Will entertainment exist under communism?

[Orion999]

I was just curious of whether or not after the abolishment of the state and everybody seperating into seperate communes, what forms of entertainment will continue to exsist. I don't see how any professional sports could continue to function. Hollywood movies would no longer be made with the abolishment of profits. When we would goto an alchohol serving place, assuming they still exsist, will drinks be free? This sounds great but would definitely cause some problems for sure. Will anyone bother to spend the enormous amount of time required to write a fiction novel without the incentive for profits. Same goes for television shows I would guess.

This new communist world seems like its going to be pretty boring.

[that1guy435]

Yes, but some Communists will have to accept that we won't all be able to play fucking music for a living in a post-revolution society. Someone has to do real, manual labor work. Seriously, talk to your average communists about what he/she wants to do after the revolution. A hell of a lot of them will say something like, "I want to play guitar" or "I'm going to make short films". That's all fine and dandy, but we WILL have to work. Please tell me I'm not the only one out there that can accept that.

[apathy maybe]

Firstly the profit motive is not everything. If people were not going to write if they were not going to get money, why do we see so many writers who have to work other jobs? They aren't getting paid to write, because they suck or whatever. Movies will continue to be made, though they might not be as wasteful in using resources as they are now.

People will still want to drink alcohol and use other drugs, they will be allowed to. But bar tenders will cut them off if they have too much, just like now.

Professional sports will go hopefully, but people will still play, and people will still watch.

Really I think this must be a troll, or else the poster knows little of what they are talking about.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

Huh? Socialist countries so far have had movies, TV, alcohol, music, sports and more writers than you can shake a stick at. These things are just more done for enjoyment rather than major profits. People will continue to like these things; no-one is denying that.

In fact activists in some areas have organized progressive, alternative entertainment such as areas where progressives can share ideas and progressive musicians can come and play. Some parties have radio shows. I don’t see what the problem is.

[Orion999]

Firstly the profit motive is not everything. If people were not going to write if they were not going to get money, why do we see so many writers who have to work other jobs? They aren't getting paid to write, because they suck or whatever. Movies will continue to be made, though they might not be as wasteful in using resources as they are now.

In communism how is it decided which preson is going to be an actor and which is going to cultivate the crops? It can't be done voluntarily so how exactly are these things decided? I would imagine most people would want the non back breaking labor instensive professions.

[that1guy435]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 3 2006, 04:45 AM
Really I think this must be a troll, or else the poster knows little of what they are talking about.


If you're referring to me, you've misunderstood me. I wasn't saying entertainment is a waste or something, I'm just saying that we will have to work as well.

[Cult of Reason]

Most essential work can be done by machines, and most of that is already being done by machines. Many jobs that people do now are useless as far as material production and distribution are concerned.

[Orion999]

Obviously someone has to to do roof work in the florida sun, and someone will be working in the movie buissness if it is to continue to exsist. Even with jus jobs you consider to be essential some are going to be far worse than others, so how is this decided is all I want to know. If someone tried to tell me I had to go tar roofs while other people have mundane jobs like sitting in air conditioning and answering th phone I'd tell them to go to hell.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:18 AM
Most essential work can be done by machines, and most of that is already being done by machines. Many jobs that people do now are useless as far as material production and distribution are concerned.
Exactly! How many calls have you received today by people pushing newspapers and charity over the phone today. I get it at least twice a day. These people should simply go the hell home and receive the products of automated manufacturing and stop working at their annoying "jobs", but in this system that's an impossibility.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:27 AM
Obviously someone has to to do roof work in the florida sun, and someone will be working in the movie buissness if it is to continue to exsist. Even with jus jobs you consider to be essential some are going to be far worse than others, so how is this decided is all I want to know. If someone tried to tell me I had to go tar roofs while other people have mundane jobs like sitting in air conditioning and answering th phone I'd tell them to go to hell.
Outdated design methods and outdated ideas supported by a system that refuses to die. Build and use prefabricated housing. Prefabricated structures that builds up through attaching modules are already a proven design method. It's simply not taken up by an Engineering establishment that has an irrational fetish for traditional methods and ideas.

[Orion999]

Can someone please just answer the question of how people's jobs are going to be decided. Prefabricated houses are not going to eliminate the need for intensive manual labor. Some jobs are in evitably going to be worse than others. How is it decided who will be trained for years in the medical practice, and who will immidiately begin manual labor? This seems like a fundamental question that you all must have an answer for, I am simply intereted to hear it.

[KC]

Can someone please just answer the question of how people's jobs are going to be decided.

Sure. People choose what their own job is going to be.

[Guerrilla22]

Yes, Dave Chappelle will be hired by the state to produce the people's Chappelle show and he will finally be freed from his corporate masters over at viacom.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Definately. People should be able to choose to be musicians, artists, et cetera. Obviously, the gift economy - or whatever economic system exists - is probably not going to reward the untalented. People will be encouraged to do what they like, within reason, assuming they can be productive doing it. Striking a balance is important.

I find it really offensive how many communists think the arts will not be legitimate jobs after the revolution. It's classic anti-arts bias perpetuated by the bourgeoisie.

[Orion999]

Sure. People choose what their own job is going to be.

If you really believe this is possible I suggest you rethink your views on human nature. Everyone will choose the same jobs. What 18 year old is going to pick manual labor on the farm, if their simply allowed to choose to write movie screenplays, study medecine, or even work behind the counter at a conveinance store. .

This answer is completely incapable of working. No one is just going to "choose" the worst jobs, and we would end up with allot of bonehead docters.

[KC]

If you really believe this is possible I suggest you rethink your views on human nature. Everyone will choose the same jobs. What 18 year old is going to pick manual labor on the farm, if their simply allowed to choose to write movie screenplays, study medecine, or even work behind the counter at a conveinance store. .

Many of the "worst" jobs can either be divided up within the community, automated, or just done away with.



This answer is completely incapable of working. No one is just going to "choose" the worst jobs, and we would end up with allot of bonehead docters.

Why would we end up with a lot of bonehead doctors? I'd say that we'd end up with better doctors because our doctors would be doing it because they love it and not for the money.

[Orion999]

Many of the "worst" jobs can either be divided up within the community, automated, or just done away with.

This idea that all undesirable professions can simply be automated cofuseses me. Are there some intelligent robots I don't know about that can plant and raise crops by themselves, clean and repair the sewage system, construct roads, cut down trees, paint buildings, and the many other neccessary jobs done today by people who are unable to get a better one. You cannot just get rid of manual labor. There are no super machines capable of doing everything.

As for spreading them among the community. Then they are not chosen, they would be delegated. So who is in charge of this delefation? Is someone performing neurosurgery one day and the next they have to go work on a farm? I don't want my doctor spending half his time on a farm. If is anyone is exempt from manual labor the same problem arrises of everyone choosing jobs that do not require manual labor.

There is a reason why only the hardest working and most intelligent people are allowed to practice medecine. Because it is incrediblely difficult to grasp and perform correctly. Simply "loving what you do" is not enough to make you a good nuerosurgoen. And, so many people would choose this profession that some process of deciding who is allowed to practice maedcine must be devloped.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:43 AM

Many of the "worst" jobs can either be divided up within the community, automated, or just done away with.

This idea that all undesirable professions can simply be automated cofuseses me. Are there some intelligent robots I don't know about that can plant and raise crops by themselves, clean and repair the sewage system, construct roads, cut down trees, paint buildings, and the many other neccessary jobs done today by people who are unable to get a better one. You cannot just get rid of manual labor. There are no super machines capable of doing everything.
I would paint buildings or plant trees and flowers with pleasure.
It's nothing wrong with manual labor especially if it's not necessary all the time. I mean there is no necessity of constant painting the buildings in the community. Just few times in a year. So why several people can't spend few days and make their community more beautiful of their own free will? I would.


And, so many people would choose this profession that some process of deciding who is allowed to practice maedcine must be devloped.

Why do you think that so many people would want to become doctors? I don't think so.

[Zingu]

If profit is what motivates movies from Hollywood, that probably makes sense about the poor, manufactured quality of them, and it isn't much of a point.

[Orion999]

If people are allowed to choose whatever profession they want, then of coarse ther will be professions that will be more desirable than other. More people will choose the more desirable professions than the undesirable ones. Thus, their will be a surplus of people desiring some professions and a defecit for the more undesirable ones.

How do you resolve this? if in a community of 10,000 there are 100 new adults who wish to begin studying medecine to in order to become a doctor, and only 5 new people are needed to become doctors, than obviously you cannot let everyone choose to become doctors. Having neurosurgeons also work the fields 1/3 of the time is not going to work. Thus doctors and any profession like them would be an elite group. Who is going to choose to be a hospital

If the production of movies is to continue under communism, What percent of young men are going to choose farm work, road building, sewage cleanup over making movies? A very high percent would prefer to help make movies than these jobs. Which also asks how do you decide who is allowed to make movies? How do you tell these 10 people welcome to the movie business and you other 1,000 will have to think of something else. The only even remotely fair way to do this would be random selection, which still seems pretty shitty to the 1,000 people turned down.

There is no way around assigning work to people and since people can't do a different job everyday, inevitably some people are going to get screwed.

So if almost noone chooses to permanantly perform farm work and other manual labor there is no alternative to someone(who is this?) delegateing it to somebody.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:18 AM
If you really believe this is possible I suggest you rethink your views on human nature.
Human nature does not exist.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I'd say that we'd end up with better doctors because our doctors would be doing it because they love it and not for the money.


So any random schlub who can't write at an 8th grade level, who has been sitting in a security booth for the past 15 years, enjoys Larry the Cable Guy's humor and probably doesn't know the difference between a stethoscope from the bong he smokes everyday, can just walk into some hospital, throw on some scrubs and call himself a doctor simply because he likes it?

And since there's no police, the established doctors there are going to have to play "hayseed" security forces as well.

[Orion999]

The "they'd be great because they love it " arguement is absolutely hilarious. It's amazing how these people love communism so much yet possess no realistic ideas about how it would work. They don't even think any of this will be a problem, and they should'nt even consider how to solve it. Although in their defense, the problem is unsolvable which is probably why they choose to acknowladge it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:11 PM

I'd say that we'd end up with better doctors because our doctors would be doing it because they love it and not for the money.


So any random schlub who can't write at an 8th grade level, who has been sitting in a security booth for the past 15 years, enjoys Larry the Cable Guy's humor and probably doesn't know the difference between a stethoscope from the bong he smokes everyday, can just walk into some hospital, throw on some scrubs and call himself a doctor simply because he likes it?

And since there's no police, the established doctors there are going to have to play "hayseed" security forces as well.
Did he say that? No, he didn't.

[that1guy435]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:24 PM
The "they'd be great because they love it " arguement is absolutely hilarious. It's amazing how these people love communism so much yet possess no realistic ideas about how it would work. They don't even think any of this will be a problem, and they should'nt even consider how to solve it. Although in their defense, the problem is unsolvable which is probably why they choose to acknowladge it.
You're an asshole. Think it's about time for a restriction on your ass.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Sep 3 2006, 10:14 PM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Sep 3 2006, 10:14 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:11 PM

I'd say that we'd end up with better doctors because our doctors would be doing it because they love it and not for the money.


So any random schlub who can't write at an 8th grade level, who has been sitting in a security booth for the past 15 years, enjoys Larry the Cable Guy's humor and probably doesn't know the difference between a stethoscope from the bong he smokes everyday, can just walk into some hospital, throw on some scrubs and call himself a doctor simply because he likes it?

And since there's no police, the established doctors there are going to have to play "hayseed" security forces as well.
Did he say that? No, he didn't. [/b]
no that would be the reustl tho

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 3 2006, 05:11 PM
So any random schlub who can't write at an 8th grade level, who has been sitting in a security booth for the past 15 years, enjoys Larry the Cable Guy's humor and probably doesn't know the difference between a stethoscope from the bong he smokes everyday, can just walk into some hospital, throw on some scrubs and call himself a doctor simply because he likes it?


People would have to study medicine before they could practice as a doctor. Someone could not simply "walk into some hospital, throw on some scrubs and call himself a doctor". The community councils (meaning everyone in the community) would make sure that only properly trained doctors practiced medicine in their hospital.

There will no state in communism, but there will be a strong social order enforced by collective society to make sure individuals are not harming society.

[Comrade Phil]

Orion999


If people are allowed to choose whatever profession they want, then of coarse ther will be professions that will be more desirable than other. More people will choose the more desirable professions than the undesirable ones. Thus, their will be a surplus of people desiring some professions and a defecit for the more undesirable ones.

If a community has enough people in one occupation, then anyone who wished to work in that particular occupation, would go to work at another community where that profession is needed. If all communities of the region do not need this occupation, then in order for this person to contribute to society, they will have to preform some other occupation until the need for their first-choice occupation goes back up.


If the production of movies is to continue under communism, What percent of young men are going to choose farm work, road building, sewage cleanup over making movies? A very high percent would prefer to help make movies than these jobs.

There are many people who would prefer the farming life over any other occupations. I would think providing food for the people would be very satisfying, particularily when much of the strenuous tasks have become automated.
As for road work or sewage cleanup, much of these jobs can also be automated making them far less tedious. If people didn't do these jobs then the stabilty of their community would fall apart. Individuals would preform these jobs out of societal duty because poverty, starvation, and disease would threaten them if they did not. Also, you wouldn't be expected to do this work for an extended period of time, just when your community needs you to.


Which also asks how do you decide who is allowed to make movies? How do you tell these 10 people welcome to the movie business and you other 1,000 will have to think of something else. The only even remotely fair way to do this would be random selection, which still seems pretty shitty to the 1,000 people turned down

Societal need would decide who gets to make movies. The 10 individuals who show the most potential would be chosen. Why would random selection be most fair? The 1000 others who are turned down would have to go elsewhere to look for this particular work, or choose another profession until more movie production personnel are needed.

It would be less shitty than in capitalism. In communism, the people turned down would have the same amount of economic opportunity to get into movie production as those accepted. In capitalism, if you cannot afford the training for film school, then you won't be able to even apply for movie production. In a communism, individuals will have the economic freedom to do any occupation. However, societal need will dictate when and where you work in this occupation.


How do you resolve this? if in a community of 10,000 there are 100 new adults who wish to begin studying medecine to in order to become a doctor, and only 5 new people are needed to become doctors, than obviously you cannot let everyone choose to become doctors. Having neurosurgeons also work the fields 1/3 of the time is not going to work. Thus doctors and any profession like them would be an elite group. Who is going to choose to be a hospital

If only five people are needed to become doctors in this community, then only five people will work in the community hospital. Anyone else who wished to become a doctor would have to work in another community.

Why would it be a bad idea for neurosurgeons to work in the fields? So long as they do not put their primary skills in medicine at risk (ie through injury), what is the problem? Just because you have a highly specialised occupation, you will still be expected to help the community when your specialised skills are not needed. Therefore, I don't see how it is possible for people of such occupations to become an elite group.


There is no way around assigning work to people and since people can't do a different job everyday, inevitably some people are going to get screwed.

Societal need will assign work. Why would some people get screwed?


So if almost noone chooses to permanantly perform farm work and other manual labor there is no alternative to someone(who is this?) delegateing it to somebody.

There will be enough people preforming farm work and other manual labour because of societal need. Farming and manual labor are neccessary for society to function, if nobody performed these tasks then the people of society would be harmed. In order to prevent themselves harm, people would do farmwork and manual labour.

[theraven]

and who detemrines societal need? what regiosn detemrien if anyone neds these things?

[Comrade Phil]

Well society does :rolleyes:. People would meet at their community council and would democraticaly determine which occupations are needed and which are not, which manufactured goods need increased production and which need less, etc. Most every aspect of society which the market economy currently controls would be democratically decided through community councils. As for determining societal need on a regional level, the solution could simply be frequent communication between community councils or a regional council comprised of representatives from the communities.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Orion, the view of intelligent leftists on this matter is generally that in the society they envision, people will be able to and will choose the job that most suits them. Also, the job that most suits them will be fullfilling to them largely for that reason. Furthemore, non-wage labor workers, who are motivated by their personal interest in the labor as well as by the general well-being of society, will do their work at such a high quality that it will become their 'art.' In such a society the distinction between a farmer and an actor is little.

Now, it is of course a question if the idea presented above is true. Let's just say that there are some jobs people would rather not do and that would not have enough people working them. If you just think about it logically, the solution appears. That solution is of course for society to split those jobs between people, to share the burden shall we say. Does that answer your question?

Your assertion that Communists have never thought out this problem is misinformed. People have, however not everyone believes your comments on human nature and all of that. That is the reason they reach different conclusions than you, not their lack of thinking..

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 3 2006, 06:24 AM

If you really believe this is possible I suggest you rethink your views on human nature. Everyone will choose the same jobs. What 18 year old is going to pick manual labor on the farm, if their simply allowed to choose to write movie screenplays, study medecine, or even work behind the counter at a conveinance store. .

Many of the "worst" jobs can either be divided up within the community, automated, or just done away with.


[QUOTE]

Divided up by whom? How?

Automated by whom? Who builds these machines?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 11:25 PM

People would have to study medicine before they could practice as a doctor. Someone could not simply "walk into some hospital, throw on some scrubs and call himself a doctor". The community councils (meaning everyone in the community) would make sure that only properly trained doctors practiced medicine in their hospital.

There will no state in communism, but there will be a strong social order enforced by collective society to make sure individuals are not harming society.
[QUOTE]

The "collective" organization which is set up, regardless of what it is called, is the "state."

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 12:58 AM

As for road work or sewage cleanup, much of these jobs can also be automated making them far less tedious. If people didn't do these jobs then the stabilty of their community would fall apart. Individuals would preform these jobs out of societal duty because poverty, starvation, and disease would threaten them if they did not. Also, you wouldn't be expected to do this work for an extended period of time, just when your community needs you to.


Societal need would decide who gets to make movies. The 10 individuals who show the most potential would be chosen.

Determined by whom?


How do you resolve this? if in a community of 10,000 there are 100 new adults who wish to begin studying medecine to in order to become a doctor, and only 5 new people are needed to become doctors, than obviously you cannot let everyone choose to become doctors. Having neurosurgeons also work the fields 1/3 of the time is not going to work. Thus doctors and any profession like them would be an elite group. Who is going to choose to be a hospital

If only five people are needed to become doctors in this community, then only five people will work in the community hospital. Anyone else who wished to become a doctor would have to work in another community.

Why would it be a bad idea for neurosurgeons to work in the fields? So long as they do not put their primary skills in medicine at risk (ie through injury), what is the problem? Just because you have a highly specialised occupation, you will still be expected to help the community when your specialised skills are not needed. Therefore, I don't see how it is possible for people of such occupations to become an elite group.


There is no way around assigning work to people and since people can't do a different job everyday, inevitably some people are going to get screwed.

Societal need will assign work. Why would some people get screwed?


So if almost noone chooses to permanantly perform farm work and other manual labor there is no alternative to someone(who is this?) delegateing it to somebody.

There will be enough people preforming farm work and other manual labour because of societal need. Farming and manual labor are neccessary for society to function, if nobody performed these tasks then the people of society would be harmed. In order to prevent themselves harm, people would do farmwork and manual labour.
[/QUOTE][QUOTE]

Oh, so the sewer workers will not be trained sewer workers? They will not have the skills that professiopnal sewer folks have in capitalist communities by the simple fact they will not be working there fulltime. How does this benefit the community? And why should doctors be well trained, but sewer workers not? It would seem a doctor who practiced medicine every now and then between stints in the sewers would not be particularly proficient at either skills.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 02:55 AM
Well society does :rolleyes:. People would meet at their community council and would democraticaly determine which occupations are needed and which are not, which manufactured goods need increased production and which need less, etc. Most every aspect of society which the market economy currently controls would be democratically decided through community councils. As for determining societal need on a regional level, the solution could simply be frequent communication between community councils or a regional council comprised of representatives from the communities.
But let's not call these various councils the "state" shall we?

What sort of information would these council use to determine whether production needs to be increased in certain areas, or decreased in certain areas, what sort iof occupations are needed, and what aren't ect?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Since you're discussing politics on a radical leftist internet comunity, you might wanna know what the fuck you're talking about.
I suggest you start here: The Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)

[Comrade C.A.]

profit isn't everything, i write poetry and don't see a cent. why? i love to write. if al these movie stars want to do is make money and not actually entertain, then i feel sorry for people who want "entertainent.

[Invader Zim]

No, we shall all revert to being workaholics and when we are not working we shall bask in the warming glow of the microwave.

[Orion999]

Societal need would decide who gets to make movies. The 10 individuals who show the most potential would be chosen.

And who makes this decision? How is some community council going to decide who can make the best moveis? Is the council going to hold acting tryouts. You don't think the people turned down are going to be a little upset htat these council members are'nt qualified to make this decision?


There are many people who would prefer the farming life over any other occupations. I would think providing food for the people would be very satisfying, particularily when much of the strenuous tasks have become automated.
As for road work or sewage cleanup, much of these jobs can also be automated making them far less tedious.

There are no superintelligent robots anywhere near capable of building a road or any other of these tasks. Any tasks capable of being automated would have been done a long time ago.


Well society does . People would meet at their community council and would democraticaly determine which occupations are needed and which are not



How is a community council going to decide who is allowed to become an actor? Some professions will require national coordination or else tons of actors would be showing up whereever they make movies who are'nt needed. How God awful are these movies going to be?



Orion, the view of intelligent leftists on this matter is generally that in the society they envision, people will be able to and will choose the job that most suits them. Also, the job that most suits them will be fullfilling to them largely for that reason. Furthemore, non-wage labor workers, who are motivated by their personal interest in the labor as well as by the general well-being of society, will do their work at such a high quality that it will become their 'art.' In such a society the distinction between a farmer and an actor is little.



Who thinks that laying cement is the job that best suites them? I've never anyone dying to be a roofer.


Now, it is of course a question if the idea presented above is true. Let's just say that there are some jobs people would rather not do and that would not have enough people working them. If you just think about it logically, the solution appears. That solution is of course for society to split those jobs between people, to share the burden shall we say. Does that answer your question?


The idea that some jobs are more desirable than others really is not debatable. I just find the idea of some benevolent council doleing these tasks equally and fairly to not be reasonable. I know many of you don't believe in human nature, but corruption will inevitably emerge in this system just like in all previous attempts at communism.

[KC]

Divided up by whom?

By members of that community.


How?

Through discussions and voting processes implemented at community meetings.



Automated by whom?Who builds these machines?

Members of the community.



The "collective" organization which is set up, regardless of what it is called, is the "state."

The state only exists when there are irreconcilable differences between two or more classes. Since communism is classless, there is no state.



Oh, so the sewer workers will not be trained sewer workers?

Of course they will.



They will not have the skills that professiopnal sewer folks have in capitalist communities by the simple fact they will not be working there fulltime. How does this benefit the community? And why should doctors be well trained, but sewer workers not? It would seem a doctor who practiced medicine every now and then between stints in the sewers would not be particularly proficient at either skills.

What the hell is a "sewer worker"? :huh: A construction worker? An engineer? A city planner?



What sort of information would these council use to determine whether production needs to be increased in certain areas, or decreased in certain areas, what sort iof occupations are needed, and what aren't ect?

They will be determined based on what both their community and other communities need.


And who makes this decision? How is some community council going to decide who can make the best moveis? Is the council going to hold acting tryouts. You don't think the people turned down are going to be a little upset htat these council members are'nt qualified to make this decision?

"Moviemaker" wouldn't be a job. Since people would be working only around 4 hours a day, they will hold a normal job and will be able to spend the rest of their time making movies.



There are no superintelligent robots anywhere near capable of building a road or any other of these tasks.

Who needs roads? Ever hear of mass transit?


Any tasks capable of being automated would have been done a long time ago.

Not if they weren't profitable to do so.


How is a community council going to decide who is allowed to become an actor?

People wouldn't have a job as an actor.


Some professions will require national coordination or else tons of actors would be showing up whereever they make movies who are'nt needed. How God awful are these movies going to be?

:rolleyes:


Who thinks that laying cement is the job that best suites them? I've never anyone dying to be a roofer.

Construction is a great job for the whole community to get involved in! It's physically demanding so it will help keep people fit, it's a direct contribution to their community (after all, since they decided to build it then they should have a hand in building it!) and you're probably right in saying that not many people want to be a construction worker fulltime (although I know many people that wouldn't mind it, myself included).


I know many of you don't believe in human nature, but corruption will inevitably emerge in this system just like in all previous attempts at communism.

How will corruption emerge? Care to provide some more detail?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:18 AM
If you really believe this is possible I suggest you rethink your views on human nature.
There we go again... :rolleyes:


Everyone will choose the same jobs. What 18 year old is going to pick manual labor on the farm, if their simply allowed to choose to write movie screenplays, study medecine, or even work behind the counter at a conveinance store. .
Well what'd ya know, I am 18 and I would choose manual labor over the other stuff. Though I'd prefer working as a photographer (I am one), I'd have no problem with manual labor. So much for your point :)



This answer is completely incapable of working. No one is just going to "choose" the worst jobs, and we would end up with allot of bonehead docters.
Yeah, everyone would become a doctor because it's such an easy job :lol:

[red team]

There are no superintelligent robots anywhere near capable of building a road or any other of these tasks. Any tasks capable of being automated would have been done a long time ago.

That's because there's not enough people working on "superintelligent" robots other than a few university professors doing it as their pet research project. In Capitalist society everything is runned on the basis of value scarcity (fiscal efficiency) to produce the most profit with the lowest costs regardless if quality of output could be improved with more people contributing, so everything including jobs are rationed toward the elites because it's more fiscally "efficient" to pay a few top academics than have everybody who is willing to contribute gradually trained through practice to be competent enough to contribute. Technology research into robotics is no different.

[Orion999]

That's because there's not enough people working on "superintelligent" robots other than a few university professors doing it as their pet research project. In Capitalist society everything is runned on the basis of value scarcity (fiscal efficiency) to produce the most profit with the lowest costs regardless if quality of output could be improved with more people contributing, so everything including jobs are rationed toward the elites because it's more fiscally "efficient" to pay a few top academics than have everybody who is willing to contribute gradually trained through practice to be competent enough to contribute. Technology research into robotics is no different.

Do you really think that a company who created superinteeligent robots would not make billions off them. They would instantly become some of the richest people on the planet. There's no motive for that? Explain please why noone would want to become fabuously wealthy by inventing superintelligent robots?

[red team]

Explain please why noone would want to become fabuously wealthy by inventing superintelligent robots?

First of all who would invest in your company being that it's going into unproven technologies that might or might not work and even if it turns out that it is possible it would take massive investments for a long time to produce results?

There already are "new" technology companies that aren't even new or innovative given that the theoretical background for it was developed in publicly funded university labs decades ago. Take fuel cells for instance. New and cutting edge right? :lol: No, developed in the 1970's for the government funded moon landing because we needed to beat the other side for prestige points. If it wasn't for the competition of the cold war the space program would have never been more than a science fiction pipe dream. As of now the "new" technology of fuel cells is dead in terms of investment capital not because of technical feasability (we've developed the damn thing already for crying out loud), but because of profit returns for short term investments. Which may be a good thing because the more investment Capital go for the short term windfall (and who among the wealthy is patient enough for long term investment anyway) by investing in get rich quick operations like Casinos, Prisons, Legal Narcotics and Weapons the more the infrastructure will deteriorate and the more people will lose confidence in this crappy system.

[Orion999]

First of all who would invest in your company being that it's going into unproven technologies that might or might not work and even if it turns out that it is possible it would take massive investments for a long time to produce results?


Why cannot you just admit that the robots don't exsist, because the technology to create them does not exsist. The U.S. govt funds all kind of companies working in fields that may not produce results for decades. How do you think America maintains it's technological superiority?

[red team]

Why cannot you just admit that the robots don't exsist, because the technology to create them does not exsist.

The technology is there. It exists otherwise robot prototypes would not have been built. The problem as in anything in a scarcity based price system else is funding for research. The space shuttle was developed in the 1980's and uses 1980's technology with CPUs that was developed in the 70's. My computer has a processor that's literally 2000 times faster than it. :lol:

Are you sure that the technology doesn't exists? It's more of a case of corruption, kick-backs and investment for short-term gain. Books are already published with firmly grounded theories of artificial intelligence (I have some of them). If anyone should know that something like this is possible given more research, I should know.

[Orion999]

The U.S. govt funds all kind of companies working in fields that may not produce results for decades. How do you think America maintains it's technological superiority?

Dude theoretical reserch into far future technologies takes place all the time. The American Govt. Will fund anything that even has the slightest chance of producing a technology that would give America an edge over the world. I think super intelligent robots would fall into this category. Why has'nt China or anyone else developed them?

[red team]

super intelligent robots

We don't need super intelligent robots. A multitude of interchangeable dumb robots will do just as well. We're not talking about Rosie the robot here. :lol: We're talking about 1000 different versions of Rain Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Man) each only smart enough to be an expert at some stupid task, but flexible enough to do that same stupid task in a changing environment.

[Orion999]

And you don't think they would have any military use?

[red team]

They do have military uses. What do you think cruise missiles and aerial drones are? They're flying robotic bombs. Octopod (like a spider) robots with guns attached would take the place of infantry patrols, but why deploy expensive million dollar robots (you've got to pay the engineers and programmers who made this thing) when you can just send in a poor slob who volunteered to get paid to have his ass blown away? It's a matter of cost effectiveness why robots aren't deployed in the infantry role, but in the aerial bomb or missile role. A armor piercing round or some cheap improvised explosive can destroy expensive machinery as well as cheap human cannon fodder.

[Terminator]

gosh Orion, can't you see that the Community Council to decide singers for example, would be made up of Paula Abdul, Simon Cowell , and Randy Jackson. If you don't know who those people are, they are the judges from American Idol! You understand now how it will be decided?

And of course in case some of the contestants to be a singer feel they have been unfairly judged, then the Elder Council will be called upon, which will be made up of Regis Philbin and William Shatner....lmao

[Orion999]

See, finally someone has provided a good explanation. It all makes perfect sense now.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:13 AM
Who thinks that laying cement is the job that best suites them? I've never anyone dying to be a roofer.

The idea that some jobs are more desirable than others really is not debatable. I just find the idea of some benevolent council doleing these tasks equally and fairly to not be reasonable. I know many of you don't believe in human nature, but corruption will inevitably emerge in this system just like in all previous attempts at communism.
Uh oh, I must drop my arguement now. Orion, in his own personal experience, has never known anyone that would choose to lay cement and find it a good job that suits them in a Communist society. Going on that personal experience, it's obvious my points were proven wrong. :rolleyes: Seriously, you don't expect to hold up in debate do you? It's only a theory though and that's not being denied, I don't think what I say leftists believe can be proven now and so it could be wrong. But whether you believe that is wrong or not that is essentially the answer to your question.

Some people have different opinions on such things than the average person you know. You declaring it "not debatable" does not make it so. Indeed even in your personal experience you could find people who are satisfied with jobs that most people wouldn't like atll. The fact that it is done for the better of society is also an extra motivation you know.

Besides, I have already pointed out to you that a potential solution to this problem is for society simply to split/share these jobs. It's really that simple. You may believe that it is impractical and would never happen but not everyone agrees you know.

[Orion999]

Uh oh, I must drop my arguement now. Orion, in his own personal experience, has never known anyone that would choose to lay cement and find it a good job that suits them in a Communist society. Going on that personal experience, it's obvious my points were proven wrong. Seriously, you don't expect to hold up in debate do you? It's only a theory though and that's not being denied, I don't think what I say leftists believe can be proven now and so it could be wrong. But whether you believe that is wrong or not that is essentially the answer to your question.

Some people have different opinions on such things than the average person you know. You declaring it "not debatable" does not make it so. Indeed even in your personal experience you could find people who are satisfied with jobs that most people wouldn't like atll. The fact that it is done for the better of society is also an extra motivation you know.

Besides, I have already pointed out to you that a potential solution to this problem is for society simply to split/share these jobs. It's really that simple. You may believe that it is impractical and would never happen but not everyone agrees you know.


If you are going to be paid the exact same amount of money, why on earth would anyone want lay cement instead of be inside, not out laying scement in 100 degree weather, serving drinks and chatting away with everyone. Anyone who lives in the real world andnot some communists fairy tale dreamland knows that some jobs are inevitably mor desirable than others. Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement or be a bartender for the same amount of money,
I guaruntee you 90% at least will choose bartender.

[KC]

If you are going to be paid the exact same amount of money

Money won't exist in a communist society. Everything will be free.


Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement or be a bartender for the same amount of money,
I guaruntee you 90% at least will choose bartender.

I doubt it.

[Orion999]

QUOTE
Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement or be a bartender for the same amount of money,
I guaruntee you 90% at least will choose bartender.



I doubt it.



Than your an idiot. Have you ever actually socialized with people not on the internet? Most people when given the choice of two jobs that make the same amount of money will choose thes easier job. It's called common sense, which you seem to completely lack.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:39 AM

QUOTE
Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement or be a bartender for the same amount of money,
I guaruntee you 90% at least will choose bartender.



I doubt it.



Than your an idiot. Have you ever actually socialized with people not on the internet? Most people when given the choice of two jobs that make the same amount of money will choose thes easier job. It's called common sense, which you seem to completely lack.
Usually people will do what they enjoy more. Not everyone is a lazy sod.

[KC]

Than your an idiot. Have you ever actually socialized with people not on the internet? Most people when given the choice of two jobs that make the same amount of money will choose thes easier job. It's called common sense, which you seem to completely lack.

Actually a lot of people like working outside doing a job that's physically demanding. Guess how much construction workers get paid. I'll give you a hint: less than what you're thinking.

[Orion999]

Nobody loves to lay cement.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Orion[email protected] 8 2006, 01:43 AM
Nobody loves to lay cement.
Really, that's a fiarly bold claim you're making.

[red team]

Who needs cement layers?

Contour Crafting (http://contourcrafting.org/)

By a member of the "axis of evil" no less. The inventor is an Iranian. :lol:

[Terminator]

Really, that's a fiarly bold claim you're making.

lmao, can i make a bold statement too?? Please!!

ok:

EVERYONE LOVES SEX!

[kaaos_af]

What? With cement?

[Terminator]

What? With cement?

lmao :lol: :rolleyes: yes kaaos, with cement, wtf lmao

[ZX3]

Originally posted by DreamerDeceiver+Sep 7 2006, 09:58 PM--> (DreamerDeceiver @ Sep 7 2006, 09:58 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 06:13 AM
Who thinks that laying cement is the job that best suites them? I've never anyone dying to be a roofer.

The idea that some jobs are more desirable than others really is not debatable. I just find the idea of some benevolent council doleing these tasks equally and fairly to not be reasonable. I know many of you don't believe in human nature, but corruption will inevitably emerge in this system just like in all previous attempts at communism.
Uh oh, I must drop my arguement now. Orion, in his own personal experience, has never known anyone that would choose to lay cement and find it a good job that suits them in a Communist society. Going on that personal experience, it's obvious my points were proven wrong. :rolleyes: Seriously, you don't expect to hold up in debate do you? It's only a theory though and that's not being denied, I don't think what I say leftists believe can be proven now and so it could be wrong. But whether you believe that is wrong or not that is essentially the answer to your question.

Some people have different opinions on such things than the average person you know. You declaring it "not debatable" does not make it so. Indeed even in your personal experience you could find people who are satisfied with jobs that most people wouldn't like atll. The fact that it is done for the better of society is also an extra motivation you know.

Besides, I have already pointed out to you that a potential solution to this problem is for society simply to split/share these jobs. It's really that simple. You may believe that it is impractical and would never happen but not everyone agrees you know. [/b]
A couple of things:

1. There will need to be a objective mechanism to show what is being done is beneficial to society. It cannot just be someone's opinion that what is being done is beneficial. And you need to recall that not all work is finished work that is seen or used by consumers.

2. Indeed, people like doing all sorts of things that others would not. But Orion is suggesting that most people would choose the least demanding work.
I do not understand why socialists would dispute this point. Part of their claim is that socialism will allow people to do less work, and the work will be easier. I find it hard to fathom that socialism will rely upon some people to do rather unpleasant, harder work, so others can do less work. There seems to be a germ of "exploitation" here.

3. It is not so simple to "split/share work." Firstly, as i suggested, socialsists pledge to make work easier, not harder. It is hard to imagine (actually quite easy in practice) socialists requiring workers to do more work at the end of the day or week. Also, in a more practical manner, by splitting work, you are making the worker less proficient at his or her skill for both jobs. Decreasing skills amongst workers cannot be considered good for society.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 02:10 AM
EVERYONE LOVES SEX!
:lol: You're wrong there mate.
Not only are you wrong, you're a grotesquely ugly freak (http://www.asexuality.org/home/)

[bunk]

If no one likes performin certain taks then people will instead work towards making a machine or computer than can perform or operate the job.

[Terminator]

You're wrong there mate.
Not only are you wrong, you're a grotesquely ugly freak

(Driking my cup of tea) Um, listen up MATE, i think when i speak for 97 or so % of the world population, i believe that can constitute right about EVRYONE!!! And im an ugly freak? LMAO, im actually pretty handsome, and would be willing to share photos to any chick on the board and let them speak for themselves...(sigh)


If no one likes performin certain taks then people will instead work towards making a machine or computer than can perform or operate the job.

Not really, because machines cost money, the research for developing such things, and so on. Plus, only few countries would be able to get machines for such jobs, and those countries instead relly on immigrant workers who would do the damn job for even less !! So what would be the incentive in building machines?

Seriously speaking guys, come on, your kidding nobody but yourselves! Who the hell loves being out on the fields picking up tomatoes in the hot sun!! Or even if someone did like it, who in their right mind would choose between that and being inside an air conditioning place doing something else!? You guys must surely be dillusional if you belive people "LIKE" laying bricks or rooftops or picking up tomatoes! Thats just downright ridiculous if you believe that, period.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:47 PM

You're wrong there mate.
Not only are you wrong, you're a grotesquely ugly freak

(Driking my cup of tea) Um, listen up MATE, i think when i speak for 97 or so % of the world population, i believe that can constitute right about EVRYONE!!! And im an ugly freak? LMAO, im actually pretty handsome, and would be willing to share photos to any chick on the board and let them speak for themselves...(sigh)
(Why the fuck would I be interested in what you're drinking?)You believe wrong if you believe 97% constitutes everyone. Your egotisitical 'I'm so pretty' thing would be more believable sans the sighing.





If no one likes performin certain taks then people will instead work towards making a machine or computer than can perform or operate the job.

Not really, because machines cost money, the research for developing such things, and so on. Plus, only few countries would be able to get machines for such jobs, and those countries instead relly on immigrant workers who would do the damn job for even less !! So what would be the incentive in building machines?

Seriously speaking guys, come on, your kidding nobody but yourselves! Who the hell loves being out on the fields picking up tomatoes in the hot sun!! Or even if someone did like it, who in their right mind would choose between that and being inside an air conditioning place doing something else!? You guys must surely be dillusional if you belive people "LIKE" laying bricks or rooftops or picking up tomatoes! Thats just downright ridiculous if you believe that, period. Where to begin on this? Your critiscisms based on cost are meaningless, because we would have done away with debt tokens. As for the'no one would do any work' critiscism, you fail to understand that:
a) Some people would do it for the fun of it.
and
b) Some people would feel obligated to do it, for the good of society.
Not everyone is a self centered, lazy wanker like yourself.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:47 PM
LMAO, im actually pretty handsome, and would be willing to share photos to any chick on the board and let them speak for themselves...(sigh)
That desperate to get laid? :lol:

[LuXe]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 8 2006, 12:19 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 8 2006, 12:19 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 02:10 AM
EVERYONE LOVES SEX!
:lol: You're wrong there mate.
Not only are you wrong, you're a grotesquely ugly freak (http://www.asexuality.org/home/) [/b]
Ok, this one was rather fairly OWNED :D

But I would take a cement-laying job over a bartender job any day... However I dont. Why? I need to be payed money so that I may live. In a communist country, I coud take the cement laying job. ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

that site is hilarious

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:37 PM
that site is hilarious
Which one? The asexuality one? Are you going to deny empirical evidence by saying that no one is asexual?

[Cobber]

So what is an undesirable profession or trade or a desirable profession or trade for that matter, and why do people work in these professions now? Surely it is not motivated just by money, but to a certain extent by free-will and choice - my father for example became a tradesman (after being born onto a farm), set up his business and ran it well for over 40 years, but when I asked him if he could have his time over, he said he would have liked to have been a baker.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Sep 8 2006, 05:48 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Sep 8 2006, 05:48 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 05:37 PM
that site is hilarious
Which one? The asexuality one? Are you going to deny empirical evidence by saying that no one is asexual? [/b]
the asexuality one

I didn't deny anything

did you read the site?
it's hysterical

anyways, this is off-topic
let's stop

[RevMARKSman]

Meh, you can split this if you want.


did you read the site?
it's hysterical

I've read every single bit and I don't find it funny.
What exactly makes it funny?

[Orion999]

As for the'no one would do any work' critiscism, you fail to understand that:
a) Some people would do it for the fun of it.
and
b) Some people would feel obligated to do it, for the good of society.
Not everyone is a self centered, lazy wanker like yourself.


No one in the history of the world has ever thought that laying cement was "fun". Who is going to volunteer to go unclog people's shit from their toilets. Anyone here dying to work with shit for a living?


But I would take a cement-laying job over a bartender job any day... However I dont. Why? I need to be payed money so that I may live. In a communist country, I coud take the cement laying job.

You are either lying or deluding yourself. Have you ever actually laid cement? On your weedends do you go door to door asking people who would like to have their driveway paved. Are you really trying to tell me that if you could do anything you wanted to make a living, you would choose to lay cement all day? If so you have some real issues.


So what is an undesirable profession or trade or a desirable profession or trade for that matter, and why do people work in these professions now? Surely it is not motivated just by money, but to a certain extent by free-will and choice - my father for example became a tradesman (after being born onto a farm), set up his business and ran it well for over 40 years, but when I asked him if he could have his time over, he said he would have liked to have been a baker.

An undesirable profession is one that requires you to work with other people's shit all day, or do backbreaking labor in 100 degree weather. People do these jobs now because thy can't get a better one, not because they want to. Being a plumber is actually one of the highest paying noneducated jobs. This is because nobody wants to smell shit all day and thus if it were not higher paid nobody would do it.

Ya, your dad wanted to be baker, thats real tough. Sit inside all day and throe dough in an oven. I notice he did'nt say "son, I sure would have loved the oppurtunity to unclog toilets, there nothing quite like smeling like shit after a hard day's work.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:27 AM
If you are going to be paid the exact same amount of money, why on earth would anyone want lay cement instead of be inside, not out laying scement in 100 degree weather, serving drinks and chatting away with everyone. Anyone who lives in the real world andnot some communists fairy tale dreamland knows that some jobs are inevitably mor desirable than others. Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement or be a bartender for the same amount of money,
I guaruntee you 90% at least will choose bartender.
Way to miss the point. Who says the majority of a population has to find the job desirable for enough to work it? The point is people are individual and not everyone thinks the same way on this matter. You might be right that the example of laying cement will not have enough people to do the job if it was by choice, or you might now. If it doesn't, then society would need to find an alternate solution to working it. However, I am very skeptical on these claims because I do know there are people who enjoy tough jobs most others would never want to work. No matter how much you assertively repeat these claims they still won't be facts you know, it's just an interpretation by you. You fail to understand that not everyone falls into your simple stereotypes.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:44 AM
No one in the history of the world has ever thought that laying cement was "fun".
You just don't fucking get it, do you. Several people on here have already stated that indeed they would take a job laying cement, even if just for the "fun" of it.
Try again, or shut up.


Who is going to volunteer to go unclog people's shit from their toilets. Anyone here dying to work with shit for a living?
Actually, I've spoken to people who voluntarily worked as toilet cleaners, for free. So much for another one of your shitty attempts at argumenting.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Johnny Confused999
I was just curious of whether or not after the abolishment of the state and everybody seperating into seperate communes

Who said anything about "seperate communes", or anything about "communes" anyway?

As a modern Communist, as opposed to what you have confused with what is called communalism, I have no use for backward hippy ideologies.

Peace, love, dope? Save it Jerkoff -- go make me a shell-necklace or some crap like that.


what forms of entertainment will continue to exsist. I don't see how any professional sports could continue to function.

Forms of entertainment will change like they do today; with the times.

Social "staples" such as sporting events will always be around in one form or another.

You forget, it's only been fairly recently that professional sports players were paid "well", if at all.

Yet people still played them, go figure. ;)


Hollywood movies would no longer be made with the abolishment of profits.

Again, there are filmakers that make films today that know perfectly well that they will lose money on their projects.

Good grief, go back to school.


When we would goto an alchohol serving place, assuming they still exsist, will drinks be free?

Why are you bothering to post your opinions on these matters if you haven't even done enough research to know that within a Communist society, money no longer exists.

So yes littleone, drinks will be free.


This sounds great but would definitely cause some problems for sure.

Feel free to give some specific examples of these "problems", genius.


Will anyone bother to spend the enormous amount of time required to write a fiction novel without the incentive for profits.

As the author of an unpublished novel, I can say that during that time the only thing that annoyed me was having to do other work to pay my bills.

You obviously don't know any writers otherwise you would understand that writers only want good monetary compensation so they can continue to write without having to be bothered with another job.

It appears that sociology and basic psychology are foreign to you -- go figure; stick to fixin' dem cuckoo "horseless carriages" or sumt'n, Goober.


Same goes for television shows I would guess.

You finally said something I can agree with: you guess. :lol:

When you learn how to hypothesize rather than "just guess" feel free to "grace" us with your presence.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:39 PM
Meh, you can split this if you want.


did you read the site?
it's hysterical

I've read every single bit and I don't find it funny.
What exactly makes it funny?
everything in their store (http://www.cafepress.com/asexvisibility)

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Sep 9 2006, 12:13 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ Sep 9 2006, 12:13 AM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 06:39 PM
Meh, you can split this if you want.


did you read the site?
it's hysterical

I've read every single bit and I don't find it funny.
What exactly makes it funny?
everything in their store (http://www.cafepress.com/asexvisibility) [/b]
Now that's funny. Sorry for the extended offtopic. [/offtopic]

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:43 AM

Many of the "worst" jobs can either be divided up within the community, automated, or just done away with.

This idea that all undesirable professions can simply be automated cofuseses me. Are there some intelligent robots I don't know about that can plant and raise crops by themselves, clean and repair the sewage system, construct roads, cut down trees, paint buildings, and the many other neccessary jobs done today by people who are unable to get a better one. You cannot just get rid of manual labor. There are no super machines capable of doing everything.
Some people probably love those jobs you've just listed and would be more than happy to do them.

As for the 'bonhead doctors' remark. Obviously only people who train to be doctors will get jobs as doctors. It won't be just picking a random sample of people from the high street, giving them stethoscopes and white coats and saying "Congratulations, you're a doctor".

[Orion999]

You just don't fucking get it, do you. Several people on here have already stated that indeed they would take a job laying cement, even if just for the "fun" of it.
Try again, or shut up.

They are either lying or deluding these people. Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement in the Arizona deserrt, or serve drinks to god looking women in air conditioning all day. No more than 5% will choose to lay cement. If you don't believe me try it out.


Actually, I've spoken to people who voluntarily worked as toilet cleaners, for free. So much for another one of your shitty attempts at argumenting.

What kind of sick bastards do you hang out with? You have friends who go around cleaning toilets for fun? What the hell is wrong with you people? You need to get a life, a women, or some new friends, man.



Who said anything about "seperate communes", or anything about "communes" anyway?

As a modern Communist, as opposed to what you have confused with what is called communalism, I have no use for backward hippy ideologies.

Peace, love, dope? Save it Jerkoff -- go make me a shell-necklace or some crap like that.

Your fellow comrades did. As a "modern" communists you are still promoting the same hippie utopian dream.


Forms of entertainment will change like they do today; with the times.

Social "staples" such as sporting events will always be around in one form or another.

You forget, it's only been fairly recently that professional sports players were paid "well", if at all.

Yet people still played them, go figure.

You still never answer the original question. Why will some people unclog toilets and lay cement, while others get to play basketball all day?


Again, there are filmakers that make films today that know perfectly well that they will lose money on their projects.

Good grief, go back to school.

No studio (these are the entities that actually finance and distribute a film) finances a film that they know they will lose money on. Are you talking about the $300 dollar movie your uncle Ned made of you and aunt wanita rolling around the old colldesac? Of coarse uncle ned knew nobody wanted to see this and that he would never turn a profit.


Why are you bothering to post your opinions on these matters if you haven't even done enough research to know that within a Communist society, money no longer exists.

So yes littleone, drinks will be free.

Free drinks. That is the best thing I have ever heard. Wow a bunch of alcoholic communists arguing over who does what, who gets violently repressed for expressing dissenting opinions, and who should just be outright executed. Sounds like a great place to live.


Feel free to give some specific examples of these "problems", genius there all over this thread "dumbass". Do you know how to read?


As the author of an unpublished novel, I can say that during that time the only thing that annoyed me was having to do other work to pay my bills.

You obviously don't know any writers otherwise you would understand that writers only want good monetary compensation so they can continue to write without having to be bothered with another job.

It appears that sociology and basic psychology are foreign to you -- go figure; stick to fixin' dem cuckoo "horseless carriages" or sumt'n, Goober.

Once again you either cannot read or are mentally retarded. I never doubted that people would love to write novels. My entire question in this thread(which you have shown a complete inability of understanding do no doubt to your mental retardation) can be summed up by your quote
]As the author of an unpublished (means unreadable and has no real job) novel, I can say that during that time the only thing that annoyed me was having to do other work to pay my bills.

Why do you get to choose to lay around all day writing your supposed "novel" while other people unclog shit, picl tomatoes or lay cement. What happens if everybody says " I don't want a real job, I'm just going to write novels all day." You sure as hell would'nt get away with that BS with me around.

Ive really never seen such an idiot claim superiority before. Read the entire thread 10 times before you start posting your assanine comments.

[Comeback Kid]

nope. we will all sit in our respective corners and stare at the wall. see
http://www.fat-pie.com/thechildthatsmeltfunny.htm

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:28 PM
They are either lying or deluding these people. Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement in the Arizona deserrt, or serve drinks to god looking women in air conditioning all day. No more than 5% will choose to lay cement. If you don't believe me try it out.
You're really becoming desperate, aren't you? :lol:
There's no shame in admitting your wrong, by keeping up your nonsense like you're doing now you're only discrediting yourself. Give it up already, you lose the argument.


What kind of sick bastards do you hang out with? You have friends who go around cleaning toilets for fun? What the hell is wrong with you people? You need to get a life, a women, or some new friends, man.
They are not friends of mine, they are people I've spoken with. And maybe if you ever got outside of your uptight yuppie gated community and actually looked at some real people out there instead of sitting in your house stuffing your face, you might just have an idea of what the world really looks like.
We can't all hang out with the rich loser kids, now can we?

[Orion999]

S3rna, If your going to call me an idiot why don't you actually try refuting what I say instead of just proclaiming all who don't agree with you as idiots like the rest of your comrades.

[red team]

You still never answer the original question. Why will some people unclog toilets and lay cement, while others get to play basketball all day?

Because some people will find it very boring to play basketball all day.


Ask 100 random people if they would rather lay cement in the Arizona deserrt, or serve drinks to god looking women in air conditioning all day. No more than 5% will choose to lay cement. If you don't believe me try it out.

Guess who is developing climate controlled combat suits. Your tax dollars hard at work at finding ingenius ways to kill people, while keeping the killer in air-conditioned comfort. It doesn't take much of genius to figure out that climate controlled combat suits can be modified to be climate controlled construction suits.


Why do you get to choose to lay around all day writing your supposed "novel" while other people unclog shit, picl tomatoes or lay cement. What happens if everybody says " I don't want a real job, I'm just going to write novels all day." You sure as hell would'nt get away with that BS with me around.

The only reason you're complaining about that is because there's not enough people helping you out in your work so you work less intense and shorter hours. Do you know why there are not that many people helping you our so your work is easier and shorter? Answer, because they're working at annoying you when you come home from work and you get a call about buying a long distance telephone service or newspaper subscription. It's not as if people working in those useless jobs wouldn't like to do some construction work if the construction company hire them.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Confused999+--> (Confused999)Your fellow comrades did. As a "modern" communists you are still promoting the same hippie utopian dream. [/b]

You either lack the the ability to comprehend the written word or you're just plain dumb.

Either way I'll make this a bit clearer for you.

Communism has never had, nor will it everhave, anything to do with "communes" of patchouli oil stinking hippies.

You dig?


You still never answer the original question. Why will some people unclog toilets and lay cement, while others get to play basketball all day?

I would suspect that the worst jobs is society will either be performed collectively with rotating responsibilities or simply be done by those being punished for criminal activity.

That is of course until advancements in technolgy make it possible to either automate these functions or develop technologies that need little to no maintenence.

As far as basketball players are concerned, I would imagine that prior to their age making their ability to compete at a professional level questionable (mid to late 30s?).

People who play basketball as a profession will be those who possess great skill in the area in addition to being abnormally large.

Just like it is today, goober.


No studio (these are the entities that actually finance and distribute a film) finances a film that they know they will lose money on.


Who said anything about studios?

Considering your lack of knowledge in all the areas we have touched here, it does not shock me to find you ignorant of the independent film market. Independent films rarely produce profit but somehow ( :o ) they still get released.

All the time.



Are you talking about the $300 dollar movie your uncle Ned made of you and aunt wanita rolling around the old [sic]colldesac? Of coarse[sic] uncle ned knew nobody wanted to see this and that he would never turn a profit.

Considering that I was 2 years old in 1970 and that is about the time I would of "coarse" be rolling around the "colldesac", (next time try "course" and "cul de sac" :lol: ) I would have to say that old uncle Neddy-boy got ripped the fuck off for paying 3 bills on a some film and a camera.


Free drinks. That is the best thing I have ever heard. Wow a bunch of alcoholic communists arguing over who does what, who gets violently repressed for expressing dissenting opinions, and who should just be outright executed. Sounds like a great place to live.

At this point in Communist society, the executions and repressions have already taken place so I guess that leaves simple arguments over "who does what" while freely socialising with each other over cocktails.

How horrible. :lol:



there[sic] all over this thread "dumbass". Do you know how to read?

I have not seen a dodge as bad as this one since Dubya's last press conference.


RAF with moronic tidbits from confused999
As the author of an unpublished (means unreadable and has no real job) novel,

Actually son, I wrote it back in college in the eightees while I worked full time and carried 17 credit hours a semester.

Now I hold two degrees and have a very good job that keeps me busy 65-70 hours a week.


Ive really never seen such an idiot claim superiority before.

Sure thing kiddo; I'll just of "coarse" go over to the "colldesac" and roll around a bit because "there" all over the place. :lol:

[red team]

I was just curious of whether or not after the abolishment of the state and everybody seperating into seperate communes, what forms of entertainment will continue to exsist. I don't see how any professional sports could continue to function. Hollywood movies would no longer be made with the abolishment of profits. When we would goto an alchohol serving place, assuming they still exsist, will drinks be free? This sounds great but would definitely cause some problems for sure. Will anyone bother to spend the enormous amount of time required to write a fiction novel without the incentive for profits. Same goes for television shows I would guess.

This new communist world seems like its going to be pretty boring.

Who said reds are boring?

http://www.red-xxx.com/NewFiles/Pocket-Rocket.jpg