Labor

[ZX3]

The "Will Entertainment Exist under Communism?" had me thinking about what the thread changed into. Basically it became about how labor is allocated in a socialist community.

So how is labor allocated in a socialist community?

Like so much of socialism, it would seem very difficult in practice. Socialism claims that the value of all labor is equal; the labor of the heart surgeon is of no greater value to the community than the labor of the janitor who cleans up after the operation. Yet while socialism as a collective will deny any difference of value exists, it it obviously requires that individuals within that community to do so. The socialist community needs heart surgeons and janitors, after all.

So how does the socialist comunity convince some people to become heart surgeons and others janitors?

That other thread answer seemed to rely upon, well, prayer. People will want to become heart surgeons, or janitors, for the good of the community. But while no doubt there will be some who will do, such a mechanism cannot be considered a reliable way of allocating labor. Being a surgeon requires years of training and practice, and for many that may make such an option undesirable, whereas being a janitor can often require backbreaking labor, which could also be seen as a disincentive. It simply cannot be relied upon that people will sacrifice all for the community. It would seem other methods are needed.

It can't be increased pay, or other perks or benefits in choosing paths the community needs. Such alternatives will tend to militate against the socialist creed, and has the distinction of having been tried, and failed, in the USSR and other socialist communities. Other solutions seem unpalatable: Using prisons as labor camps (as Marx suggested), and also simply dragooning other workers into the camps to do what the community says it needs not only had had horrific results, it also failed.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Some people want to become doctors, whether because they want to save lives or if they don't want to be mopping up smelly poop all day.

Some people like the expierience, so that small minority can go do that. Its not convincing - its letting to go do whatever they want to do.

I never heard of Marx speaking of labor camps in communism, but perhaps you mean what Marx predicted that the proletariat will do to the bourgeois once the revolution comes - those who don't repent will be sent to prison and worked off, like how they have treated the workers for such a long time.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:33 PM
Some people want to become doctors, whether because they want to save lives or if they don't want to be mopping up smelly poop all day.

Some people like the expierience, so that small minority can go do that. Its not convincing - its letting to go do whatever they want to do.

I never heard of Marx speaking of labor camps in communism, but perhaps you mean what Marx predicted that the proletariat will do to the bourgeois once the revolution comes - those who don't repent will be sent to prison and worked off, like how they have treated the workers for such a long time.

We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.

Marx was not talking about dealing with the "bougeoise." He was talking more about penal theories, and what incarcerated folks should be doing. Sitting in a cell all day was not the best use of prisoners he thought they could perorm "socially useful" work to attone for past behavior.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:21 PM
We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.
Nonsense. Why do people nowadays study to become car mechanics, plumbers, electricians? Because that's what they want to do. Why should it be any different in a communist society?

[red team]

We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.


Depends on where you're talking about. In a primitive, uneducated third world country or a technologically advanced industrialized country? There are many jobs performed now in industrialized countries that are simply not essential to material production, but are there simply to create demand for consumer products that could have been simply left for the consumer to decide without the need for active sales solicitation in a more rational system. There are thousands of these unnecessary jobs. Further, instead of creating yet more useless trivial junk for some passing fad or fashion of which there are already too much of engineers can concentrate on making labour saving devices which allows for people to have shorter and easier working hours. This makes the option of volunteerism and people choosing their jobs out of interest instead of out of material or economic necessity a realistic option.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 10 2006, 10:32 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 10 2006, 10:32 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 05:21 PM
We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.
Nonsense. Why do people nowadays study to become car mechanics, plumbers, electricians? Because that's what they want to do. Why should it be any different in a communist society? [/b]
They study these things because there is a need for them. But not everyone can be a refrigerator repaiman, no matter how willing people may be so.

Why should the mechanisms to allocate of labor be different in a socialist community than a capitalist one? Because the socialists propose to smash the capitalist system, and thus its mechanisms. I am sorry, once that occurs the socialists cannot rely upon capitalist mechanisms. They have to come up with their own.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 10 2006, 10:52 PM

We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.


Depends on where you're talking about. In a primitive, uneducated third world country or a technologically advanced industrialized country? There are many jobs performed now in industrialized countries that are simply not essential to material production, but are there simply to create demand for consumer products that could have been simply left for the consumer to decide without the need for active sales solicitation in a more rational system. There are thousands of these unnecessary jobs. Further, instead of creating yet more useless trivial junk for some passing fad or fashion of which there are already too much of engineers can concentrate on making labour saving devices which allows for people to have shorter and easier working hours. This makes the option of volunteerism and people choosing their jobs out of interest instead of out of material or economic necessity a realistic option.

It doesn't matter. The economic processes which need to be dealt with are the same in a third world or first world country.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by ZX3
The "Will Entertainment Exist under Communism?" had me thinking about what the thread changed into. Basically it became about how labor is allocated in a socialist community.

This comment is very confused.

You begin by referring to a question of how a certain principle will exist within a Communist society and then move to how labour will be "allocated" within a Socialist society.

So which is is? Socialist or Communist?


Like so much of socialism, it would seem very difficult in practice. Socialism claims that the value of all labor is equal; the labor of the heart surgeon is of no greater value to the community than the labor of the janitor who cleans up after the operation. Yet while socialism as a collective will deny any difference of value exists, it it obviously requires that individuals within that community to do so. The socialist community needs heart surgeons and janitors, after all.

More confusion.

Socialism doesn't "claim" anything, it is an inanimate principle that you are very confused about.

Socialism still relies on a monetary system that provides compensation to the owners of that specific method of production based on the divided shares of surplus value gained by the production and selling of its goods or services.

This is true whether the value of these goods and services are determined using a Marxian economic system (worthless within a free-market dominated global market) or a capitalist free market system.

The "shit shoveler vs. the doctor" argument is simply non-sensical when discussing Socialism.

Considering what I have advised you of, the rest of your post is really just irrelevant and incoherent babble.

Do some research before you post, okay?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 11 2006, 01:42 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 11 2006, 01:42 AM)
ZX3
The "Will Entertainment Exist under Communism?" had me thinking about what the thread changed into. Basically it became about how labor is allocated in a socialist community.

This comment is very confused.

You begin by referring to a question of how a certain principle will exist within a Communist society and then move to how labour will be "allocated" within a Socialist society.

So which is is? Socialist or Communist?


Like so much of socialism, it would seem very difficult in practice. Socialism claims that the value of all labor is equal; the labor of the heart surgeon is of no greater value to the community than the labor of the janitor who cleans up after the operation. Yet while socialism as a collective will deny any difference of value exists, it it obviously requires that individuals within that community to do so. The socialist community needs heart surgeons and janitors, after all.

More confusion.

Socialism doesn't "claim" anything, it is an inanimate principle that you are very confused about.

Socialism still relies on a monetary system that provides compensation to the owners of that specific method of production based on the divided shares of surplus value gained by the production and selling of its goods or services.

This is true whether the value of these goods and services are determined using a Marxian economic system (worthless within a free-market dominated global market) or a capitalist free market system.

The "shit shoveler vs. the doctor" argument is simply non-sensical when discussing Socialism.

Considering what I have advised you of, the rest of your post is really just irrelevant and incoherent babble.

Do some research before you post, okay? [/b]
You ought to read other threads on this forum, particularly the one called "Will Entertainment exist under Communism." Then perhaps you will not be so confused.


You are certainly free to define socialism as including the use of money. However, there are other socialists on this board who will insist that socialism will not use money. I am more than willing to debate socialism which will use money in its community, or socialism which will not use money in its community.

[red team]

It doesn't matter. The economic processes which need to be dealt with are the same in a third world or first world country.

How would it be the same? If labour saving devices which cuts back on the input of labour time while with the same amount of time producing the same or greater output in real tangible material wealth, how would that make people have less options to choose their area of interests since now less labour is required to reproduce wealth that use to require more labour? It doesn't make sense. If one person using labour saving devices or don't need to perform a job that is made obsolete then more potential unutilized labour is avaibable for other areas or wealth production that can be left up to the individual.

Does a primitive uneducated population have such an option? No, because the supporting intellectual infrastructure is not there which includes schools, teachers, media sources and a generally well educated population in the first place. There would be no people available to make labour saving devices and no supporting staff of technicians and existing inventory of equipment to maintain such a technical infrastructure even if everything were to be given to them. Do we in an advanced industrial society have that option? Just look around at all the college educated people working in sales and as shop clerks. Are they qualified for those jobs or over-qualified? Are we lacking in technical equipment and infrastructure to support a society based on abundance in which people are free to choose what they want to do? Over 35 percent of North American households have computers and that census was taken a few years back. Probably a lot more have computers now.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 11 2006, 02:25 AM

It doesn't matter. The economic processes which need to be dealt with are the same in a third world or first world country.

How would it be the same? If labour saving devices which cuts back on the input of labour time while with the same amount of time producing the same or greater output in real tangible material wealth, how would that make people have less options to choose their area of interests since now less labour is required to reproduce wealth that use to require more labour? It doesn't make sense. If one person using labour saving devices or don't need to perform a job that is made obsolete then more potential unutilized labour is avaibable for other areas or wealth production that can be left up to the individual.

Does a primitive uneducated population have such an option? No, because the supporting intellectual infrastructure is not there which includes schools, teachers, media sources and a generally well educated population in the first place. There would be no people available to make labour saving devices and no supporting staff of technicians and existing inventory of equipment to maintain such a technical infrastructure even if everything were to be given to them. Do we in an advanced industrial society have that option? Just look around at all the college educated people working in sales and as shop clerks. Are they qualified for those jobs or over-qualified? Are we lacking in technical equipment and infrastructure to support a society based on abundance in which people are free to choose what they want to do? Over 35 percent of North American households have computers and that census was taken a few years back. Probably a lot more have computers now.
You are talking two different things. Labor savings devices, well, saves labor. Or at least makes people more productive.

But the processess of getting to that point are the same.

Your argument seems to be that there are too many people doing work for which they are overqualified. If their energies were focused elsewhere, it might make for a stronger community. Fine.

But getting to that point is the catch.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by confused young man
You ought to read other threads on this forum, particularly the one called "Will Entertainment exist under Communism." Then perhaps you will not be so confused.

My confusion?

Are you sure you even read that thread? If you have why would you even ask this question?


You are certainly free to define socialism as including the use of money. However, there are other socialists on this board who will insist that socialism will not use money. I am more than willing to debate socialism which will use money in its community, or socialism which will not use money in its community.

Let's get something straight young man, there is only one definition of Socialism.

I didn't invent it and neither did anyone else on this forum.

If you know so little about it that you cannot distinguish it from other ideologies, whether real or invented by your imagination, how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously here?

Do us all a favour and open a few books and read them before you make any more of these absurd comments; for nothing more than to just stop wasting our time.

[KC]

They study these things because there is a need for them.

So you just answered your own question.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 11 2006, 02:16 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 11 2006, 02:16 PM)
confused young man
You ought to read other threads on this forum, particularly the one called "Will Entertainment exist under Communism." Then perhaps you will not be so confused.

My confusion?

Are you sure you even read that thread? If you have why would you even ask this question?


You are certainly free to define socialism as including the use of money. However, there are other socialists on this board who will insist that socialism will not use money. I am more than willing to debate socialism which will use money in its community, or socialism which will not use money in its community.

Let's get something straight young man, there is only one definition of Socialism.

I didn't invent it and neither did anyone else on this forum.

If you know so little about it that you cannot distinguish it from other ideologies, whether real or invented by your imagination, how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously here?

Do us all a favour and open a few books and read them before you make any more of these absurd comments; for nothing more than to just stop wasting our time. [/b]

Sure, there is only one definition of socialism:

The Communists have one definition of socialism.

The Social Democrats have one definition of socialism.

The Social Revolutionaries have one defintion of socialism.

The lenninists have one definition of socialism.

The Trotskyites have one definition of socialism.

The Stalinists...

One of the difficulties in dealing with socialism, is that its adherents are divided amongst themselves as to how to define socialism (which is why there are members on this forum who will deny that money will exist in a socialist community), while at the same time so often deny that the other person claiming to be a socialist, is in fact not a socialist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 02:32 PM

They study these things because there is a need for them.

So you just answered your own question.

No, my question dealt with how socialism allocates labor, considering the insistence that under socialism, people will be able to do whatever they want. Not everyone can be an auto repairman, no matter if the desire to do so existed.
So the question has yet to be answered.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 10 2006, 04:21 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 10 2006, 04:21 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 03:33 PM
Some people want to become doctors, whether because they want to save lives or if they don't want to be mopping up smelly poop all day.

Some people like the expierience, so that small minority can go do that. Its not convincing - its letting to go do whatever they want to do.

I never heard of Marx speaking of labor camps in communism, but perhaps you mean what Marx predicted that the proletariat will do to the bourgeois once the revolution comes - those who don't repent will be sent to prison and worked off, like how they have treated the workers for such a long time.

We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.

Marx was not talking about dealing with the "bougeoise." He was talking more about penal theories, and what incarcerated folks should be doing. Sitting in a cell all day was not the best use of prisoners he thought they could perorm "socially useful" work to attone for past behavior. [/b]
you are blinded by capitalism. its obvious that the people in a socialist society will all think alike and be in it for the community. I would be!

I have no problem being a janitor, if all my basic needs are filled since we the people and the workers own the means of production. I could go to school to learn about other professions, I could travel a lot! and I dont have to worry about medical bills or paying loans up.

I would do the janitor job as a hobbie. and im sure other fellow comrades will feel the same. because we un like you fucking sick cappies, we arent driven by money or by "image" we dont feel being a janitor is degrading. we feel is a deed that we all need to do because we love the way we live and what a socialist system brings us and gives us.

the way i look at it is my regular job would be an engineer, and on my time off and when im needed i would be a janitor and im sure other fellow comrades would do the same to keep our community clean and progressing.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:00 AM
They study these things because there is a need for them. But not everyone can be a refrigerator repaiman, no matter how willing people may be so.
Honestly, how many people study to become a doctor only because there is a need for doctors, or there will be one when they graduate? How many electricians? Car mechanics? How many <insert random job here>?
People choose a profession because they like the profession and it&#39;s what they want to do.


Why should the mechanisms to allocate of labor be different in a socialist community than a capitalist one? Because the socialists propose to smash the capitalist system, and thus its mechanisms. I am sorry, once that occurs the socialists cannot rely upon capitalist mechanisms. They have to come up with their own.
But there are no mechanisms...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by hard&#045;[email protected] confused young man
Sure, there is only one definition of socialism:
The Communists have one definition of socialism.
The Social Democrats have one definition of socialism.
The Social Revolutionaries have one defintion of socialism.
The lenninists have one definition of socialism.
The Trotskyites have one definition of socialism.
The Stalinists...

One of the difficulties in dealing with socialism, is that its adherents are divided amongst themselves as to how to define socialism (which is why there are members on this forum who will deny that money will exist in a socialist community), while at the same time so often deny that the other person claiming to be a socialist, is in fact not a socialist.

More severe confusion coupled with a defeciency in reading comprehension. The mere placement of four different examples of Communism that are defined by very small differences in ideology (none of which being how Socialism is defined) shows how completely ignorant you are of any actual "real knowledge".

Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

For example: using Heinrich Himmler (if you even know who he was :lol: ) as a credible source on the definition of Socialism as it is, or was defined by a "Stalinist" will have as much integrity as a wet paper bag.

And will be treated as such&#33;

Good luck sweet-heart; I can&#39;t wait to see your responses&#33;

[colonelguppy]

different types of labor have different levels of productivity and scarcity, thus making giving them different inherent values to society. business management skills are more scarce than manufacturing skills, and on a person to person comparison will bring about more gain than a factory worker. so naturally, they&#39;re labor is more valuable. just like any market commodity, forcing equal value on labor leads to innefecient production.

[Orion999]

The "Will Entertainment Exist under Communism?" had me thinking about what the thread changed into. Basically it became about how labor is allocated in a socialist community.

So how is labor allocated in a socialist community?

Like so much of socialism, it would seem very difficult in practice. Socialism claims that the value of all labor is equal; the labor of the heart surgeon is of no greater value to the community than the labor of the janitor who cleans up after the operation. Yet while socialism as a collective will deny any difference of value exists, it it obviously requires that individuals within that community to do so. The socialist community needs heart surgeons and janitors, after all.

So how does the socialist comunity convince some people to become heart surgeons and others janitors?

That other thread answer seemed to rely upon, well, prayer. People will want to become heart surgeons, or janitors, for the good of the community. But while no doubt there will be some who will do, such a mechanism cannot be considered a reliable way of allocating labor. Being a surgeon requires years of training and practice, and for many that may make such an option undesirable, whereas being a janitor can often require backbreaking labor, which could also be seen as a disincentive. It simply cannot be relied upon that people will sacrifice all for the community. It would seem other methods are needed.

It can&#39;t be increased pay, or other perks or benefits in choosing paths the community needs. Such alternatives will tend to militate against the socialist creed, and has the distinction of having been tried, and failed, in the USSR and other socialist communities. Other solutions seem unpalatable: Using prisons as labor camps (as Marx suggested), and also simply dragooning other workers into the camps to do what the community says it needs not only had had horrific results, it also failed.

ZX3, You may not care but I am seriously impressed by your ability to admit that this will indeed become a problem under communism. The common answers posted about this question such as: people will do it because they love it, for the good of the community, or superinteeligent robots will do it, all of these can no doubt help solve the problem but will definitelely not eliminate it. Thank You for at least acknowledgeing this as a problem that at least needs to be debated about. If you all want anybody to take you seriously this is one of the main questions that capitalists are going to want you to be able to answer.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 11 2006, 06:37 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 11 2006, 06:37 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 01:00 AM
They study these things because there is a need for them. But not everyone can be a refrigerator repaiman, no matter how willing people may be so.
Honestly, how many people study to become a doctor only because there is a need for doctors, or there will be one when they graduate? How many electricians? Car mechanics? How many <insert random job here>?
People choose a profession because they like the profession and it&#39;s what they want to do.


Why should the mechanisms to allocate of labor be different in a socialist community than a capitalist one? Because the socialists propose to smash the capitalist system, and thus its mechanisms. I am sorry, once that occurs the socialists cannot rely upon capitalist mechanisms. They have to come up with their own.
But there are no mechanisms... [/b]

Let me put it this way:


The approach the socialists take is that the workers (the producers) are the ones singing the tune in a socialist community. I am suggesting this is irrational because the reason an economy exists is to satisfy the needs of its consumers. They are the ones who ought to be singing the tunes.

So while it is very nice that in a socialist community anyone will be able to work in whatever profession they wish, how does it benefit the community if those professions do not correspond with what the consumers want or need?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+Sep 11 2006, 06:07 PM--> (R_P_A_S @ Sep 11 2006, 06:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:21 PM

[email protected] 10 2006, 03:33 PM
Some people want to become doctors, whether because they want to save lives or if they don&#39;t want to be mopping up smelly poop all day.

Some people like the expierience, so that small minority can go do that. Its not convincing - its letting to go do whatever they want to do.

I never heard of Marx speaking of labor camps in communism, but perhaps you mean what Marx predicted that the proletariat will do to the bourgeois once the revolution comes - those who don&#39;t repent will be sent to prison and worked off, like how they have treated the workers for such a long time.

We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.

Marx was not talking about dealing with the "bougeoise." He was talking more about penal theories, and what incarcerated folks should be doing. Sitting in a cell all day was not the best use of prisoners he thought they could perorm "socially useful" work to attone for past behavior.
you are blinded by capitalism. its obvious that the people in a socialist society will all think alike and be in it for the community. I would be&#33;

I have no problem being a janitor, if all my basic needs are filled since we the people and the workers own the means of production. I could go to school to learn about other professions, I could travel a lot&#33; and I dont have to worry about medical bills or paying loans up.

I would do the janitor job as a hobbie. and im sure other fellow comrades will feel the same. because we un like you fucking sick cappies, we arent driven by money or by "image" we dont feel being a janitor is degrading. we feel is a deed that we all need to do because we love the way we live and what a socialist system brings us and gives us.

the way i look at it is my regular job would be an engineer, and on my time off and when im needed i would be a janitor and im sure other fellow comrades would do the same to keep our community clean and progressing. [/b]
How much travelling do you think you will be able to do after a hard day of work as an engineer, you have to mop the floors?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by confused999
ZX3, You may not care but I am seriously impressed by your ability to admit that this will indeed become a problem under communism. The common answers posted about this question such as: people will do it because they love it, for the good of the community, or superinteeligent robots will do it, all of these can no doubt help solve the problem but will definitelely not eliminate it. Thank You for at least acknowledgeing this as a problem that at least needs to be debated about. If you all want anybody to take you seriously this is one of the main questions that capitalists are going to want you to be able to answer.

What exactly are you "impressed" by?

The kid&#39;s inability to understand or even distinguish between a Socialist economy:

one that still uses the monetary system to reward labour by dividing surplus value equally between those responsible for the production of a given good or service while instituting
a heavy and progressive income tax to pay for social services such as housing, healthcare, transportation, education and food vs:

a Communist society where the monetary system has been abolished and jobs are performed by those that show a certain level of skill in a specific area while the fruits of a technologically advanced society are available to everyone.

Considering such blatent ignorance, it does not shock me to see you two cats "teaming up".

Bonnie needed her Clyde, Heckel needed his Jeckel, Abbot needed his Costello and in this case Dumb sure as fuck needs his Dumber. :lol:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 11 2006, 06:37 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 11 2006, 06:37 PM)
hard&#045;[email protected] confused young man
Sure, there is only one definition of socialism:
The Communists have one definition of socialism.
The Social Democrats have one definition of socialism.
The Social Revolutionaries have one defintion of socialism.
The lenninists have one definition of socialism.
The Trotskyites have one definition of socialism.
The Stalinists...

One of the difficulties in dealing with socialism, is that its adherents are divided amongst themselves as to how to define socialism (which is why there are members on this forum who will deny that money will exist in a socialist community), while at the same time so often deny that the other person claiming to be a socialist, is in fact not a socialist.

More severe confusion coupled with a defeciency in reading comprehension. The mere placement of four different examples of Communism that are defined by very small differences in ideology (none of which being how Socialism is defined) shows how completely ignorant you are of any actual "real knowledge".

Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

For example: using Heinrich Himmler (if you even know who he was :lol: ) as a credible source on the definition of Socialism as it is, or was defined by a "Stalinist" will have as much integrity as a wet paper bag.

And will be treated as such&#33;

Good luck sweet-heart; I can&#39;t wait to see your responses&#33; [/b]
No sweat, babe.

The communists- its present adherents will claim it has never ocurred, despite the 20th century. But to fair, the state will vanish to be replaced by various councils and commitees of workers who will own and thus run and dispose the means of production.

Social Democrats- Mostly theirs is a response to how communism actually evolved. They propose the same ends as communism, but the ends are realised over time, and peacefully. Its been a century and a quarter now and the victories of Social democrat parties seem to coincide with an increase of the size of the state, but hey, ideology dies hard...

Social revolutionaries- a catch all phrase from different countries and times, anarchists to social democrats who propose a more aggresive form of socialism than the Social Democrats, but are suspicious of communism.

Leninists- an attempt to elevate socialism beyond the status of books and seminars, an attempt to apply in real life what until then was simply academic exercises. They favor building up socialism within a country, while supporting revolt elsewhere (but not so assertively as to risk gains elsewhere).

Trotskyites- favor spreading revolt everywhere as the best way to spread socialism and to protect its gains.

Stalinism- a continuation of Lenninism and the only real way socialism can be realised. Total tyranny and where all people think alike (as required by R P A S).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 11 2006, 09:50 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 11 2006, 09:50 PM)
confused999
ZX3, You may not care but I am seriously impressed by your ability to admit that this will indeed become a problem under communism. The common answers posted about this question such as: people will do it because they love it, for the good of the community, or superinteeligent robots will do it, all of these can no doubt help solve the problem but will definitelely not eliminate it. Thank You for at least acknowledgeing this as a problem that at least needs to be debated about. If you all want anybody to take you seriously this is one of the main questions that capitalists are going to want you to be able to answer.

What exactly are you "impressed" by?

The kid&#39;s inability to understand or even distinguish between a Socialist economy:

one that still uses the monetary system to reward labour by dividing surplus value equally between those responsible for the production of a given good or service while instituting
a heavy and progressive income tax to pay for social services such as housing, healthcare, transportation, education and food vs:

a Communist society where the monetary system has been abolished and jobs are performed by those that show a certain level of skill in a specific area while the fruits of a technologically advanced society are available to everyone.

Considering such blatent ignorance, it does not shock me to see you two cats "teaming up".

Bonnie needed her Clyde, Heckel needed his Jeckel, Abbot needed his Costello and in this case Dumb sure as fuck needs his Dumber. :lol: [/b]
I remain puzzled and baffled.

I am the one here drawing the distinctions.

If you wish to define a socialist community as one which uses money, fine. Go right ahead.

If you wish to define socialist community as one where money has been banned, fine. Go right ahead.

Your argument is not with me, babe. Its with other socialists.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:35 PM
The approach the socialists take is that the workers (the producers) are the ones singing the tune in a socialist community. I am suggesting this is irrational because the reason an economy exists is to satisfy the needs of its consumers. They are the ones who ought to be singing the tunes.
Why? The workers produce, the workers do all the work, the workers make what needs to be made, so why shouldn&#39;t they be "singing the tunes" in a transitional governmental phase? What gives the "consumers", that you distinct here as a group on its own, the right to be "in charge"?


So while it is very nice that in a socialist community anyone will be able to work in whatever profession they wish, how does it benefit the community if those professions do not correspond with what the consumers want or need?
Why would they not?

[Vinny Rafarino]

It appears that sweating is exactly what you&#39;re doing.



Originally posted by Confused kid+--> (Confused kid)The communists- its present adherents will claim it has never ocurred, despite the 20th century. But to fair, the state will vanish to be replaced by various councils and commitees of workers who will own and thus run and dispose the means of production.[/b]

That&#39;s not how a Communist views a Socialist environment; this is a pedomorphic and inaccurate account of a very small portion of Communist theory.

Remember son, we were talking about Socialism; do try and keep up.


Social Democrats- Mostly theirs is a response to how communism actually evolved. They propose the same ends as communism, but the ends are realised over time, and peacefully. Its been a century and a quarter now and the victories of Social democrat parties seem to coincide with an increase of the size of the state, but hey, ideology dies hard...

Once again you have failed to address even the most minor points of a Socialist social environment and its economic policies.


Social revolutionaries- a catch all phrase from different countries and times, anarchists to social democrats who propose a more aggresive form of socialism than the Social Democrats, but are suspicious of communism.

Still no relevant information here in regard to what exactly consists within a Socialist environment according to a "Social Revolutionary".

I&#39;m going to address the next three together since your "explanations" follow the same absurd trends as the latter:


Raffieboy

Leninists- an attempt to elevate socialism beyond the status of books and seminars, an attempt to apply in real life what until then was simply academic exercises. They favor building up socialism within a country, while supporting revolt elsewhere (but not so assertively as to risk gains elsewhere).

Trotskyites- favor spreading revolt everywhere as the best way to spread socialism and to protect its gains.

Stalinism- a continuation of Lenninism and the only real way socialism can be realised. Total tyranny and where all people think alike (as required by R P A S).

Back to "reading comprehension.

I will repost my original request to you. Read it and try again; this time with some relevant answers that pertain the the actual question.


Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

For example: using Heinrich Himmler (if you even know who he was laugh.gif ) as a credible source on the definition of Socialism as it is, or was defined by a "Stalinist" will have as much integrity as a wet paper bag.

And will be treated as such&#33;

Good luck sweet-heart; I can&#39;t wait to see your responses&#33;

Take your time son. :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by the boy
I remain puzzled and baffled.

I&#39;m quite sure that you are very used to this particular feeling.


If you wish to define a socialist community as one which uses money, fine. Go right ahead.


Once again, now pull the feces out of your ears and listen up:

All Socialist environments use a monetary system.


If you wish to define socialist community as one where money has been banned, fine. Go right ahead.

No such thing.

Now, didn&#39;t your mother explain to you that repeating fallicious arguments over and over does not make them true?

[red team]

All Socialist environments use a monetary system.

So instead of working for a Capitalist I work for a "Communist" and when I get paid the money I use for purchasing goods from a government owned store goes back to the government which also happens to my boss that pays me for what should be mine anyway because I along with everybody who works for the government made what was in the store in the first place.

Can you say mack daddy state? Can you say economic shell game. Can you say government bureaucrat = CEO? I knew you can.

[KC]

So instead of working for a Capitalist I work for a "Communist" and when I get paid the money I use for purchasing goods from a government owned store goes back to the government which also happens to my boss that pays me for what should be mine anyway because I along with everybody who works for the government made what was in the store in the first place.

Can you say mack daddy state? Can you say economic shell game. Can you say government bureaucrat = CEO? I knew you can.

The existence of money doesn&#39;t imply the existence of exploitation. Labour time vouchers are a monetary system, for example.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 11 2006, 09:37 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 11 2006, 09:37 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:21 PM

[email protected] 10 2006, 03:33 PM
Some people want to become doctors, whether because they want to save lives or if they don&#39;t want to be mopping up smelly poop all day.

Some people like the expierience, so that small minority can go do that. Its not convincing - its letting to go do whatever they want to do.

I never heard of Marx speaking of labor camps in communism, but perhaps you mean what Marx predicted that the proletariat will do to the bourgeois once the revolution comes - those who don&#39;t repent will be sent to prison and worked off, like how they have treated the workers for such a long time.

We are back to square one. Everyone cannot be janitors or heart surgeons, even if everyone wished to. The community could not stand. There needs to be a mechanism which will convince people to go into those endeavors which is needed by the community.

Marx was not talking about dealing with the "bougeoise." He was talking more about penal theories, and what incarcerated folks should be doing. Sitting in a cell all day was not the best use of prisoners he thought they could perorm "socially useful" work to attone for past behavior.
you are blinded by capitalism. its obvious that the people in a socialist society will all think alike and be in it for the community. I would be&#33;

I have no problem being a janitor, if all my basic needs are filled since we the people and the workers own the means of production. I could go to school to learn about other professions, I could travel a lot&#33; and I dont have to worry about medical bills or paying loans up.

I would do the janitor job as a hobbie. and im sure other fellow comrades will feel the same. because we un like you fucking sick cappies, we arent driven by money or by "image" we dont feel being a janitor is degrading. we feel is a deed that we all need to do because we love the way we live and what a socialist system brings us and gives us.

the way i look at it is my regular job would be an engineer, and on my time off and when im needed i would be a janitor and im sure other fellow comrades would do the same to keep our community clean and progressing.
How much travelling do you think you will be able to do after a hard day of work as an engineer, you have to mop the floors? [/b]
im talking about going on vacation when i want to go. not every day travel after i get out of work LOL

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 11 2006, 09:52 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 11 2006, 09:52 PM)
Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 11 2006, 06:37 PM

hard&#045;[email protected] confused young man
Sure, there is only one definition of socialism:
The Communists have one definition of socialism.
The Social Democrats have one definition of socialism.
The Social Revolutionaries have one defintion of socialism.
The lenninists have one definition of socialism.
The Trotskyites have one definition of socialism.
The Stalinists...

One of the difficulties in dealing with socialism, is that its adherents are divided amongst themselves as to how to define socialism (which is why there are members on this forum who will deny that money will exist in a socialist community), while at the same time so often deny that the other person claiming to be a socialist, is in fact not a socialist.

More severe confusion coupled with a defeciency in reading comprehension. The mere placement of four different examples of Communism that are defined by very small differences in ideology (none of which being how Socialism is defined) shows how completely ignorant you are of any actual "real knowledge".

Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

For example: using Heinrich Himmler (if you even know who he was :lol: ) as a credible source on the definition of Socialism as it is, or was defined by a "Stalinist" will have as much integrity as a wet paper bag.

And will be treated as such&#33;

Good luck sweet-heart; I can&#39;t wait to see your responses&#33;
No sweat, babe.

The communists- its present adherents will claim it has never ocurred, despite the 20th century. But to fair, the state will vanish to be replaced by various councils and commitees of workers who will own and thus run and dispose the means of production.

Social Democrats- Mostly theirs is a response to how communism actually evolved. They propose the same ends as communism, but the ends are realised over time, and peacefully. Its been a century and a quarter now and the victories of Social democrat parties seem to coincide with an increase of the size of the state, but hey, ideology dies hard...

Social revolutionaries- a catch all phrase from different countries and times, anarchists to social democrats who propose a more aggresive form of socialism than the Social Democrats, but are suspicious of communism.

Leninists- an attempt to elevate socialism beyond the status of books and seminars, an attempt to apply in real life what until then was simply academic exercises. They favor building up socialism within a country, while supporting revolt elsewhere (but not so assertively as to risk gains elsewhere).

Trotskyites- favor spreading revolt everywhere as the best way to spread socialism and to protect its gains.

Stalinism- a continuation of Lenninism and the only real way socialism can be realised. Total tyranny and where all people think alike (as required by R P A S). [/b]
where do you get off saying im a stanlist you fuck? first of all i said, that the people who would live in a socialist society obviously would all think alike, since we all overthrew the last goverment to get to that stage of socialism. we all would be on the same page and understand the principles to make socialism work. JUST YOU FUCKING CAPITALIST ALL THINK THE SAME, THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY AND HAVE MATERIAL GOODS IN ORDER TO FEEL THAT YOU &#39;MADE IT&#39;

so fuck off&#33;

fuck a cappie its family and its dead homies

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 11 2006, 09:58 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 11 2006, 09:58 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 10:35 PM
The approach the socialists take is that the workers (the producers) are the ones singing the tune in a socialist community. I am suggesting this is irrational because the reason an economy exists is to satisfy the needs of its consumers. They are the ones who ought to be singing the tunes.
Why? The workers produce, the workers do all the work, the workers make what needs to be made, so why shouldn&#39;t they be "singing the tunes" in a transitional governmental phase? What gives the "consumers", that you distinct here as a group on its own, the right to be "in charge"?


So while it is very nice that in a socialist community anyone will be able to work in whatever profession they wish, how does it benefit the community if those professions do not correspond with what the consumers want or need?
Why would they not? [/b]

Who determines what is needed? The workers? You mean to tell me that the folks who make washing machines will decide how many washing machines will be available to the society? the fellows who make the hammers will do the same?
How absurd.
The consumers alre always in charge. Why else produce?

Why would they not do what? Work in needed professions? probably because you have just finished explaining that this socialist system crafted says that people don&#39;t have to do that. All that matters is if the worker is doing what he wants to do, free of exploitation or pressure from starvation or whatever other boogeyman is out there. If the two coincide, great, but otherwise we are left with prayer.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:26 PM
where do you get off saying im a stanlist you fuck? first of all i said, that the people who would live in a socialist society obviously would all think alike, since we all overthrew the last goverment to get to that stage of socialism. we all would be on the same page and understand the principles to make socialism work. JUST YOU FUCKING CAPITALIST ALL THINK THE SAME, THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY AND HAVE MATERIAL GOODS IN ORDER TO FEEL THAT YOU &#39;MADE IT&#39;

so fuck off&#33;

fuck a cappie its family and its dead homies
Certainly. Everyone who lives in a socialist state will think alike and be on the same page because they will all agree upon the neccessity of building a socialist state. I agree. And those who are not on the same page and do not think that way are deemed counter-revolutionaries and shipped off to the camps.

Like I said elsewhere, Stalinism is the only logical way to apply socialism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 11 2006, 10:10 PM


Once again, now pull the feces out of your ears and listen up:

All Socialist environments use a monetary system.


If you wish to define socialist community as one where money has been banned, fine. Go right ahead.

No such thing.

Now, didn&#39;t your mother explain to you that repeating fallicious arguments over and over does not make them true? [/quote]
And like I said elsewhere, I don&#39;t care. There are socialists on this site who will say straight out money is abolished under socialism. Take up your screed with them. Those little inter-party debates are not relevent, since, as a non-socialist, its all based on a fallacy anyhow.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 11 2006, 10:05 PM

Remember son, we were talking about Socialism; do try and keep up.


Once again you have failed to address even the most minor points of a Socialist social environment and its economic policies.



Socialism; communism; its all the same fallacy, with minor and ultimately insignificant deviations within them.

As far as NOT be willing to address a socialist community economic environment, I would be most grateful to do so.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:44 AM
Who determines what is needed? The workers? You mean to tell me that the folks who make washing machines will decide how many washing machines will be available to the society? the fellows who make the hammers will do the same?
How absurd.
The consumers alre always in charge. Why else produce?
Nobody "determines" what is needed, if something is needed, it is needed and it will be produced. Quite simple, i&#39;m not quite sure what you don&#39;t understand aboiut this?



Why would they not do what? Work in needed professions? probably because you have just finished explaining that this socialist system crafted says that people don&#39;t have to do that. All that matters is if the worker is doing what he wants to do, free of exploitation or pressure from starvation or whatever other boogeyman is out there. If the two coincide, great, but otherwise we are left with prayer.
Why would they not correspond with what the workers want or need?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Confused dimwit+--> (Confused dimwit) There are socialists on this site who will say straight out money is abolished under socialism. [/b]

No there isn&#39;t.


Socialism; communism; its all the same fallacy, with minor and ultimately insignificant deviations within them.

As far as NOT be willing to address a socialist community economic environment, I would be most grateful to do so.

You still have not answered the question.


Me
Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

Put up or shut up kid.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 12 2006, 01:24 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 12 2006, 01:24 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole. [/b]
Eh? Now where the heck did you get that from? :blink:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 12 2006, 08:23 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 12 2006, 08:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:24 AM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole.
Eh? Now where the heck did you get that from? :blink: [/b]
The respect government bureua of "his arse".

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 12 2006, 12:06 AM--> (s3rna @ Sep 12 2006, 12:06 AM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 12:44 AM
Who determines what is needed? The workers? You mean to tell me that the folks who make washing machines will decide how many washing machines will be available to the society? the fellows who make the hammers will do the same?
How absurd.
The consumers alre always in charge. Why else produce?
Nobody "determines" what is needed, if something is needed, it is needed and it will be produced. Quite simple, i&#39;m not quite sure what you don&#39;t understand aboiut this?



Why would they not do what? Work in needed professions? probably because you have just finished explaining that this socialist system crafted says that people don&#39;t have to do that. All that matters is if the worker is doing what he wants to do, free of exploitation or pressure from starvation or whatever other boogeyman is out there. If the two coincide, great, but otherwise we are left with prayer.
Why would they not correspond with what the workers want or need? [/b]

Of course people determine what is needed. the consumers make this determination. Why else produce?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Your inability at comprehensive reading is endlessly amusing ^_^

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 12 2006, 08:23 PM--> (s3rna @ Sep 12 2006, 08:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:24 AM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole.
Eh? Now where the heck did you get that from? :blink: [/b]
From you, of course.

People want to be musicians, they can be musicians; people want to automechanics, they can be automechanics; people want to be lawyers, they can be lawyers. Under socialism people can be whatever they want because they will be free from pressures of having to work to survive ect ect ect.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:10 AM
Your inability at comprehensive reading is endlessly amusing ^_^

I&#39;ve noticed a trait in that socialists on this site do not wish to defend socialism. They lazily toss out what socialism will look like, then when questioned/challenged on it, whether such a result is possible by the methods they propose, they either either curse that person out or make snide little comments. But that is okay. i am after all an interloper on these boards.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 12 2006, 06:15 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 12 2006, 06:15 PM)
Originally posted by Confused [email protected]
There are socialists on this site who will say straight out money is abolished under socialism.

No there isn&#39;t.


Socialism; communism; its all the same fallacy, with minor and ultimately insignificant deviations within them.

As far as NOT be willing to address a socialist community economic environment, I would be most grateful to do so.

You still have not answered the question.


Me
Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

Put up or shut up kid. [/b]
I have indeed.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 13 2006, 01:11 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 13 2006, 01:11 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:24 AM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole.
Eh? Now where the heck did you get that from? :blink:
From you, of course.

People want to be musicians, they can be musicians; people want to automechanics, they can be automechanics; people want to be lawyers, they can be lawyers. Under socialism people can be whatever they want because they will be free from pressures of having to work to survive ect ect ect. [/b]
And by "logical deduction", you figured out there would only be automechanics, musicians and lawyers (lawyers? lawyers for what?)? My my, you&#39;re a freaking genius&#33; :lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Confused kid+--> (Confused kid)Under socialism people can be whatever they want because they will be free from pressures of having to work to survive ect ect ect.[/b]

You&#39;re still confused.

Workers in a Socialist environment still get paid a wage for their work; in addition, those that choose not to work and are able will not be able to receive social benefits other that what will keep them alive.

Now, since you are still dodging the previous question I will post it yet again:


Me
Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

Stop being such a pussy, kid.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 13 2006, 01:15 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 13 2006, 01:15 AM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 12:10 AM
Your inability at comprehensive reading is endlessly amusing ^_^

I&#39;ve noticed a trait in that socialists on this site do not wish to defend socialism. They lazily toss out what socialism will look like, then when questioned/challenged on it, whether such a result is possible by the methods they propose, they either either curse that person out or make snide little comments. But that is okay. i am after all an interloper on these boards. [/b]
I&#39;ve noticed a trait in that capitalists on this site have no interest in debating. They lazily toss out the exact same things that have been refuted in 80% of the other threads in this forum, then whentheir arguments are refuted, countered, rendered void et all, they simply... act as if nobody ever wrote a post back, and say the exact same they said the first time, and after their arguments being refuted about 3 more times they will simply declare themselves "winner of the debate", while they haven&#39;t even debated at all :lol:

Or maybe we should start debating on your level. Let&#39;s give it a go.



Of course people determine what is needed. the consumers make this determination. Why else produce?
OMG you are wrong&#33;&#33;&#33;1 I win debate&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

...


I still think you&#39;re funny ^_^

[ZX3]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 13 2006, 12:17 AM--> (s3rna @ Sep 13 2006, 12:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:24 AM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole.
Eh? Now where the heck did you get that from? :blink:
From you, of course.

People want to be musicians, they can be musicians; people want to automechanics, they can be automechanics; people want to be lawyers, they can be lawyers. Under socialism people can be whatever they want because they will be free from pressures of having to work to survive ect ect ect.
And by "logical deduction", you figured out there would only be automechanics, musicians and lawyers (lawyers? lawyers for what?)? My my, you&#39;re a freaking genius&#33; :lol: [/b]
Oh dear. The whine of the defeated.

Let me say it again: It is YOU making the assertion. Way way way way back you kept insisting that workers will be able to do whatever they want. I am simply calling you on the assertion. You have not bothered to deal with it, other than lamely say workers will do whatever they want, and it will coincide (magically perhaps? nobody knows. No support for the assertion given) with what the consumers want.

But its like beating a dead horse, I guess.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 13 2006, 12:18 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 13 2006, 12:18 AM)
Originally posted by Confused [email protected]
Under socialism people can be whatever they want because they will be free from pressures of having to work to survive ect ect ect.

You&#39;re still confused.

Workers in a Socialist environment still get paid a wage for their work; in addition, those that choose not to work and are able will not be able to receive social benefits other that what will keep them alive.

Now, since you are still dodging the previous question I will post it yet again:


Me
Now son, show me the precise differences between Socialism as defined by:

The Communists.
The Social Democrats.
The Social Revolutionaries.
The lenninists. [sic]
The Trotskyites.
The Stalinists.

Then cite specific examples of credibility rhetoric that support your responses.

Dubious sources will be ignored.

Stop being such a pussy, kid. [/b]

Hey, as far as your description of how a socialist community will (allegedly function) work, fine. But take up that argument with srn3a who definitely does not agree.


As far as the rest, answered: Its all fallacy.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 13 2006, 01:30 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 13 2006, 01:30 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:24 AM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM
Why would they not?
because a community with 400 musicians, 100 automechanics and 300 lawyers won&#39;t be very good at supplying for the whole.
Eh? Now where the heck did you get that from? :blink:
From you, of course.

People want to be musicians, they can be musicians; people want to automechanics, they can be automechanics; people want to be lawyers, they can be lawyers. Under socialism people can be whatever they want because they will be free from pressures of having to work to survive ect ect ect.
And by "logical deduction", you figured out there would only be automechanics, musicians and lawyers (lawyers? lawyers for what?)? My my, you&#39;re a freaking genius&#33; :lol:
Oh dear. The whine of the defeated.

Let me say it again: It is YOU making the assertion. Way way way way back you kept insisting that workers will be able to do whatever they want. I am simply calling you on the assertion. You have not bothered to deal with it, other than lamely say workers will do whatever they want, and it will coincide (magically perhaps? nobody knows. No support for the assertion given) with what the consumers want.

But its like beating a dead horse, I guess. [/b]
OMG you are wrong&#33;&#33;&#33; I win debate&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;11



(hey, this is pretty easy... I&#39;m beginning to understand why you resort to these techniques :) )

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Confused kid
Hey, as far as your description of how a socialist community will (allegedly function) work, fine. But take up that argument with srn3a who definitely does not agree.


As far as the rest, answered: Its all fallacy.

Pussy.

S3erna can believe whatever he wants, that will however not change the fact that a Socialist environment still uses a menetary system.

Period.

You must be very embarrassed over your own stupidity to actually start playing the "blame game"; I suggest you simply cut your losses and stop posting here altogether.

[red team]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
The existence of money doesn&#39;t imply the existence of exploitation. Labour time vouchers are a monetary system, for example.

LTVs are very much different than money. For one thing they are consumed upon purchase making the labour that went into manufacture bounded to the product that was purchased. There&#39;s no circulation back of money and therefore accumulation of value for the issuers. Hence the economic power of bosses whether private or through the government is severely limited. Energy credits as advocated by Technocracy takes this to the next logical step which is the obsolescence of any subjective valuation of labour by any given arbitrary "authority" in favour of physical costs in shaping matter into useful forms as measured by objective physical properties of the universe.


S3erna can believe whatever he wants, that will however not change the fact that a Socialist environment still uses a menetary system.

Meet the new boss, (almost) the same as the old boss, eh dick? Will your face be printed on the new official "Communist" currency, so that I can look to the "Red Sun" in the people&#39;s heart whenever I use it to buy back what should be mine anyway?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Little Dicky Jr.
Meet the new boss, (almost) the same as the old boss, eh dick? Will your face be printed on the new official "Communist" currency, so that I can look to the "Red Sun" in the people&#39;s heart whenever I use it to buy back what should be mine anyway?

Not mine son, I don&#39;t believe in a Socialist "transitional period"; that&#39;s for cats who still want to swing from Lenin&#39;s mummified nut sack prior to marching around their parent&#39;s house to the Soviet National Anthem.

Considering your advocation of the tired and useless "LTV" along with technocratic crapola, it&#39;s no shock to see such ignorance on display; just like your master&#39;s mummy. :lol:

Get lost kid.

[red team]

Originally posted by Vinny Mafioso
Workers in a Socialist environment still get paid a wage for their work; in addition, those that choose not to work and are able will not be able to receive social benefits other that what will keep them alive.

Who determines my wage? You? Thank you. I&#39;m forever grateful for your generosity comrade comissar. <_<


just like your master&#39;s mummy

No gods, no masters. How much more clear is that comrade comissar? Unless you want to be the new master comrade comissar. So how much do I need to pay to buy myself into "the party" comrade comissar? I rather be sitting on my arse directing work than cleaning shit from the toilet until retirement. Isn&#39;t that right comrade comissar?


Considering your advocation of the tired and useless "LTV" along with technocratic crapola, it&#39;s no shock to see such ignorance on display;

Sorry LTV and Technocracy was never Lenin&#39;s or Stalin&#39;s comrade comissar. Considering you advocation of social democracy, it&#39;s no shock to see such ignorance of Marxist Materialism. Everything is matter in motion. Nothing exist apart from the material world. What is money for wage and how does that correspond to any objective measure of material quantity comrade comissar?

[Vinny Rafarino]

For starters I&#39;m not your "comrade", son.


Originally posted by red square reject+--> (red square reject)Who determines my wage? You? Thank you. I&#39;m forever grateful for your generosity comrade comissar. dry.gif [/b]

Shouldn&#39;t you already know this kind of information? Perhaps your "team" ain&#39;t so red after all.

Anyway, if you would have read this thread you would have found this:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Socialism still relies on a monetary system that provides compensation to the owners of that specific method of production based on the divided shares of surplus value gained by the production and selling of its goods or services.


and:


RAF
one that still uses the monetary system to reward labour by dividing surplus value equally between those responsible for the production of a given good or service while instituting a heavy and progressive income tax to pay for social services such as housing, healthcare, transportation, education and food vs:


No gods, no masters. How much more clear is that comrade comissar? Unless you want to be the new master comrade comissar. So how much do I need to pay to buy myself into "the party" comrade comissar? I rather be sitting on my arse directing work than cleaning shit from the toilet until retirement. Isn&#39;t that right comrade comissar?

You&#39;re clearly very confused about my politics and barking up the wrong tree.


Sorry LTV and Technocracy was never Lenin&#39;s or Stalin&#39;s comrade comissar. Considering you advocation of social democracy, it&#39;s no shock to see such ignorance of Marxist Materialism. Everything is matter in motion. Nothing exist apart from the material world

Who said anything about Lenin or Stalin inventing both the useless LTV and the cult of technocratic nonsense? Social Democracy? Marxist materialism?

Your whole post reads like one gigantic logical fallacy; good work&#33;

Drop the bong Cheech and come back to Earth.


What is money for wage and how does that correspond to any objective measure of material quantity comrade comissar?

This one in particular is completely nonsensical; I suspect that even you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.

[red team]

Who said anything about Lenin or Stalin inventing both the useless LTV and the cult of technocratic nonsense? Social Democracy? Marxist materialism?

Your whole post reads like one gigantic logical fallacy; good work&#33;

Drop the bong Cheech and come back to Earth.

Marx lived in the 19th century. We live in the 21st century. Don&#39;t tell me, you treat materialism as holy gospel don&#39;t you? Newton was superceded by Einstein, but that didn&#39;t make his scientific theories any less useful for velocities that doesn&#39;t approach light speed. What have changed since Marx&#39;s time? Many of Marx&#39;s 19th century assumptions are no longer relevant and should be considered obsolete by today&#39;s material situation. You just haven&#39;t thought things through have you?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by medication perhaps
Marx lived in the 19th century. We live in the 21st century. Don&#39;t tell me, you treat materialism as holy gospel don&#39;t you? Newton was superceded by Einstein, but that didn&#39;t make his scientific theories any less useful for velocities that doesn&#39;t approach light speed. What have changed since Marx&#39;s time? Many of Marx&#39;s 19th century assumptions are no longer relevant and should be considered obsolete by today&#39;s material situation. You just haven&#39;t thought things through have you?

You are having serious trouble keeping on track.

What you have said here carries no relevance with either the statement you have just quoted or anything previous to this.

Here is a link (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#crumenam) for you to read.

Once you have learned these simple things, feel free to "c&#39;mon back naw, ya heah".

[red team]

#1 Considering your advocation of the tired and useless "LTV" along with technocratic crapola,
#1a "tired and useless LTV along with technocratic crapola"

#2 it&#39;s no shock to see such ignorance on display; just like your master&#39;s mummy.

statement #2 which you made implies that my "ignorance" is a direct result of my master which you imply to be Lenin being that he is mummified.

my response to statement #2: "Sorry LTV and Technocracy was never Lenin&#39;s or Stalin&#39;s", both of which are dead and are mummified.

#3 There&#39;s no circulation back of money and therefore accumulation of value for the issuers. Hence the economic power of bosses whether private or through the government is severely limited.

#4 Energy credits as advocated by Technocracy takes this to the next logical step which is the obsolescence of any subjective valuation of labour by any given arbitrary "authority" in favour of physical costs in shaping matter into useful forms as measured by objective physical properties of the universe.

#5 "Meet the new boss, (almost) the same as the old boss"

statement #3 and statement #4 which I&#39;ve made states that both LTV and Energy Credits are non-circulatory which are properties of both devices. Which means they are clearly not "useless" which you state as in statement #1 which implies statement #1a is false. So here&#39;s the correction to #1a: "refreshing and useful LTV along with technocratic treasure trove"

Money upon being "spent" is clearly circulatory being that it ends up back in the possession of those who have the power to issue prices for products and services. Being that you are in favour of publicly owned (government owned) resources what makes statement #5 false when money being able to circulate implies that it circulate back to those who own the resources, the owners now being the government?

Statement #5 is clearly not false which implies the opposite, that is statement #5 is true.

Which means you are in favour of this:

http://i23.ebayimg.com/01/i/07/ag/a1/9a_1.JPG

Substitute your face and that of your party members for Mao&#39;s

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by red wet dream
statement #2 which you made implies that my "ignorance" is a direct result of my master which you imply to be Lenin being that he is mummified.

This statement makes little sense. The word "being" is misplaced.


my response to statement #2: "Sorry LTV and Technocracy was never Lenin&#39;s or Stalin&#39;s", both of which are dead and are mummified.

A quantly unique and completely irrelevant connection; like I stated earlier, keep on track.


#3 There&#39;s no circulation back of money and therefore accumulation of value for the issuers. Hence the economic power of bosses whether private or through the government is severely limited.

This is nonsensical technocratic babble. And we wonder why the culyt of technocray is nothing more than a few socially inept nerds.


#4 Energy credits as advocated by Technocracy takes this to the next logical step which is the obsolescence of any subjective valuation of labour by any given arbitrary "authority" in favour of physical costs in shaping matter into useful forms as measured by objective physical properties of the universe.

More nonsensical techno-babble.


So here&#39;s the correction to #1a: "refreshing and useful LTV along with technocratic treasure trove"

A treasure trove of shit is still just a box of shit.


Statement #5 is clearly not false which implies the opposite, that is statement #5 is true.

Which means you are in favour of this:

Didn&#39;t I just tell you to read the link I posted? I know it&#39;s a lot to read but it will most definitely help you with your confusion.

[red team]

Originally posted by Vinny The English Teacher+--> (Vinny The English Teacher)
statement #2 which you made implies that my "ignorance" is a direct result of my master which you imply to be Lenin being that he is mummified.
This statement makes little sense. The word "being" is misplaced. [/b]


Originally posted by Dictionary.com+--> (Dictionary.com)9. Nonstandard. since; because; considering that (often fol. by as, as how, or that): Being it&#39;s midnight, let&#39;s go home. Being as how you cooked supper, I&#39;ll do the dishes.[/b]

Lenin being that he is mummified = Being that Lenin is mummified = Since Lenin is mummified = Lenin, since he is mummified


Originally posted by Vinny The Schizophrenic
A quantly unique and completely irrelevant connection; like I stated earlier, keep on track.

What were you implying here?


Originally posted by Vinny The Schizo
Considering your advocation of the tired and useless "LTV" along with technocratic crapola, it&#39;s no shock to see such ignorance on display; just like your master&#39;s mummy

such ignorance --&#62; like your master&#39;s mummy

(the premise) such ignorance implies (the conclusion) I&#39;m like my master&#39;s mummy

Do you make a habit of babbling something then make some irrelevant comment later that you don&#39;t mean to connect to the original unique quantity (the premise of the statement)? What are you, schizo?


Originally posted by Vinny The Babbler
This is nonsensical technocratic babble.

Opposing Evidence? Disproofs? Counter-Theories?

You&#39;re just making a counter-claim that "This is nonsensical" without anything to back it up.


Originally posted by Viinny The Abusive Thug
And we wonder why the culyt of technocray is nothing more than a few socially inept nerds.

"nothing more than a few socially inept nerds"

From your link:

Originally posted by http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.

Relying on abusive Ad Hominem (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem) now?


Vinny The [email protected]

#4 Energy credits as advocated by Technocracy takes this to the next logical step which is the obsolescence of any subjective valuation of labour by any given arbitrary "authority" in favour of physical costs in shaping matter into useful forms as measured by objective physical properties of the universe.

More nonsensical techno-babble.

More abusive statements without supporting: Opposing Evidence, Disproofs, Counter-Theories


Vinny The Thuggish Babbler


So here&#39;s the correction to #1a: "refreshing and useful LTV along with technocratic treasure trove"
A treasure trove of shit is still just a box of shit.

Yet more abusive statements without supporting: Opposing Evidence, Disproofs, Counter-Theories

Relying on abusive Ad Hominem (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem) now?



Statement #5 is clearly not false which implies the opposite, that is statement #5 is true.

Which means you are in favour of this:

Didn&#39;t I just tell you to read the link I posted? I know it&#39;s a lot to read but it will most definitely help you with your confusion.

Read through that kiddie page in a few minutes.

Try these on for size:
Related Conditionals (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/Math/math-topic.cfm?TopicCode=relcond)

If your delusional mind can get through that then this should be no problem:
Propositional Calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic)

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 13 2006, 03:45 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 13 2006, 03:45 AM)
Confused kid
Hey, as far as your description of how a socialist community will (allegedly function) work, fine. But take up that argument with srn3a who definitely does not agree.


As far as the rest, answered: Its all fallacy.

Pussy.

S3erna can believe whatever he wants, that will however not change the fact that a Socialist environment still uses a menetary system.

Period.

You must be very embarrassed over your own stupidity to actually start playing the "blame game"; I suggest you simply cut your losses and stop posting here altogether. [/b]
Another trait of socialists is to deny that the other person who claims to be a socialist, is in fact a socialist.

That&#39;s what is going on here.

But hey, at least your brand of socialism is a little more realistic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Another trait of socialists is to deny that the other person who claims to be a socialist, is in fact a socialist.

That&#39;s what is going on here.

But hey, at least your brand of socialism is a little more realistic.

Didn&#39;t I already tell you that I was not a socialist?

Now, answer the question pussy.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 15 2006, 01:16 AM

Another trait of socialists is to deny that the other person who claims to be a socialist, is in fact a socialist.

That&#39;s what is going on here.

But hey, at least your brand of socialism is a little more realistic.

Didn&#39;t I already tell you that I was not a socialist?

Now, answer the question pussy.
Communism. socialism its all the same thing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 15 2006, 12:05 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 15 2006, 12:05 PM)
Vinny [email protected] 15 2006, 01:16 AM

Another trait of socialists is to deny that the other person who claims to be a socialist, is in fact a socialist.

That&#39;s what is going on here.

But hey, at least your brand of socialism is a little more realistic.

Didn&#39;t I already tell you that I was not a socialist?

Now, answer the question pussy.
Communism. socialism its all the same thing. [/b]
Wrong. Communsim is stateless and classless.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:19 PM
So how does the socialist comunity convince some people to become heart surgeons and others janitors?


Gun.

[KC]

Welcome back&#33; Where&#39;ve ya been? We missed you a lot.

[red team]

heart surgeons and others janitors?

Janitor
http://www.robotshop.ca/Images/big/en/roomba-scheduler.jpg

Anybody can take any job with computer aided instruction
http://www.liteye.com/Portals/0/500-open.jpg

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 20 2006, 07:24 PM

heart surgeons and others janitors?

Janitor
http://www.robotshop.ca/Images/big/en/roomba-scheduler.jpg

Anybody can take any job with computer aided instruction
http://www.liteye.com/Portals/0/500-open.jpg
How does the socialist community convince some to make ROOMBA&#39;s and others to make that headgear?

[Janus]

The community does not convince/force people to go into a certain profession; people will gravitate towards a profession either way. People can judge for themselves which profession fits their education,lifestyle, and time best. Not everyone is going to go into a mad rush to become a doctor.

[Janus]

The community does not convince/force people to go into a certain profession; people will gravitate towards a profession either way. People can judge for themselves which profession fits their education, personal interests, lifestyle, and time best. Not everyone is going to go into a mad rush to become a doctor.

[Tungsten]

red team
This has got to be the stupidest idea yet. Would you trust a janitor to perform heart surgery on you with nothing more than "computer aided instructions"?

It&#39;s a safe bet you won&#39;t be putting your money (or your ass) where you mouth is.

[red team]

Do you know how many surgical accidents are performed by trained professional surgeons? Probably not. There are many and the only reason their not sued for everything they have is because the medical establishment protects them. There goes your theory of the infallible genius. Anybody who needs to think on the spot makes mistakes given enough time and enough fatigue from work. Arrogant professionals who think too highly of themselves are no different.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:46 AM
The community does not convince/force people to go into a certain profession; people will gravitate towards a profession either way. People can judge for themselves which profession fits their education, personal interests, lifestyle, and time best. Not everyone is going to go into a mad rush to become a doctor.

And how does the community ensure that the people "gravitate" toward a profession which the community needs?

[Janus]

And how does the community ensure that the people "gravitate" toward a profession which the community needs?
People can tell for themselves when there is little room in one profession and moved on to another one. The community can&#39;t force them to do it rather people themselves will get tired of waiting in line and looking around for jobs in professions that have too many employees.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:38 AM

And how does the community ensure that the people "gravitate" toward a profession which the community needs?
People can tell for themselves when there is little room in one profession and moved on to another one. The community can&#39;t force them to do it rather people themselves will get tired of waiting in line and looking around for jobs in professions that have too many employees.
How can people tell for themselves? What sort of information are they using?
And why would people get tired of waiting around?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In the case of specialized professionals:
People in capitalism generally don&#39;t enter a particular field of study based on the market demand for professionals in said field. Likewise, in a non-market economy, people won&#39;t need to be "forced" into particular careers.

In the case of less specialized jobs... well, in capitalism there has always been a lot of idle workers, with no special skills. Naturally, they will assume these jobs.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 23 2006, 11:10 PM
People in capitalism generally don&#39;t enter a particular field of study based on the market demand for professionals in said field. Likewise, in a non-market economy, people won&#39;t need to be "forced" into particular careers.
not true, market demand is directly related to wages and many people choose professions on how much money they will make (among other things).

so if you make all positions in society pay the same, people will base their work decisions based on other criteria, such as ease of job or personal fullfillment. necessary jobs which provide low levels of these will be less desirable and will therefore need coercion to be filled.

[Janus]

How can people tell for themselves?
It&#39;s common sense. If it&#39;s really difficult to get a job in a profession that has too many employees, it&#39;s going to be very noticeable.

What sort of information are they using?
Their own common sense and maybe even notices.


And why would people get tired of waiting around?
If there were oppotunities elsewhere then yes, they would be.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 24 2006, 02:20 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 24 2006, 02:20 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 23 2006, 11:10 PM
People in capitalism generally don&#39;t enter a particular field of study based on the market demand for professionals in said field. Likewise, in a non-market economy, people won&#39;t need to be "forced" into particular careers.
not true, market demand is directly related to wages and many people choose professions on how much money they will make (among other things).

so if you make all positions in society pay the same, people will base their work decisions based on other criteria, such as ease of job or personal fullfillment. necessary jobs which provide low levels of these will be less desirable and will therefore need coercion to be filled. [/b]
There has never been a lack of people to fill menial job positions. I seriously doubt there ever will be.

[colonelguppy]

yeah because often times those are gateway positions or demand for willing labor is high thus resulting in higher wages. taking the price system out of the equation will make those jobs completely undesirable.

these are jobs like truck driving, mine work, deep sea fishing, etc...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If it becomes a problem, a small and democratically-decided upon incentive can be given to people who wish to assume these positions.

The most important aspect of communism isn&#39;t total economic equality for all. Yes, everyone will be relatively equal in terms of wealth. But the important thing is a collective ownership of capital. If it is socially beneficial to have more truck drivers, it is obvious that the people as a whole, the owners of capital, will democratically find a way to acquire these drivers. Basically like an investment. Like the economically oligarchic capitalist class in capitalism, the masses, in socialism, will alot their socially-produced and socially-owned capital as they see fit for their collective benefit.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 24 2006, 09:27 PM
If it becomes a problem, a small and democratically-decided upon incentive can be given to people who wish to assume these positions.

The most important aspect of communism isn&#39;t total economic equality for all. Yes, everyone will be relatively equal in terms of wealth. But the important thing is a collective ownership of capital. If it is socially beneficial to have more truck drivers, it is obvious that the people as a whole, the owners of capital, will democratically find a way to acquire these drivers. Basically like an investment. Like the economically oligarchic capitalist class in capitalism, the masses, in socialism, will alot their socially-produced and socially-owned capital as they see fit for their collective benefit.
but then whats to stop a majority coalition from just increasing their compensation for all of their professions? how can we guarantee objectivity or even competence?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 25 2006, 02:27 AM
If it becomes a problem, a small and democratically-decided upon incentive can be given to people who wish to assume these positions.

The most important aspect of communism isn&#39;t total economic equality for all. Yes, everyone will be relatively equal in terms of wealth. But the important thing is a collective ownership of capital. If it is socially beneficial to have more truck drivers, it is obvious that the people as a whole, the owners of capital, will democratically find a way to acquire these drivers. Basically like an investment. Like the economically oligarchic capitalist class in capitalism, the masses, in socialism, will alot their socially-produced and socially-owned capital as they see fit for their collective benefit.

If it becomes a problem? My dear friend, its ALWAYS going to be a problem.
You make it sound as if ensuring a functioning economy is some sort of mild inconvenience, an irritant which may pop up from time to time.

This is true for capitalism as well. However. capitalism has methods to determine what is needed, and to find people to fill those slots. Those mechanisms are closed to the socialist community, however.

So how might the socialist community deal with this issue? It seems that increased compensation would be entertained, no matter how loathe the prospect (a side question: If the compensation for workers can be INCREASED to encourage employment in needed areas, can it be DECREASED in areas where there is a surplus of workers? How willing would the workers in such a field be willing to cut their compensation?). But that does not solve the problem itself, and indeed socialism makes that solution far more difficult to contemplate (see questions in parantheses which socialism also has to deal with).

Another side question: can workers WITHOLD their labor, if in their opinion, their compensation is inadequate? Even if the compensation was determined "democratically" along any lines you wish?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:29 PM

How can people tell for themselves?
It&#39;s common sense. If it&#39;s really difficult to get a job in a profession that has too many employees, it&#39;s going to be very noticeable.

What sort of information are they using?
Their own common sense and maybe even notices.


And why would people get tired of waiting around?
If there were oppotunities elsewhere then yes, they would be.
But why should that difficulty be considered a "bad thing?" After all, the communist society will provide all the basics of a person&#39;s life. There is no survival motivation existing. A little waiting around may not be so bad while waiting to get into a desired profession People retire, or perhaps move into other fields.