-economic inequality and unleash the potential of millions of people which the current system marginalises into poor educational opportunities and low-pay, brain-dead labour.

[theraven]

Yes, but most jobs require people to acquire "on the job" experience. It is the difference between an experienced worker and an unexperienced worker. An experienced worker will accomplish the task quicker or their work will be of better quality. What I am saying is that in a communist society, an unexperienced worker can become experienced just as efficiently as in a capitalist society.

thats true that doesnt mean you stop working when you reach the end of your expicence. you work and you get more skill. you don't owrk solely for the cool


Well we are not trying to create some sort of fantasy world where you can sit on your ass all day and have everything you will ever need. lol

haha thats what communism sounds like.


What is idealistic about it? Why do you believe that society needs some sort of rulers to tell them what to do? Why can't people be self-governing.

"if men were angels no government would be nessacary" however htats not the case. thus government is nessacary.


I have no statistical evidence to prove my point. I base my point on speaking with people who are attending medical school. My point reflects their views on the mentality of people who are attending or wish to attend medical school. Basically, those who place money as their driving force for becoming a doctor will either not get accepted or will drop out once they realise what sort of commitment the life of a doctor is.

docotors have to like thier job but less would do it if it wasn't for the pay. my roomate is going t o be a dentist-his reason" 80k a year!"




The democratic workers' councils of the area.

sounds like a governemnt ot me..



Thats your opinion. In the future, your opinion will be a minority.

based on what? humans historic good nature

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:53 PM

Yes, but most jobs require people to acquire "on the job" experience. It is the difference between an experienced worker and an unexperienced worker. An experienced worker will accomplish the task quicker or their work will be of better quality. What I am saying is that in a communist society, an unexperienced worker can become experienced just as efficiently as in a capitalist society.

thats true that doesnt mean you stop working when you reach the end of your expicence. you work and you get more skill. you don't owrk solely for the cool


Well we are not trying to create some sort of fantasy world where you can sit on your ass all day and have everything you will ever need. lol

haha thats what communism sounds like.


What is idealistic about it? Why do you believe that society needs some sort of rulers to tell them what to do? Why can't people be self-governing.

"if men were angels no government would be nessacary" however htats not the case. thus government is nessacary.


I have no statistical evidence to prove my point. I base my point on speaking with people who are attending medical school. My point reflects their views on the mentality of people who are attending or wish to attend medical school. Basically, those who place money as their driving force for becoming a doctor will either not get accepted or will drop out once they realise what sort of commitment the life of a doctor is.

docotors have to like thier job but less would do it if it wasn't for the pay. my roomate is going t o be a dentist-his reason" 80k a year!"




The democratic workers' councils of the area.

sounds like a governemnt ot me..



Thats your opinion. In the future, your opinion will be a minority.

based on what? humans historic good nature

thats true that doesnt mean you stop working when you reach the end of your expicence. you work and you get more skill. you don't owrk solely for the cool

Of course people would continue to work. Not only would they continue working but they would be teaching newer workers using their experience.



"if men were angels no government would be nessacary" however htats not the case. thus government is nessacary.

What do you believe makes a person an "angel" or perfect? How can you denounce something which has never been attempted due to the fact that the correct conditions have not yet existed?


docotors have to like thier job but less would do it if it wasn't for the pay. my roomate is going t o be a dentist-his reason" 80k a year!"

When the money factor is removed there will be just as many if not more people who seek to go into medicine. Humans are social animals. If they have no worries about how they are going to take care of themselves then they will seek to help others. Also consider the fact that only a small fraction of the population can even consider medicine as a realistic occupation due to the socio-economic barriers of the capitalist class system. If there are no barriers then there will be many more people who will consider medicine.


sounds like a governemnt ot me..

It is a form of self-governance. Everyone has equal influence in such a council and no single person or group of people are in a position of elevated power.


based on what? humans historic good nature

Based on when global capitalism starts to become unstable (perhaps another great depression). As a result, the workers of the world will see the injustice in the basic foundations of capitalism and will revolt. A communism will be the society which they will eventually create.

[red team]

thats true that doesnt mean you stop working when you reach the end of your expicence. you work and you get more skill. you don't owrk solely for the cool.

Fine, but it just means that you won't be confined to either working or not be paid so you can't purchase necessities.

The majority of modern work is really culturally determined, non-critical activities that is not necessary for the production of life sustaining products and services if looked at in an objective, materialist view of what constitute necessities.


What do you believe makes a person an "angel" or perfect? How can you denounce something which has never been attempted due to the fact that the correct conditions have not yet existed?

Because it's simply not necessary to be "perfect". If the sum of human knowledge constitute perfection because it is afterall knowledge that is required to perform all work that is agreed upon to be "useful" by the audience that is judging it to be useful who are afterall also human beings then a person engaging in "useful" work needs only to be as "perfect" as is required to fulfill performing the job to completion.

If that is the case then we can reduce perfection to the predictable patterns required to fullfil that job completion requirement and recreate that pattern in instructions to machines that replaces the need for "perfect" human labour. Proof of this is the development of a robotic surgeon that have fulfilled the job completion requirement of performing a surgery to perfection.

Furthermore, if we take the materialist approach to everything including human behaviour then what's to say that a human brain is any different from a trainable "artificial" intelligence computer program? We have to conclude that there is no difference for those who view everything in the world is made out of matter and dispenses with anything to do with supernatural mythologies involving ephemeral spirits which has never been conclusively proven to exists.

And there you have it. Human beings are nothing more than biological analogs of trainable computers with the software to enable action to perform anything from warfare to healthcare needed to be "loaded" through the process of learning from language and examples. Given the abundance of computers that are simply trainable brains to perform action. They can be also be used to perform the action of loading the necessary software for humans to perform any actions deemed useful as judged arbitrarily by societal and cultural concerns in the context of a given situation. Proof of this is that software to teach any subject from english to advanced mathematics have been developed and successfully used for the purpose of "loading" human understandable software.

This is simply the logical conclusion in the development of industrial society and Western reductionist thought. Everything can be logically reduced to it's simplest elemental part as Fordism and Taylorism has shown. After breaking down complex physical action to simple quantifiable moves that can be measured as position and velocity to be applied in the process of an factory assembly line for instance the next logical step for reductionism to proceed was inevitably to reduce the complex interaction of human thought patterns itself to its quantifiable, elemental constituents as can be demonstrated by reducing human decision making to conclude with action as the logical structures of an algorithm that can be executed by any machine designed to take action from reading the logic of its instructions as "taught" by whoever wants to mechanized decision making by removing the human element.

Who's to say we are any different? We process information through our biological computers and conclude with action or answers to queries from what trained us before from our past experiences to react and decide in the way we do, but we are simply reading the logic of our own instructions as trained from experience from birth to now.

[Publius]

The incentive to become a nurse would be the desire to help other human beings.

I want to help human beings myself, but I don't want to become a nurse.

Clearly you're leaving something out.


Why do you capitalists think that the only reason people do anything is for money.

I don't.

I never said that; that's a complete strawman.

I would say most nurses have a very strong desire to help people; that's part of the reason they chose the profession.

But it certainly isn't the only one.

Where do you even draw this from?


The vast majority of people who go into medicine are people who wish to aid their fellow human beings.

Yes, and?

I 'want to help others' too, but I don't want to work 18 hours a day to do it. In fact, even though I 'want to help' I want to sit on my ass and do nothing more.

Why can't you communists realize that people like me are lazy?



Money is not the primary incentive. Also, medical professionals recieve respect and prestige because their work is so directly beneficial to the community.

So?



In a communist society, all of your needs are fullfilled, so long as you are contributing to society. Therefore in such a society, with the money incentive nullified, people could directly focus on how they wish to spend their lives.

Which wouldn't be spending 16 hours a day working in a hectic hospital. Sorry, but that isn't how I wish to spend my time.


In such conditions, there will be plenty of people who will wish to train to become medical professionals because helping people is far more apealing than sweeping floors or working on an assembly line.

As if you could 'help people' without medical products or a sanitary environment.


Even in our capitalist society, there are far more applicants for nursing and medical schools than those who are accepted.

Very true.

It helps keep quality up (and also prices, but that's another matter.)


The amount of applicants in a classless society where all forms of education are free would be even greater.

So instead of getting the highly qualified doctors, I would be getting a C student who 'wants to help'.

THat makes me feel better.



You are not paid currency in a communist society, all of your needs are provided for; if you are contributing to society.

So you're paid the exact same thing.

My point entirely.



Going to school would count as contributing to society.

I would enjoy doing that for a living.

Just read the classics all day, become an intellectual. How appealing.



You wouldn't be forced to work longer hours than anyone else.

What do you do when a 3rd shift nurse goes sick, let the people in the hospital stay all night without a nurse on call? Or 'force' someone to do it?

Nurses have to work extra shifts sometimes because you can't do without nurses at a health care facility.

[theraven]

Fine, but it just means that you won't be confined to either working or not be paid so you can't purchase necessities.

The majority of modern work is really culturally determined, non-critical activities that is not necessary for the production of life sustaining products and services if looked at in an objective, materialist view of what constitute necessities.

well of course. huamntiy has moved beyond the "hunt for food fuck the wife adn go to sleep" kind of society. we have more complex neesd. if you think you will ever get peopel to revert back to a essantily spartan life style your nuts



Of course people would continue to work. Not only would they continue working but they would be teaching newer workers using their experience.


ok? thats nothing new




What do you believe makes a person an "angel" or perfect? How can you denounce something which has never been attempted due to the fact that the correct conditions have not yet existed?

nothing makes a person perfect because its impossible. humanity is inherently imprefect


When the money factor is removed there will be just as many if not more people who seek to go into medicine. Humans are social animals. If they have no worries about how they are going to take care of themselves then they will seek to help others. Also consider the fact that only a small fraction of the population can even consider medicine as a realistic occupation due to the socio-economic barriers of the capitalist class system. If there are no barriers then there will be many more people who will consider medicine.

humans may be social animals but that doenst mean they want to devote thier life to serving with no reward i don't see doctors being as proffesnaio and as well trained under your sysstem without some kdin fo bendift


It is a form of self-governance. Everyone has equal influence in such a council and no single person or group of people are in a position of elevated power.

beucase people wont naturally form common interast blocks. why is it that communism always denies that humans are not perfect?



Based on when global capitalism starts to become unstable (perhaps another great depression). As a result, the workers of the world will see the injustice in the basic foundations of capitalism and will revolt. A communism will be the society which they will eventually create.


really? i kidna figured they'd create an anarchy followed by a serieis of totalitaroan govenrments. at least thats the way it usualy works in human society.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It appears that we won this round with the communists.

I wish redstar was here, he is perhaps one of the few intelligent lefties here that could probably provide a well rounded response to our questions.

So far, the communists have given us nothing but good intention laced rhetoric.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 08:06 PM
I think a sort of 'Renaissance man' mentality that you guys are suggesting is understanable.

However, don't you worry that under this system the skill level would decline in a lot of occupations that need them? If you get a burned hamburger, that's one thing, but do you really want someone fixing your car who is just dabbling in it a few hours per day or week? Would you agree that some professions (doctors, for example) benefit from lots of training and practice?

I understand that there is an inclination to believe it is 'elitist' but even in my own profession, there are levels of expertise that only come from experience and educational training. Under your system would we at least be allowed to separate people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly?

Another situation I was thinking about, under this system, case in point: the restaurant industry.

Wouldn't it be hard to depend on reservations for dinner? What if not enough people show up for work at the restaurant that night because no one was interested in making French cuisine or something else that evening? I understand that you would probably say 'That's personal freedom/choice' but I think a certain amount of dependability in our daily lives is important to society running smoothly.

Yes, desire and enjoyment do make people better workers, but lack of experience and know-how are also a factor. Seriously, can anyone just do any type of work just because "they like it"?

Wouldn't the quality of skill level deteriorate under your system?
Haven't read trough this thread, so sorry if anyone else already responded in a comparable manner:

First off, why would the quality decline? People who would do a certain job, make a certain something, would do this only because they want to do so. In capitalism, they just (mostly?) do it because they're paid to. So doesn't it make more sense to say the overall quality would improve rather than decline?

About the restaurant question: That just relates to how much you can depend on people, doesn't it? It has little or nothing to do with communism; If you were to make an appointment with a friend tomorrow, and he would not show up, wouldn't you be mad at him? Just as you would be mad at the restaurant worker for not showing up? It's a matter of personal responsibility, and honestly, don't you think most people are mature enough to be reliable and responsible?

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 26 2006, 11:32 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 26 2006, 11:32 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 08:06 PM
I think a sort of 'Renaissance man' mentality that you guys are suggesting is understanable.

However, don't you worry that under this system the skill level would decline in a lot of occupations that need them? If you get a burned hamburger, that's one thing, but do you really want someone fixing your car who is just dabbling in it a few hours per day or week? Would you agree that some professions (doctors, for example) benefit from lots of training and practice?

I understand that there is an inclination to believe it is 'elitist' but even in my own profession, there are levels of expertise that only come from experience and educational training. Under your system would we at least be allowed to separate people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly?

Another situation I was thinking about, under this system, case in point: the restaurant industry.

Wouldn't it be hard to depend on reservations for dinner? What if not enough people show up for work at the restaurant that night because no one was interested in making French cuisine or something else that evening? I understand that you would probably say 'That's personal freedom/choice' but I think a certain amount of dependability in our daily lives is important to society running smoothly.

Yes, desire and enjoyment do make people better workers, but lack of experience and know-how are also a factor. Seriously, can anyone just do any type of work just because "they like it"?

Wouldn't the quality of skill level deteriorate under your system?
Haven't read trough this thread, so sorry if anyone else already responded in a comparable manner:

First off, why would the quality decline? People who would do a certain job, make a certain something, would do this only because they want to do so. In capitalism, they just (mostly?) do it because they're paid to. So doesn't it make more sense to say the overall quality would improve rather than decline?

About the restaurant question: That just relates to how much you can depend on people, doesn't it? It has little or nothing to do with communism; If you were to make an appointment with a friend tomorrow, and he would not show up, wouldn't you be mad at him? Just as you would be mad at the restaurant worker for not showing up? It's a matter of personal responsibility, and honestly, don't you think most people are mature enough to be reliable and responsible? [/b]
First off, no, it doesn't make sense that the overall quality would improve. Money is a greater motivator than wanting to do something, especially if the job sucks to begin with. Money motivates you to improve because you lose your source of money if someone does something better than you, but if you just "want" to do something and someone does it better, it's no big deal because you can continue doing a crappy job and not have anything to worry about.

Secondly, a paycheck is a better reason to be responsible than keeping people you don't know happy is. Sorry if you haven't come to terms with this yet.

edit: someone must know my password

[Qwerty Dvorak]

CHANGE YOUR FUCKING PASSWORD

[Comrade J]

Delete all posts made in your account that you didn't make, if they wanna make a point let them do it in their own account.

[Comrade Phil]

Apologies for the long response time.


I want to help human beings myself, but I don't want to become a nurse.

Clearly you're leaving something out.

There are plenty of other occupations which a communist society will need which involve helping fellow human beings besides nursing, obviously.


I don't.

I never said that; that's a complete strawman.

I would say most nurses have a very strong desire to help people; that's part of the reason they chose the profession.

But it certainly isn't the only one.

Where do you even draw this from?

In retrospect, I agree that comment was extremely rhetorical, my apologies.

I also agree that the desire to help people is not the only incentive. I do believe that for the vast majority of people who are seeking a career in medicine it is the main incentive. I have already discussed where I draw this conclusion from, please refer to my previous post.


Yes, and?

I 'want to help others' too, but I don't want to work 18 hours a day to do it. In fact, even though I 'want to help' I want to sit on my ass and do nothing more.

Why can't you communists realize that people like me are lazy?

Who said anything about being forced to work 18 hours a day?

Well I suppose nobody would stop an individual from sitting on their ass and nothing more, but it would result in this individual becoming cut off from access to the necessities of life. People would need to contribute in some way.



Money is not the primary incentive. Also, medical professionals recieve respect and prestige because their work is so directly beneficial to the community.

So?

So, that is another incentive to become a medical professional. In a society where people do not have to worry about money, occupations which provide prestige and respect will be highly sought after.


Which wouldn't be spending 16 hours a day working in a hectic hospital. Sorry, but that isn't how I wish to spend my time.

Firstly, nobody is going to force you to work 16 hours a day. Secondly, many percieve working in a hectic hostipal stimulating and provides a challenge in their life. Thirdly, it would be necessary for most of the population to work in more calmer occupations than a doctor or nurse. People who do not wish to work in occupations which bring on a certain degree of stress would have plenty of occupations to choose from, all of which society would require.



As if you could 'help people' without medical products or a sanitary environment.


Who said there would be a shortage of workers to manufacture medical products or janitors to maintain a sanitary environment?



Very true.

It helps keep quality up (and also prices, but that's another matter.)

Extremely large numbers of individuals who meet or surpass the requirements (competence, intelligence, etc) to become a medical professional are rejected. The quality of medical professionals would not drop if the acceptance rate was increased to meet the societal need.



The amount of applicants in a classless society where all forms of education are free would be even greater.

So instead of getting the highly qualified doctors, I would be getting a C student who 'wants to help'.

THat makes me feel better.

In a capitalist society, there are undoubtedly people who wish to attend medical school but are unable to do so because they cannot afford to pay the tuition fees. In a communism they would be able to attend medical school.

Lower class peoples are not limited to being C students.


So you're paid the exact same thing.

My point entirely.

Could you elaborate on what exactly you point is?


I would enjoy doing that for a living.

Just read the classics all day, become an intellectual. How appealing.

With regards to post-secondary education you would only be provided with the knowledge needed to work in the occupation which you have chosen. Becoming a intellectual would be fine, so long as you were also contributing to society through some form of work.


What do you do when a 3rd shift nurse goes sick, let the people in the hospital stay all night without a nurse on call? Or 'force' someone to do it?

Nurses have to work extra shifts sometimes because you can't do without nurses at a health care facility.

Anyone who could fill in for the person who is sick, would be required to do so out of societal duty. If they refuse to do so, then they are not properly contributing to society and would face the consequences. Perhaps some sort of system could be established in which a person who works overtime could recieve shorter shifts, when possible, until their overtime is compensated.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:13 AM
First off, no, it doesn't make sense that the overall quality would improve. Money is a greater motivator than wanting to do something, especially if the job sucks to begin with. Money motivates you to improve because you lose your source of money if someone does something better than you, but if you just "want" to do something and someone does it better, it's no big deal because you can continue doing a crappy job and not have anything to worry about.
It does actually make sense, what are you talking about, that money would be a greater motivator? That makes no sense. Besides, keep in mind that we are talking about a communist society, in which people would not be as greedy/hungry for money as you.


Secondly, a paycheck is a better reason to be responsible than keeping people you don't know happy is. Sorry if you haven't come to terms with this yet.
:lol: In your money-driven world it is. You see, not everyone is as greedy as you. Sorry if you haven't come to terms with this yet.

[TheGreatOne]

It does actually make sense, what are you talking about, that money would be a greater motivator? That makes no sense. Besides, keep in mind that we are talking about a communist society, in which people would not be as greedy/hungry for money as you.

You're right that they wouldn't be greedy for money, but because of this, they wouldn't be motivated to constantly improve because they wouldn't have to. They would still be helping society even if they were doing a crappy job at what they do, and they would have no motivation to do better. Perhaps if humans were ideal and wanted to work all day as hard as they could just for the benefit of people they don't know, this system would work, but in reality, people just plain don't give a shit about people they don't know. Very few people would have any motivation to do better because they only want to do what they have to. In a communist society, they would only have to work hard enough that their peers wouldn't take notice of them, which ultimately leads to a decline, but in a capitalist society each person has to work their hardest to stay on top or else they lose their paycheck to someone who wanted to work harder, which keeps society moving forward. When you can realize that people are not ideal, you will realize that communism will never work.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:34 PM

well of course. huamntiy has moved beyond the "hunt for food fuck the wife adn go to sleep" kind of society. we have more complex neesd. if you think you will ever get peopel to revert back to a essantily spartan life style your nuts.
I didn't see anyone advocating primitivism.



nothing makes a person perfect because its impossible. humanity is inherently imprefect
What is this perfection you speak of? I don't think it exists.


humans may be social animals but that doenst mean they want to devote thier life to serving with no reward i don't see doctors being as proffesnaio and as well trained under your sysstem without some kdin fo bendift
The benefit of helping others, maybe? Is that too foreign a concept to you?


beucase people wont naturally form common interast blocks. why is it that communism always denies that humans are not perfect?

People do form common interest blocks. Unions? Political parties? I will restate this, there is no such thing as perfection. But gathering from my interactions with the rest of the human race, people are good.


really? i kidna figured they'd create an anarchy followed by a serieis of totalitaroan govenrments. at least thats the way it usualy works in human society.
I guess we need to get it right then.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2006, 12:36 AM

It is a form of self-governance. Everyone has equal influence in such a council and no single person or group of people are in a position of elevated power.


[QUOTE]

You stated earlier that "Raven" opinions are in the minority. Surely you expect other "Minority/majority" divides? And I am speaking within the structure of your system. How is a majority view in this council equal the minority view? how does anything get accomplished if nobody is permitted to direct anything?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:09 PM
You're right that they wouldn't be greedy for money, but because of this, they wouldn't be motivated to constantly improve because they wouldn't have to. They would still be helping society even if they were doing a crappy job at what they do, and they would have no motivation to do better. Perhaps if humans were ideal and wanted to work all day as hard as they could just for the benefit of people they don't know, this system would work, but in reality, people just plain don't give a shit about people they don't know. Very few people would have any motivation to do better because they only want to do what they have to. In a communist society, they would only have to work hard enough that their peers wouldn't take notice of them, which ultimately leads to a decline, but in a capitalist society each person has to work their hardest to stay on top or else they lose their paycheck to someone who wanted to work harder, which keeps society moving forward. When you can realize that people are not ideal, you will realize that communism will never work.
I'm honestly not going to waste my time on any more of this 'Humans are greedy by nature' crap. Go read some threads.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:32 PM

First off, why would the quality decline? People who would do a certain job, make a certain something, would do this only because they want to do so. In capitalism, they just (mostly?) do it because they're paid to. So doesn't it make more sense to say the overall quality would improve rather than decline?


[QUOTE]

But in a socialist community, how would that worker know if what he or she does is productive? Its nice if people want to work as blacksmiths or travel agents, but its not very useful in satisfying the needs of people. And even if a worker is working in a useful industry, how does he or she know the work is being in the correct, best way possible?

What sorts of information is he relying upon to make these determinations? What sorts of information is society relying upon?

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 27 2006, 02:56 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 27 2006, 02:56 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 02:09 PM
You're right that they wouldn't be greedy for money, but because of this, they wouldn't be motivated to constantly improve because they wouldn't have to. They would still be helping society even if they were doing a crappy job at what they do, and they would have no motivation to do better. Perhaps if humans were ideal and wanted to work all day as hard as they could just for the benefit of people they don't know, this system would work, but in reality, people just plain don't give a shit about people they don't know. Very few people would have any motivation to do better because they only want to do what they have to. In a communist society, they would only have to work hard enough that their peers wouldn't take notice of them, which ultimately leads to a decline, but in a capitalist society each person has to work their hardest to stay on top or else they lose their paycheck to someone who wanted to work harder, which keeps society moving forward. When you can realize that people are not ideal, you will realize that communism will never work.
I'm honestly not going to waste my time on any more of this 'Humans are greedy by nature' crap. Go read some threads. [/b]
I didn't say humans are greedy by nature. I said that most humans do not do want to do any work that they don't have to do. In communism, you only have to do the bare minimum, whereas in capitalism you have to do more.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Wrong, in communism, you don't have to do nothing. So if you decide to actually do something, why the heck would you keep it to a bare minimum and not care for its quality at all? Would you deliberately make something crappy then?

[TheGreatOne]

Do you mean you don't have to do anything? In that case, your system fails tremendously because the people who choose to do work will only do what they need to keep themselves alive (growing food and making clothes etc) and will not share it with those who don't work. I assume that's what you mean, because obviously no one is going to put a gun to your head and say "DONT WORK".

Why would you keep it to a minimum? Well, I for one wouldn't want to spend 10 hours working when I would be given access to the same things as a guy who only worked for 5 hours. Whatever society sets as the bare minimum that one has to work in order to be provided for by the rest of society will end up being the amount that everyone works.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:42 PM
Do you mean you don't have to do anything? In that case, your system fails tremendously because the people who choose to do work will only do what they need to keep themselves alive (growing food and making clothes etc) and will not share it with those who don't work. I assume that's what you mean, because obviously no one is going to put a gun to your head and say "DONT WORK".
See, you are coming up with the 'greedy by nature' crap.


Why would you keep it to a minimum? Well, I for one wouldn't want to spend 10 hours working when I would be given access to the same things as a guy who only worked for 5 hours. Whatever society sets as the bare minimum that one has to work in order to be provided for by the rest of society will end up being the amount that everyone works.
And this is why I said: Go read some threads. My suggestion still stands.

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 27 2006, 05:04 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 27 2006, 05:04 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 05:42 PM
Do you mean you don't have to do anything? In that case, your system fails tremendously because the people who choose to do work will only do what they need to keep themselves alive (growing food and making clothes etc) and will not share it with those who don't work. I assume that's what you mean, because obviously no one is going to put a gun to your head and say "DONT WORK".
See, you are coming up with the 'greedy by nature' crap.


Why would you keep it to a minimum? Well, I for one wouldn't want to spend 10 hours working when I would be given access to the same things as a guy who only worked for 5 hours. Whatever society sets as the bare minimum that one has to work in order to be provided for by the rest of society will end up being the amount that everyone works.
And this is why I said: Go read some threads. My suggestion still stands. [/b]
No, I'm saying humans are self-preserving. In a society where not everyone has to work, those who do work will have to work far more if they are going to share with society. They will not want to share with those who don't work and they will not want to have to work more, so they will not tell the rest of society when they make things they need.

I've read plenty of your threads, and none of them counter my argument without using idealized people.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2006, 07:06 PM
I think a sort of 'Renaissance man' mentality that you guys are suggesting is understanable.

However, don't you worry that under this system the skill level would decline in a lot of occupations that need them? If you get a burned hamburger, that's one thing, but do you really want someone fixing your car who is just dabbling in it a few hours per day or week? Would you agree that some professions (doctors, for example) benefit from lots of training and practice?

I understand that there is an inclination to believe it is 'elitist' but even in my own profession, there are levels of expertise that only come from experience and educational training. Under your system would we at least be allowed to separate people into skills levels for the purpose of getting a job done properly?
Of course, under communism there would be a degree of division of labor. Its impossible to get certain jobs done with out dividing tasks. But there is a difference between technical division of labor and social division of labor. Just because a certain job has to be performed by one person at a particular time doesn't mean that this particular person has to keep doing that particular job, again and again. This kind of division of labor leads to what Marx called "alienation," and what Adam Smith called the "mental mutilation" of the worker. Confining a worker to a single repetitive task (as capitalism does) makes that worker stupid and alienated.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:09 PM
No, I'm saying humans are self-preserving. In a society where not everyone has to work, those who do work will have to work far more if they are going to share with society. They will not want to share with those who don't work and they will not want to have to work more, so they will not tell the rest of society when they make things they need.

I've read plenty of your threads, and none of them counter my argument without using idealized people.
In other words, you think humans are greedy by nature. Is it that hard to say it explicitly? Do you really need five posts to state which could have been stated in one single sentence, as it has been stated by others before you?
And if you refuse to let go of this 'human nature' theory of yours, there's little to discuss, is there?

[TheGreatOne]

There is a difference between being greedy and wanting what is best for ones self.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

No, you were talking about wanting only what is best for ones self, regardless of one anothers need. We humans call it 'greed'.

[TheGreatOne]

No, I was talking about wanting what is best for one's self first and foremost. I said nothing about not wanting what is best for others after that. Without organized division of labor and machines to help the labor, each person would have to work all day long just to provide enough for their families and so working any more would be an added stress which would harm the worker. If suddenly not everyone had to go to work, the ability to produce in excess would disappear and people would have to resort to only doing what is necesary to keep their own families alive.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by TheGreatOne+Aug 27 2006, 10:34 PM--> (TheGreatOne @ Aug 27 2006, 10:34 PM) No, I was talking about wanting what is best for one's self first and foremost. I said nothing about not wanting what is best for others after that. [/b]
:rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected]
In that case, your system fails tremendously because the people who choose to do work will only do what they need to keep themselves alive (growing food and making clothes etc) and will not share it with those who don't work.


you
No, I'm saying humans are self-preserving. In a society where not everyone has to work, those who do work will have to work far more if they are going to share with society. They will not want to share with those who don't work and they will not want to have to work more, so they will not tell the rest of society when they make things they need.

[TheGreatOne]

I don't think you're understanding. Whether they want to help the rest of society would be irrelevant because it would be harmful to them to do so.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:54 PM
I don't think you're understanding.
Well, I don't think you're even trying to understand.


Whether they want to help the rest of society would be irrelevant because it would be harmful to them to do so.
:lol: It would be harmful for them to help the rest of society? How so?

[TheGreatOne]

I explained this already. It would take them all day to provide enough for their families, so any more work would be more than they could handle and therefore harmful to the person.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:58 PM
I explained this already. It would take them all day to provide enough for their families, so any more work would be more than they could handle and therefore harmful to the person.
:lol: Really? It would take them all day to provide for their families? And each and every family would be solely relying on one person (as this is what you're implying)?
How do you figure?

You're not very good at this debating thing, are you?

[adenoid hynkel]

Personally I would not want to share the products of my work with someone who is too lazy to work. Now if this make me " greedy", then call me "greedy"

[TheGreatOne]

Yes, it would. If a person can't rely on the rest of society to do its part in making labor more efficient, he will have to work much harder to keep his family alive. No, I'm not implying that each family would only be relying on one person, but if you take a look at how people lived before efficient means of production were created (which you won't be able to rely on since they require the participation of the masses, which will not have to work under your system), you can see that as soon as children are old enough to work, they have to in order to keep the family going.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

:lol: Let me get this straight: According to you, in a communist society, you will not be able to rely on... society? And we will not be able to use 'effective means of production'?

May I ask, exactly how much do you know about communism? :rolleyes:

[red team]

It's really a matter of how much you can expect to be penalized for being irresposible which also implies the opposite of how much you can expect to be rewarded for being responsible.

If you're not penalized much for failing to perform up to expectations either in a company (or in a Communist workgroup) then what is there to deter any particular person who wants to take advantage of the lack of penalties for irresponsible behaviour from passing their incompleted or shoddy work off to people who are more responsible while claiming the same rewards as those who respect their work duties?

With equalized debt payment for work in a system that heavily depends on manual labour you'll have no end of ways for people who want to live off the labour of others while shirking their own responsibilities much like we have now with wealthy people being rewarded disproportionate to the amount of work they perform.

What you have is a disincentive for taking responsibility for work and an incentive for passing your work onto others who are more responsible while being rewarded the same amount as those who stuck to performing their duties thus destroying the work motivation of both groups. So why not remove the need for a system that heavily depends on manual labour? That's the only workable solution other than relying on state sanctioned penalties for failure to perform.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:14 PM
:lol: Let me get this straight: According to you, in a communist society, you will not be able to rely on... society? And we will not be able to use 'effective means of production'?

May I ask, exactly how much do you know about communism? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]

So describe how production will occur, effectively, in a communist society.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:23 AM
So describe how production will occur, effectively, in a communist society.
No, I'm not going to do that. As I (and others) have said several times before, and I'm quite sure you are aware of it, there are numerous threads and articles which answer your question perfectly. If you are too lazy to do a little research, that is your problem, not mine. This forum is meant for discussion, not repititively doing the research for people like you.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 07:45 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 07:45 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 02:23 AM
So describe how production will occur, effectively, in a communist society.
No, I'm not going to do that. As I (and others) have said several times before, and I'm quite sure you are aware of it, there are numerous threads and articles which answer your question perfectly. If you are too lazy to do a little research, that is your problem, not mine. This forum is meant for discussion, not repititively doing the research for people like you. [/b]
[QUOTE]

The articles, and threads, are unconvincing. Since this is the only forum I can post upon, there is not much else I can do.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

I understand that you can find them unconvincing, and that's exactly why we are here; to discuss what you find hard to believe. So if you post exactly what you find unconvincing, with your criticism of it (preferably backed up with arguments), I'll happily respond and (try to) counter your arguments. ;)

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:28 PM
I understand that you can find them unconvincing, and that's exactly why we are here; to discuss what you find hard to believe. So if you post exactly what you find unconvincing, with your criticism of it (preferably backed up with arguments), I'll happily respond and (try to) counter your arguments. ;)
I have. And on this particular thread. And, if I may say, in direct response to a comment you had made.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

If you are referring to this post, the only other post you made in direct response to one of mine:


But in a socialist community, how would that worker know if what he or she does is productive? Its nice if people want to work as blacksmiths or travel agents, but its not very useful in satisfying the needs of people. And even if a worker is working in a useful industry, how does he or she know the work is being in the correct, best way possible?

What sorts of information is he relying upon to make these determinations? What sorts of information is society relying upon?
It is again a post filled with questions only, questions that are, once again, explained elsewhere.

Still no criticism to be found.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:53 PM
If you are referring to this post, the only other post you made in direct response to one of mine:


But in a socialist community, how would that worker know if what he or she does is productive? Its nice if people want to work as blacksmiths or travel agents, but its not very useful in satisfying the needs of people. And even if a worker is working in a useful industry, how does he or she know the work is being in the correct, best way possible?

What sorts of information is he relying upon to make these determinations? What sorts of information is society relying upon?
It is again a post filled with questions only, questions that are, once again, explained elsewhere.

Still no criticism to be found.
It is generally difficult to criticise aspects of socialism. This is because socialists so often confuse their criticism of capitalism as a defense of socialism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:25 PM
Wrong, in communism, you don't have to do nothing. So if you decide to actually do something, why the heck would you keep it to a bare minimum and not care for its quality at all? Would you deliberately make something crappy then?

How does one criticise this comment?

I mean, who said anything about products "deliberately" being crappy? Perhaps a socialsit economy leaves the options as "No production" or "Crappy production."

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by ZX3+Aug 28 2006, 11:27 PM--> (ZX3 @ Aug 28 2006, 11:27 PM) It is generally difficult to criticise aspects of socialism. This is because socialists so often confuse their criticism of capitalism as a defense of socialism. [/b]
This is a very nice attempt to excuse yourself from posting criticism, but the fact remains you still haven't given any criticism.
Besides, if our criticism of capitalism is a defense of socialism to us, as you claim, why not defend capitalism as a criticism of socialism?

Still eagerly awaiting your first criticism, or argument.


How does one criticise this comment?
Not sure, try me.


I mean, who said anything about products "deliberately" being crappy?


TheGreatOne
You're right that they wouldn't be greedy for money, but because of this, they wouldn't be motivated to constantly improve because they wouldn't have to. They would still be helping society even if they were doing a crappy job at what they do, and they would have no motivation to do better.

But perhaps my wording was not chosen at best; I did not mean deliberatley make something crappy as in 'sabotage the product', I meant it as in doing the bare minimum only so that the product turns out crappy.

[Paininyoura55]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 10:45 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 10:45 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:27 PM
It is generally difficult to criticise aspects of socialism. This is because socialists so often confuse their criticism of capitalism as a defense of socialism.
This is a very nice attempt to excuse yourself from posting criticism, but the fact remains you still haven't given any criticism.
Besides, if our criticism of capitalism is a defense of socialism to us, as you claim, why not defend capitalism as a criticism of socialism?

Still eagerly awaiting your first criticism, or argument.


How does one criticise this comment?
Not sure, try me.


I mean, who said anything about products "deliberately" being crappy?


TheGreatOne
You're right that they wouldn't be greedy for money, but because of this, they wouldn't be motivated to constantly improve because they wouldn't have to. They would still be helping society even if they were doing a crappy job at what they do, and they would have no motivation to do better.

But perhaps my wording was not chosen at best; I did not mean deliberatley make something crappy as in 'sabotage the product', I meant it as in doing the bare minimum only so that the product turns out crappy. [/b]
A criticism of socialism is not a defense of capitalism, which is why we don't do that.

And if you're wondering why someone would do the bare minimum, it's because that's all they would have to do. There could be no penalty for doing the bare minimum and so that's all you would get from everyone but the ones who truly cared about the quality of their work. Even those who initially did their best would eventually stop when they realized that their fellow workers weren't putting in their fair share of effort.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:56 PM
A criticism of socialism is not a defense of capitalism, which is why we don't do that.
It is not? Yet a criticism of capitalism is a defense of socialism? :o


And if you're wondering why someone would do the bare minimum, it's because that's all they would have to do. There could be no penalty for doing the bare minimum and so that's all you would get from everyone but the ones who truly cared about the quality of their work. Even those who initially did their best would eventually stop when they realized that their fellow workers weren't putting in their fair share of effort.
Mind if I borrow that glass ball of yours?

[Paininyoura55]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 28 2006, 11:03 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 28 2006, 11:03 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 11:56 PM
A criticism of socialism is not a defense of capitalism, which is why we don't do that.
It is not? Yet a criticism of capitalism is a defense of socialism? :o


And if you're wondering why someone would do the bare minimum, it's because that's all they would have to do. There could be no penalty for doing the bare minimum and so that's all you would get from everyone but the ones who truly cared about the quality of their work. Even those who initially did their best would eventually stop when they realized that their fellow workers weren't putting in their fair share of effort.
Mind if I borrow that glass ball of yours? [/b]
What the hell? The original person who posted that accused you of confusing the two. No one has suggested that the two are the same.

Yes, I would mind if you borrowed it, because I know I would never see it again. Kidding aside, I don't need a glass ball to see that people will become lazy when they have no reason to work hard.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:07 AM
What the hell? The original person who posted that accused you of confusing the two. No one has suggested that the two are the same.
You're new to this 'sarcasm' thing, aren't you?


Yes, I would mind if you borrowed it, because I know I would never see it again. Kidding aside, I don't need a glass ball to see that people will become lazy when they have no reason to work hard.
What exactly do you need then, to "know" this? :rolleyes:

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:14 PM
What exactly do you need then, to "know" this? :rolleyes:
Common sense

[Paininyoura55]

You're new to this 'sarcasm' thing, aren't you?

If that was sarcastic, it was completely pointless from your perspective. I tend to assume points aren't sarcastic when the sarcastic version would not support the posters argument.


What exactly do you need then, to "know" this? rolleyes.gif

Common sense, logic, a brain, etc...

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

:o I stand powerless at such overwhelming proof.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:03 PM
Mind if I borrow that glass ball of yours?
[QUOTE]

It is socialism which possess the glass ball. Indeed, it is often its entire rationalization.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

How so? We don't necessarily claim it will work perfectly right from the start, but it can't be worse than this, so why not try our best to make it work?
Besides, if we all (or most of us) do our best, how could it fail?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:14 PM


Yes, I would mind if you borrowed it, because I know I would never see it again. Kidding aside, I don't need a glass ball to see that people will become lazy when they have no reason to work hard.
What exactly do you need then, to "know" this? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]

Its not even so much an issue of becoming "lazy," though that may be part of it. Its that the work in a socialist community becomes chaotic and without focus or direction.

Socialists like to say that socialism is about the workers owning, and thus controling and directing the means production. In other words, workers will decide what they will produce and how. But such a state of affairs is absurd. Production occurs because there is a demand for it by consumers, and ought not because the workers feel like making something. The consumers, in any rational economy (such as capitalism) control the means of production, as production is geared to satisfy their needs and wants, in the most rational way possible. Socialism starts off in an error, and assumes production needs to satisfy the needs and wants of the workers. So production loses focus, since the emphasis will be on the workers, and not the consumers.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:12 PM

I didn't see anyone advocating primitivism.


they dont have to, its what will occur in your system (again barring some technolcgical miracles)



What is this perfection you speak of? I don't think it exists.

i concur, my point exactly.



The benefit of helping others, maybe? Is that too foreign a concept to you?

no i like helping peope, but there are ways to do that without a neurosicence degree



People do form common interest blocks. Unions? Political parties? I will restate this, there is no such thing as perfection. But gathering from my interactions with the rest of the human race, people are good.


aren't you lucky. well trust the rest of us-their are plent of bad people out there.



I guess we need to get it right then.

give it a shot i suppose

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 01:02 AM
Its not even so much an issue of becoming "lazy," though that may be part of it. Its that the work in a socialist community becomes chaotic and without focus or direction.

Socialists like to say that socialism is about the workers owning, and thus controling and directing the means production. In other words, workers will decide what they will produce and how. But such a state of affairs is absurd. Production occurs because there is a demand for it by consumers, and ought not because the workers feel like making something. The consumers, in any rational economy (such as capitalism) control the means of production, as production is geared to satisfy their needs and wants, in the most rational way possible. Socialism starts off in an error, and assumes production needs to satisfy the needs and wants of the workers. So production loses focus, since the emphasis will be on the workers, and not the consumers.
:blink: What?

Who do you think the consumers are? The workers perhaps?
And 'consumers own the means of production'??! Really? Do you own a series of factories? Or industrial machinery? Which you use to satisfy your own needs?

:blink:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 29 2006, 12:19 AM--> (s3rna @ Aug 29 2006, 12:19 AM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 01:02 AM
Its not even so much an issue of becoming "lazy," though that may be part of it. Its that the work in a socialist community becomes chaotic and without focus or direction.

Socialists like to say that socialism is about the workers owning, and thus controling and directing the means production. In other words, workers will decide what they will produce and how. But such a state of affairs is absurd. Production occurs because there is a demand for it by consumers, and ought not because the workers feel like making something. The consumers, in any rational economy (such as capitalism) control the means of production, as production is geared to satisfy their needs and wants, in the most rational way possible. Socialism starts off in an error, and assumes production needs to satisfy the needs and wants of the workers. So production loses focus, since the emphasis will be on the workers, and not the consumers.
:blink: What?

Who do you think the consumers are? The workers perhaps?
And 'consumers own the means of production'??! Really? Do you own a series of factories? Or industrial machinery? Which you use to satisfy your own needs?

:blink: [/b]


My dear S3rna, those factories are in existence because somebody wishes the items produced. If nobody desired the items, the factories would not exist.

How many hammers do you you suppose a "worker" will need in a lifetime? Would the numbers be any different for the worker making the hammers?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 01:29 AM
My dear S3rna, those factories are in existence because somebody wishes the items produced.
Exactly: the workers.


If nobody desired the items, the factories would not exist.

How many hammers do you you suppose a "worker" will need in a lifetime? Would the numbers be any different for the worker making the hammers?
:blink: Who the hell do you think makes these hammers now? The workers!

Seriously, what have you been drinking?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 29 2006, 12:40 AM--> (s3rna @ Aug 29 2006, 12:40 AM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 01:29 AM
My dear S3rna, those factories are in existence because somebody wishes the items produced.
Exactly: the workers.


If nobody desired the items, the factories would not exist.

How many hammers do you you suppose a "worker" will need in a lifetime? Would the numbers be any different for the worker making the hammers?
:blink: Who the hell do you think makes these hammers now? The workers!

Seriously, what have you been drinking? [/b]
Wrong. Its the consumers who wish the items produced.

How often is the worker in the hammer going to personally need his product? What about the fellow who produces anti-biotics?

Or are they productive only when they themselves need the product? The worker and consumer are notthe same person.

[CrazyModerate]

The thing is, only the most wealthy and privileged enjoy the benefits of society's highest quality goods and technology. Those who benefit from these advantages, including the vast majority of fully industrialized and developed nations, would have to sacrifice their enormous advantage of material wealth.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:48 AM
The thing is, only the most wealthy and privileged enjoy the benefits of society's highest quality goods and technology. Those who benefit from these advantages, including the vast majority of fully industrialized and developed nations, would have to sacrifice their enormous advantage of material wealth.

They might have those advantages. but then again, they are the ones who produced it.

But the situation does not remain static.Computers, cutting edge a few decades are go, are indeed in the third world. Do they not benefit?