What motives people under Communism?

[mattnzn]

What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?

[RNK]

People will still have to work under socialism. if they don't, they don't earn a livelihood, they starve, and die.

The main difference is that under communism, workers will actually own the proper value of their labour, rather than being forced to take a disproportionately small share of the value they are responsible for making in return for being the lifeblood of that company's profit production mechanism. There will be no super-rich "board of directors" who themselves earn 10 or 100 times more than the actual workers who make the company's products or man the company's staff. All workers will be owners, and all will have a stake in the production of whichever commodity, or execution of whatever service.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:07 pm
People will still have to work under socialism. if they don't, they don't earn a livelihood, they starve, and die.
You didn't answer the question that was asked. He didn't ask what will motivate people to work at all; he asked them what will motivate them to work harder.

If person A is capable of cleaning 10 toilets but is only required to clean 6 to receive his share, he is asking what motivates him to clean 10 toilets instead of 6.

As best as I have been able to tell, the answer is usually comes down to the commune either somehow knowing what person A is really capable of and requring that (how this knowledge is obtained is not explained), or person A cleaning 10 toilets because he just so loves toilet cleaning he won't want to stop at only 6.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 19, 2007 12:27 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 19, 2007 12:27 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:07 pm
People will still have to work under socialism. if they don't, they don't earn a livelihood, they starve, and die.
You didn't answer the question that was asked. He didn't ask what will motivate people to work at all; he asked them what will motivate them to work harder.

If person A is capable of cleaning 10 toilets but is only required to clean 6 to receive his share, he is asking what motivates him to clean 10 toilets instead of 6.

As best as I have been able to tell, the answer is usually comes down to the commune either somehow knowing what person A is really capable of and requring that (how this knowledge is obtained is not explained), or person A cleaning 10 toilets because he just so loves toilet cleaning he won't want to stop at only 6. [/b]
Which of course leads to doing your best to hide your ability.

[Jazzratt]

If you're actually interested on finding the answer to this question I suggest you do a quick search for the word "incentive" on this subforum. This debate has come up so many fucking times, could you guys think of something new?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:41 pm
If you're actually interested on finding the answer to this question I suggest you do a quick search for the word "incentive" on this subforum. This debate has come up so many fucking times, could you guys think of something new?
That search turns up 15 pages of results. Can you recommend any in particular?

[Janus]

Narrow down your search parameters.

This topic has been discussed countless times in here:
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...ntive++motivate (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57537&hl=+incentive++motivate)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...ves++motivation (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=9043&hl=+incentives++motivation)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...otivation++work (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60648&hl=+motivation++work)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...ves++motivation (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=9092&hl=+incentives++motivation)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...+motivate++work (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33024&hl=+motivate++work)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...9&hl=motivation (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=8079&hl=motivation)

[mattnzn]

What happens if someone is handicapped or unable to work?

[luxemburg89]

they are provided for by the state

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

[More Fire for the People]

There is no motive to work harder under communism. Productivity under communism is no different than artistry. The motivation to work is that your occupation is something you fully enjoy — something that tingles your senses and is adapted to your own personal tastes. Innovation will stem from unleashed creativity. Everyone will be free to redesign and reshape the human condition in a creative and therapeutic way.

A society with a freedom this deep and broad cannot form from the ashes of this current one. In between the society we envision, communism, and the society we live in, capitalism, lays the dictatorship of the proletariat — a period of destruction and reformulation. This society, often dubbed ‘socialism’, takes on the task of laying the groundwork for a communist society. In this epoch of necessity not everyone will be remunerated equally but all will be remunerated fairly.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:58 pm
they are provided for by the state

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
If the crippled have the ability to kill themselves, are they morally obligated to contribute that ability to the community if they have no other contributions to make?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:58 pm
they are provided for by the state

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
That's not true. You won't be provided for by a state. There will be no state under communism. They will be provided for by their comrades.

The OP's question as a fatal flaw in that there will be no work under communism. There will be no one to work for. When you wake out your trash cans every week do you call that work? When you wash your car are you working? Of course not.

[mattnzn]

Another question:

Would we need to destroy all of the houses built today in order to create houses for everyone that are exactly the same? If not, then who gets to live in the oceanfront mansions in Palm Beach, FL? What dictates where people will live and in what kind of house, afterall, that would be unequal if you have someone living in a nicer house than someone else, wouldnt it?

[RGacky3]

mattnzn,

It sounds like you don't really know what communism is, do a little reading before asking questions like that.

Heres a starting point, Communism is not about absolute material equality at all.

[mattnzn]

I thought communism was about absolute equality? I was simply asking where everyone would live?

[redcannon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 19, 2007 02:05 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 19, 2007 02:05 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:58 pm
they are provided for by the state

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
If the crippled have the ability to kill themselves, are they morally obligated to contribute that ability to the community if they have no other contributions to make? [/b]
of course not. the handicapped will be taken care of, because communists know that every person is essential to society (not just the ones who can do slave labour like you cappies do)

why can't you get it through your fucking heads? From each according to his ability TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED If you need me to spell this out to you and go indepth in it with you i will gladly do it


If you can't contribute, then fine. Its probaby not your fault your handicapped, so why be punished for it? i for one have no problem working a little harder to make sure every one is provided for.

[Rawthentic]

That's not true. You won't be provided for by a state. There will be no state under communism. They will be provided for by their comrades.

No shit, just take a look at what Hopscotch said.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:06 pm
mattnzn,

It sounds like you don't really know what communism is, do a little reading before asking questions like that.

Heres a starting point, Communism is not about absolute material equality at all.
You still didn't answer his question.

[RNK]

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 19, 2007 07:27 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 19, 2007 07:27 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:07 pm
People will still have to work under socialism. if they don't, they don't earn a livelihood, they starve, and die.
You didn't answer the question that was asked. He didn't ask what will motivate people to work at all; he asked them what will motivate them to work harder. [/b]
Yes, I did.


The main difference is that under communism, workers will actually own the proper value of their labour, rather than being forced to take a disproportionately small share of the value they are responsible for making

[Phalanx]

The main difference is that under communism, workers will actually own the proper value of their labour, rather than being forced to take a disproportionately small share of the value they are responsible for making

It doesn't matter. They'll be making pretty much the same living either way, if they innovate or if they don't. Stop coughing up bullshit you read in the manifesto and actually answer the question.

[KC]

Yeah, inventing something that benefits society, of which you are a member which means it would benefit you as well, is a complete waste of time because you're not getting paid for it.

This thread is again bullshit. Many people invent not for financial reasons but because they like inventing stuff to improve the quality of life of themselves and others. Saying that financial incentive is the only incentive is completely idiotic and borders on trolling.

[RNK]

Another reason I think the OI forum should be abolished and these ignorant fucks simply banned. I mean, c'mon. You've been around for over 2 years, Phalanx, and you're still asking the same fucking questions, as if you expect the next answer to be different than the previous 200 fucking times the question has been asked.

[Rawthentic]

I agree that they ignorant pricks, but it sometimes help to see this as well as hone your theory.

[redcannon]

yeah, i agree. i've always found my commie beliefs reinforced in the OI forum. it helps us know what we're up against, and we can explain our ideas and reasoning to them (even if they don't always listen and continue asking the same question)


granted, they are ingorant fucks and do sometimes make me want to hit my moniter

[Phalanx]

This thread is again bullshit. Many people invent not for financial reasons but because they like inventing stuff to improve the quality of life of themselves and others. Saying that financial incentive is the only incentive is completely idiotic and borders on trolling.

Not necessarily inventing new products, but the motivation to try harder. The economy would become stagnant because the absolute lack of motivation. If conditions wouldn't improve considerably for a janitor, he wouldn't try to become part of the assembly line. Very few janitors will approach their work as an art.

[Rawthentic]

Very few janitors will approach their work as an art.

I dont know, but I do know that they would not see it as crap. It would be something that they enjoy doing, a side job where they feel that they can contribute something.

Since he has all his life's necessities, being a janitor is not full-time or completely necessary. And if there werent janitors, there would be a lot of sick people.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:41 pm
What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?
there are lots of incentives, the fact that if you don't work, you won't recieve your housing, clothing, food, etc... and that if you do, and you are a worker or farmer like most people in the world, you will be living far, far better than your capitalist counter-part, and that what you produce goes to your community rather than a private fat corporate board. Also there is the fact that if you don't work, your workload gets dumped on your neighbors and co-workers and they won't be accepting of that and will deal with a slacker as they see fit, the list goes on and on

[OneBrickOneVoice]

not to mention the fact that the people actually have a stake in their workplace because they collectivly own it

[black magick hustla]

I would argue that undesirable jobs would be rotated around everyone in the community. This will happen with a lot of the so called service sector.

[mattnzn]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 21, 2007 02:14 am--> (LeftyHenry @ April 21, 2007 02:14 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 12:41 pm
What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?
there are lots of incentives, the fact that if you don't work, you won't recieve your housing, clothing, food, etc... and that if you do, and you are a worker or farmer like most people in the world, you will be living far, far better than your capitalist counter-part, and that what you produce goes to your community rather than a private fat corporate board. Also there is the fact that if you don't work, your workload gets dumped on your neighbors and co-workers and they won't be accepting of that and will deal with a slacker as they see fit, the list goes on and on [/b]
So basically it is the same as capitalism, if you don't work you will starve, correct? Except that you wont have anyone richer or more "successful" than you to be envious of?

Not everyone has to be an employee, there are plenty who make it out of poverty by starting their own business or venture. A lot of people just have an employee mentality and live paycheck to paycheck, no wonder they become bitter like you

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:05 am
Not everyone has to be an employee, there are plenty who make it out of poverty by starting their own business or venture. A lot of people just have an employee mentality and live paycheck to paycheck, no wonder they become bitter like you
WHat the fuck is wrong with you? Reading too much Nietzsche rotted away your ability to think like a nromal human being. (I mention Nietzsche because your "employee mentality" makes me think of his comments on "herd morality".)

What is your evidence for employee mentality as a concept? So far it seems to be that not everyone has the boundless optimism to raise the stakes in the casino of capitalism, so anyone who is aware that, statistically, they will probably be no better off if they start a business has an "employee" mentality? Or is your concept simply a way for you to ethically justify wage slavery?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:18 pm
I would argue that undesirable jobs would be rotated around everyone in the community. This will happen with a lot of the so called service sector.
Okay. So the socialist community will depoly resources (time, wealth ect) to train people to do particular needed and desirable tasks. They then will train them to do undesirable and needed tasks and send them out from time to time to do this.

The results will seem to be this:

1. Since socialists often talk about that the work day will be reduced in a socialist community, it means that that your trained workers in desirable tasks will be working even fewer hours than the few already demanded. In other words, the socialist community has avaiilable to it the skills of the trained worker in the desirable profession even less than it originally would in its truncated existing work patterns . I am not seeing how the community benefits.

2. Since the skilled worker in a desirable field is working fewer hours, it means that skilled worker in a desired field is not going to be as proficient at his task, as he is practicing far less the needed and desirable work, by doing the needed but undesired work. I do not see how this benefits the community.

3. The undesired fields of work are performed by people who do not wish to be doing this as their main job (else they would freely do so). Ever work anywhere where you don't want to be, or see someone working somewhere where they don't want to be? Its not a pretty sight. Moreover, it also means that the workers in the undesired fields will be less proficient at performing the needed but undesirable job. This would the work performed in this needed but undesirable profession would be of a low quality. I do not see how this benefits the community.

Capitalism proposes to pay people to work in such fields. So workers in needed but undesirable professions receive financial compensation (which could increase or decrease depending upon the community's needs) and would also result in skilled workers doing the needed but undesirable work, on a fulltime baisis, thus becoming skilled at it. Also it means that skilled professionals in needed and desired professions can focus their efforts on what they have been trained to do, and what they enjoy doing, as they need not be deployed to to the neccessary but undesired work. This would seem to benefit the community far greater.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:38 am
Another reason I think the OI forum should be abolished and these ignorant fucks simply banned. I mean, c'mon. You've been around for over 2 years, Phalanx, and you're still asking the same fucking questions, as if you expect the next answer to be different than the previous 200 fucking times the question has been asked.
I've been here longer than that and I still haven't seen an answer to this question and several others. All I've seen is slogans about how everyone will just decide to work for the community.

But, if someone comes up with a great idea that will benefit society, what if the workers don't want to implement it? Everyone tends to like patterns, stability, routine. Once the workers are comfortable with the production process of one product, how are you sure they're going to want to switch gears and start producing the new product? If they're forced to do so by the community, or by the central planning agency, then they're not really in control, are they?

Another question I've never seen answers is how things go from people based on ability to those based on need. What if I "need" a big house in the hills with a swimming pool and a Hummer H3? Oh that's right, that's not really a "need" as you folks define it, which indicates you (or the community) get to define everyone's needs for them.

And individuals have freedom how again?


I would argue that undesirable jobs would be rotated around everyone in the community. This will happen with a lot of the so called service sector.

If this is the case, the worker cannot be said to be in control because the community is requiring him to do something he does not want to do. Under our capitalist system, I am not required to work I do not want to do. I don't want to clean toilets, so I have a job that does not require me to clean toilets. I will never have to clean a toilet anywhere except in my own home, where I will want to do it to keep my home clean. Therefore in the current system, I have more freedom than I would in your system.

I know, you're going to complain about people who do clean toilets for a living but who don't want to. They're cleaning toilets out of economic necessity (need for a job), which is no different than forcing all members of a community to clean toilets. People are still cleaning toilets when they don't want to be. The difference? In capitalism the person who cleans the toilet always has opportunities to seek employment doing something else.

In effect, communism is spreading the misery equally, isn't it.

Aside from the angriest teenagers and burnouts on this site, who seek to control everyone out of frustration with their own life circumstances, I don't doubt the good intentions of a lot of you. But good intentions are not going to get people to stop wanting, nor is it going to get people to make "the good of the community" their only incentive for working harder or innovating. "Working for the good of the community" has the same hazard as collusion: there is a built-in incentive to cheat for greater individual gain. It's like Peter Gibbons asks in "Office Space"...if I work my ass of and Inatec ships a few extra units, what's the benefit for me? The marginal benefit in working harder for the community is so small in most cases, it's simply not worth it.

None of this can be refuted by anything other than the expected, "but it will work because I say so" responses.

End of diatribe.

[Rawthentic]

In fact, all of it can be refuted, and all I have to do is go back to the fact that there will always be class struggle as long as there are classes.


If they're forced to do so by the community, or by the central planning agency, then they're not really in control, are they?

They aren't "forced" to do anything, the central planning agency, made up of local or regional worker's councils, would not act against its class interests. This is irrefutable.


What if I "need" a big house in the hills with a swimming pool and a Hummer H3? Oh that's right, that's not really a "need" as you folks define it, which indicates you (or the community) get to define everyone's needs for them.
Thats not a "need", but a want. If you want that, then by all means, go for it and have it, if that is what will fulfill your human aspiration. The problem is with all this, you look at it from a capitalist mentality. The H3's and mansions are artificially created needs from a profit-motivated society. Thats why all of a sudden you "need" new Nikes while little kids are being slaved in Pakistan.


And individuals have freedom how again?
By placing all the means of communications to the workers, such as buildings for assemblies with lighting and heating, phones for all, printing presses, etc. Thats why under class society, those who own the means of production have their ideas as the ruling ones, because they own the great majority of the means to be so. Just taking a look at your mentality makes this irrefutable.


Under our capitalist system, I am not required to work I do not want to do. I don't want to clean toilets, so I have a job that does not require me to clean toilets. I will never have to clean a toilet anywhere except in my own home, where I will want to do it to keep my home clean. Therefore in the current system, I have more freedom than I would in your system.
Wrong, you have that freedom as long as you don't starve. Under capitalism, we labor to just make it by, while under communism we labor because it makes us feel good and useful to society, because our needs are already met. This is irrefutable.


In effect, communism is spreading the misery equally, isn't it.
In effect, work under communism is a pleasure, not a drag. Work is the main expression of human feeling, need, and desire. Under capitalism, it becomes a commodity that is made by the majority for the few. This is irrefutable.


But good intentions are not going to get people to stop wanting, nor is it going to get people to make "the good of the community" their only incentive for working harder or innovating.
We do "want" and need better, and that is a radical reconstruction of society. Our "good intentions" are based on the objective science of Marxism and our class interests. If it holds true that society can be reconstructed to meet the profit of a few, than it holds true that we can reconstruct it for the needs of all who work for a living.

Under communism, the "good of the community" is the good of the individual is as well, by the irrefutable fact that we own the means by which we produce our life's subsistence.


None of this can be refuted by anything other than the expected, "but it will work because I say so" responses.

It will work because class antagonisms are irreconcilable, and we workers will build it to the best of our interests. Whatever problems arise, we will have the collective power to make it better for ourselves, not for the good of a parasite.

[Tungsten]

They aren't "forced" to do anything, the central planning agency, made up of local or regional worker's councils, would not act against its class interests. This is irrefutable.
So what will happen when someone refuses to do their "share"? I think we know the answer to that already.

By placing all the means of communications to the workers, such as buildings for assemblies with lighting and heating, phones for all, printing presses, etc. Thats why under class society, those who own the means of production have their ideas as the ruling ones, because they own the great majority of the means to be so. Just taking a look at your mentality makes this irrefutable.
If I'm being forced to do a job I don't want to do, the fact that I have access to phones and printing presses isn't going to change the fact that I'm still being forced to do a job I don't want to do and are therefore, not free.

Wrong, you have that freedom as long as you don't starve. Under capitalism, we labor to just make it by, while under communism we labor because it makes us feel good and useful to society, because our needs are already met. This is irrefutable.
I don't know about irrefutable, perhaps "inconceivable" would have been a better word. Do you have any proof to back that such a change will occur beyond you saying so?

In effect, work under communism is a pleasure, not a drag. Work is the main expression of human feeling, need, and desire. Under capitalism, it becomes a commodity that is made by the majority for the few. This is irrefutable.
So if I'm doing a boring job under capitalism, I'll become excited and enthusiastic about doing it under communism. This is the zenith of utopian madness.

Under communism, the "good of the community" is the good of the individual is as well, by the irrefutable fact that we own the means by which we produce our life's subsistence.
When people start calling their ideology "irrefutable", we have every reason to suspect it isn't. If it really is irrefutable, why do you need to tell us over and over again without providing proof? When you start making statements like “objective science of Marxism ” we know it isn’t objective science at all, otherwise there would be no need for you to describe it as such. You don’t go round telling people “The sky is blue” do you?

[RNK]

In effect, communism is spreading the misery equally, isn't it.

Man, take some anti-depressents and stop being such a pessimist!

The glass is half full/i], not half [i]empty.


If I'm being forced to do a job I don't want to do

And the difference between being forced to do a job in capitalism, and being forced to do a job in socialism, is...?

I'd rather be forced to work at McLenin's and have democratic control with my fellow workers over the conditions of this labour, than be forced to work at McDonalds and have absolutely no control over my livelihood whatsoever. Besides, this who concept of "being forced to work somewhere" seems completely baseless. There are more than enough workers willing to do every job imaginable, from shovelling cow shit to pining away in cubicles. Nobody has to be forced. Certainly not as much as we are today.

[Rawthentic]

If I'm being forced to do a job I don't want to do, the fact that I have access to phones and printing presses isn't going to change the fact that I'm still being forced to do a job I don't want to do and are therefore, not free.
Who would be forcing you to do something you dont want to do under communism? Work becomes a place where can produce for ourselves and our communities with complete control over everything.


Do you have any proof to back that such a change will occur beyond you saying so?
Yes, when the means of production are taken by the producers and we run them collectively. Thats better than working for wages and being hassled by a boss.


So if I'm doing a boring job under capitalism, I'll become excited and enthusiastic about doing it under communism. This is the zenith of utopian madness.
Yes, you imbecile. Under capitalism, the workers dont control their very own workplaces and are subject to various degrees of discrimination. With the end of class society, the workers control everything and the class basis of discrimination is eliminated.


When people start calling their ideology "irrefutable", we have every reason to suspect it isn't.
Nah, basically because Marxism is the objective outlook on history, this has been proven. Its no wonder that its so incredibly relevant to today.

[mattnzn]

No one answered my questions about houses. Who would get to live in the nice houses and who would get to live in the crappy houses after the "revolution" happened.

All communism benefits is the minority poor. The middle class and upper class would have to revert back as far as living conditions go

[Rawthentic]

That would be decided collectively. If people didnt want to live in the crap houses, then people can get together to build themselves a nice neighborhood.

And communism benefits the working-class. If by "middle-class", you mean the petty-bourgeoisie, then yeah, they can fuck themselves, unless they are willing to help in the proletarian revolution and tail behind it.

And the capitalists will be expropriated.

Why would communism benefit anyone else?

I thus make the conclusion that you do not know what communism is, and I will then suggest that you seriously find out.

[mattnzn]

I know what communism is. I'm only asking questions on what I'm unclear about

Communism benefits the poor working-class who work the low end jobs and are usually uneducated, the ones who have no hope of moving up in society. That's it.

I'm sure people who spend several years in universities, law school, med school, etc. while investing thousands of dollars into their education wouldn't be too happy earning the same lifestyle of someone who cleans toilets.

There would really be nothing to work for, or look forward to as reward for your hard work. Life would become rather boring in my opinion.

[Janus]

I'm sure people who spend several years in universities, law school, med school, etc. while investing thousands of dollars into their education wouldn't be too happy earning the same lifestyle of someone who cleans toilets.
Well, there are no "salaries" in communism if that was what you meant. However, the point is that people would still be motivated to try to gain such prominent jobs because of the social prestige that comes with the work.


There would really be nothing to work for, or look forward to as reward for your hard work. Life would become rather boring in my opinion.
That is only if you believe in the capitalist arguement that once the profit motive is removed, people simply stop working. In fact, one would think that people would have more to work for as for the first time, they actually have control over their work, career, and life. Isn't that something to work for?

Whether or not life would be boring would of course ultimately depend on what the individual decides to do with his/her life.

[mattnzn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:50 am

I'm sure people who spend several years in universities, law school, med school, etc. while investing thousands of dollars into their education wouldn't be too happy earning the same lifestyle of someone who cleans toilets.
Well, there are no "salaries" in communism if that was what you meant. However, the point is that people would still be motivated to try to gain such prominent jobs because of the social prestige that comes with the work.


There would really be nothing to work for, or look forward to as reward for your hard work. Life would become rather boring in my opinion.
That is only if you believe in the capitalist arguement that once the profit motive is removed, people simply stop working. In fact, one would think that people would have more to work for as for the first time, they actually have control over their work, career, and life. Isn't that something to work for?

Whether or not life would be boring would of course ultimately depend on what the individual decides to do with his/her life.
But what kind of incentives will there be to work harder for? Why bother moving up in your career?

All basic needs will be met and that's it. Just for an example, there will be no nice sports car to "buy" from your hard work

I understand how communism would solve very few problems we have today, but it just creates many more. It would not be sustainable

[Janus]

But what kind of incentives will there be to work harder for?
Improving the life of yourself, your family, and your community.


Why bother moving up in your career?
Why bother doing anything? In a communist society, people would be able to gravitate towards jobs that they like and actually enjoy. It's intrinsically self-rewarding.


It would not be sustainable
I think that a system based upong self-democracy. self-management, and self-organization would be much more sustainable than an unchanging system based on exploitation, oppression, and profit.

[mattnzn]

I own capital...does that mean I would be killed during the revolution?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:14 pm


I'd rather be forced to work at McLenin's and have democratic control with my fellow workers over the conditions of this labour,
What kind of controls do you suppose you and your fellow workers at Mclenin's would have of McLenin's in a socialist community? Let's think about it a bit:

1. Working hours-I suppose you think that you and your fellow workers will freely decide amongst yourselves work schedules. However, that control would seem to be restricted by when your customers are going to be looking to consume your food. Not everyone will be needed to work at 2AM, and there will be a need for to work at 6PM. So nope, you will not have control on your hours of working. That will be set by the consumers.

2. Types of food- I suppose that you and your fellow workers at McLenin's think you will freely decide what to cook, how to prepare it ect ect. Errr... well, no. That to will be determined by what consumers wish to consume, since it would be silly to suppose the McLenin workers would continue to churn out food which nobody wanted.

I suppose you would think these comments obvious and not worth mentioning in a socialist community. There is no reason to suppose people can't figure out these problems for themselves, it might be said.

But, if so, you have forgotten what socialism is all about. If the public can force the McLenin workers to bend and twist their decisions simply by the public's personal preferences, then clearly the workers at McLenin's do not have democratic control of the restaurant. You might say they have control within that sphere; that is, the workers of McLenin's will vote to add or replace menu items, remodel the store ect ect in an effort to satisfy the consumers. But that is a different argument, and it is basically capitalism in practice.

Since McLenin's is not merely a producer, but also a CONSUMER of materials from other producers (such as meat). Thus, like the public, it can refuse products which do not satisfy their needs and preferences, which in turn means those workers (say in the slaughterhouse) are not exercising democratic control in their workplace., as they have to yield to the needs of McLenin's. And the slaughterhouses must have the right to refuse the cows from the ranchers if the cows do not fit the needs of the slaughterhouses, thereby infringing upon the democratic control of the ranchers. And the ranchers must have the right to refuse the feed if it does not fit their needs thereby depriving the feed workers democratic control in their industry ect ect ect

So no, the only way the workers at McLenin's can have control of their workplace is if the public is forced to consume the goods of Mclenin's as per the terms dictated by the workers at McLenin's. Spread the concept through the entire economy, it cannot be seem as good thing.

[Chicano Shamrock]

So what will happen when someone refuses to do their "share"? I think we know the answer to that already.
You have been here a year and a half and you don't know the answer to this? There will never be someone who refuses to do their share under communism. Under communism there is no share to do. That is why it is "according to their NEEDS" not "according to their deeds". Only under a socialist state is there a situation where someone could refuse to do their "share". Under communism there is no share to be done. You will get what you need without a contract to do something in response.


All communism benefits is the minority poor
Ummm..... under capitalism the poor are the majority.... :| But even then if you say "communism only benefits the majority of the people" that is a lie. A communist society would benefit all people because the bourgeois class is still living under capitalism. It is still living within the boundaries of a capitalist democracy. Now they might be in control of workers but there are still people above a lot of them. They don't have democracy. They don't have freedom. They have the financial freedom to pick Lamborghini or Ferrari but they don't have the freedom to live outside of the system. They still live as much of a pointless superficial life as the rest of us under capitalism.

In a communist society they would be free. They would be able to participate in true democracy, to love, to feel, to think. They would have the freedom to walk down the street without getting a subliminal message from the coca-cola advertisement.

[Rawthentic]

, the workers of McLenin's will vote to add or replace menu items, remodel the store ect ect in an effort to satisfy the consumers. But that is a different argument, and it is basically capitalism in practice.
Your scenarios are useless, as are your lies. Last time I checked the McDonald's workers had no say in what went on in the place where they produced wealth.

[REDdog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:41 pm
What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?
“The product of his (proletarian) activity is not the aim of his activity”, said Marx. That is, in a capitalist society we are going to serve the motives of the capitalists and in the communist society the product of our activity is going to be the aim of our activity.

So, naturally the production is going to be high.

[Red Tung]

But, if someone comes up with a great idea that will benefit society, what if the workers don't want to implement it? Everyone tends to like patterns, stability, routine. Once the workers are comfortable with the production process of one product, how are you sure they're going to want to switch gears and start producing the new product? If they're forced to do so by the community, or by the central planning agency, then they're not really in control, are they?

"Everyone tends to like patterns, stability, routine."

And why do they like patterns, stability and routine? Because switching to a different activity would cost them personally, just like if I lose my job and have to re-train it would have to come out of my own pocket, further there is no guarantee that the change would be in my favour or at least neutral since a currently "market hot" occupation is entirely dependent on what the market demands for greatest return on investment so if stock traders or telemarketers are currently the job that is in fashion that is not guarantee that it will match my personality or preferences. And, what if it doesn't? Under this system of profit-driven production, it's simply my tough luck if I don't like my job, but somebody else can "earn" a bundle from investing in it, so why shouldn't I defend what I have with the tenacity of a tiger if change would mean costs to me, but also uncertain future benefits?

So are you assuming that this type of situation would persist in an economy that is not driven by profit? A market economy can be implement that does not rely on profit, but relies on revenue to guage consumer demand. This is basic accounting 101. Capital is not needed and is simply the cost of paying the owners of the company if viewed from the perspective of the workers who performed the real work of making what is then sold. Any revenue in return would either go directly to the workers or go into the purchase of more production assets. Profits as represented by the Capital side of the accounting sheet is entirely extraneous.


Another question I've never seen answers is how things go from people based on ability to those based on need. What if I "need" a big house in the hills with a swimming pool and a Hummer H3? Oh that's right, that's not really a "need" as you folks define it, which indicates you (or the community) get to define everyone's needs for them.

Sure, but by your definition I can demand an entire lunar colony as my need. If I'm rich enough so as to have everybody work for me under threat of homelessness or food insecurity (which are actually needs) then I can fulfill my "need" to have a slice of the moon as my personal playground. But, first I'll need to corner the market in value tokens, otherwise known as money from which the whole economy runs on by fiat.

Further, let's take a less extreme example. Suppose a I demand that a two lane wide luxury limousine be available for my personal gratification. Why is it that manufacturers do not make these? If I custom make a two land wide vehicle to be put on the road would I be arrested? Wouldn't that be called "dictatorial" behavior by those who implement the current traffic system? Who are "they" to tell me I can't operate a two lane wide vehicle? Anybody who tries to arrest me for operating my extra wide limousine should be met with a hail of hot lead should'nt they? Afterall, they are violating the "sacred" principle of personal liberty aren't they?

The more interesting question is then how is it that some people can accumulate concentrations of "value" so immense so as to define what is in fact luxuries as their needs while others who are at the mercy of being hired to create accumulated value for these same people constantly threatened with the loss of this "privilege" of working for the further enrichment of their "employers" at which point they become unable to meet their actual needs which are in fact not luxuries? For those who think not being homeless is a luxury they should spend a few nights sleeping on the streets before coming back to reply.


If this is the case, the worker cannot be said to be in control because the community is requiring him to do something he does not want to do. Under our capitalist system, I am not required to work I do not want to do. I don't want to clean toilets, so I have a job that does not require me to clean toilets. I will never have to clean a toilet anywhere except in my own home, where I will want to do it to keep my home clean. Therefore in the current system, I have more freedom than I would in your system.

And the reason why unpleasant tasks like toilet cleaning and dangerous tasks like handling live wires without any protection is because? I'm sure the workers in those unpleasant and dangerous occupations would like nothing better than to have the unpleasantness of their job tasks alleviated through better techniques or eliminated altogether through automation, so why isn't there massive investment in doing just that. Afterall, the consumer demand as observed from the reluctance of workers to engage in such unpleasant and dangerous tasks are there. Is it because that worker safety and job satisfaction isn't a priority because the demand (*ahem* profits) gained from underpaid manual workers purchasing safety equipment isn't all that high given that they need the money to pay for more immediately important things like rent and food?


In effect, communism is spreading the misery equally, isn't it.

Depends on how you define Communism and how you define wealth and how you define demand

But, you see like all shortsighted, stupid people who can't think outside the box of this artificially created "reality" we call "civilization" they keep to their routine and think that what is in fact a system that is little more advanced than what is used by cavemen trading clam shells for goats and mammoth tusks is all there is to how an economy works from now until the end of time (or whenever the idiots destroy themselves whichever comes first).


It's like Peter Gibbons asks in "Office Space"...if I work my ass of and Inatec ships a few extra units, what's the benefit for me? The marginal benefit in working harder for the community is so small in most cases, it's simply not worth it.

And Peter Gibbons in that film was working in a society that values redundancy in competition and salesmanship in trade which is not exactly what a worker's commons is and a worker's commons is exactly what a Communist society is.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:07 am

, the workers of McLenin's will vote to add or replace menu items, remodel the store ect ect in an effort to satisfy the consumers. But that is a different argument, and it is basically capitalism in practice.
Your scenarios are useless, as are your lies. Last time I checked the McDonald's workers had no say in what went on in the place where they produced wealth.
Last time I checked, what went on in a capitalist McDonald's, has no bearing as to what goes on in a socialist McLenin's.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23, 2007 02:48 am

So are you assuming that this type of situation would persist in an economy that is not driven by profit? A market economy can be implement that does not rely on profit, but relies on revenue to guage consumer demand. This is basic accounting 101. Capital is not needed and is simply the cost of paying the owners of the company if viewed from the perspective of the workers who performed the real work of making what is then sold. Any revenue in return would either go directly to the workers or go into the purchase of more production assets. Profits as represented by the Capital side of the accounting sheet is entirely extraneous.


If revenue from a socialist industry is less than the cost of its production, that is to say, that the total of its revenue it received from distributing its goods was less than it cost to produce and distribute its goods, the socialist community can conclude that there either no customer support for its product, or perhaps that its production and distribution plans are flawed, and make appropriate adjustments.

If revenue from a socialist industry exceeds the costs of its production, that is to say, that the total of its revenue exceeded its costs in production and distribution, the socialist community can conclude that there is customer support for its product and that it is most likely producing and distributing its product correctly.

Now, one can play with semantics all day. The reality is that what we are talking about is "profit." And the socialist community will have to produce for profit as well as the capitlist one. There should not be anything shocking about this. A rational economy will first produce goods which are more wanted and needed by the community than goods which are less needed by the community. The guage for this determination is "profit" or as the socialists seem to like to describe it, "revenue." Whatever the term preferred, the objective is the same for the socialist and capitalist community.

[Rawthentic]

Whatever the term preferred, the objective is the same for the socialist and capitalist community.
No they're not, shut up. All of your scenarios are useless. Capitalism produces for profit, socialism for human needs.

[luxemburg89]

well said (they still won't understand though hastalavictoria)

[Rawthentic]

We can all see that quite clear though, but its always fun to play around with them.

[wtfm8lol]

Capitalism produces for profit, socialism for human needs.

i'll take the system that allows me to have what i need AND what i want

[luxemburg89]

which is to eat communists?

[Janus]

I own capital...does that mean I would be killed during the revolution?
If you oppose it then I don't think anyone can vouch for your safety.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:28 pm

Whatever the term preferred, the objective is the same for the socialist and capitalist community.
No they're not, shut up. All of your scenarios are useless. Capitalism produces for profit, socialism for human needs.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but profits cannot be made without satisfying human needs and wants. Production for profit is production for human wants and needs. There is no way to get around it.

[Rawthentic]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but profits cannot be made without satisfying human needs and wants. Production for profit is production for human wants and needs. There is no way to get around it.


Sorry to refute your ignorance, but profit is not human needs. When production become geared towards that, we'll talk.

[wtfm8lol]

Sorry to refute your ignorance, but profit is not human needs. When production become geared towards that, we'll talk.

production is geared towards what consumers want.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:47 pm
well said (they still won't understand though hastalavictoria)
There's nothing to understand. Slogans are not arguments.

[RNK]

Who here wants to pay 20 times what something cost to produce, raise your hand!

[Phalanx]

Man, having no choice in brands is just fantastic, right?

[Rawthentic]

production is geared towards what consumers want.

And the workers are consumers as well, even of what they produce, which is many times impossible under capitalism.


Who here wants to pay 20 times what something cost to produce, raise your hand!
And who wants to pay that many times for something you produced yourself?!

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:39 pm

Who here wants to pay 20 times what something cost to produce, raise your hand!
And who wants to pay that many times for something you produced yourself?!
if you truly produced it yourself you wouldn't have to buy it.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:06 pm
mattnzn,

It sounds like you don't really know what communism is, do a little reading before asking questions like that.

Heres a starting point, Communism is not about absolute material equality at all.
if there's going to be democratically controlled property than i think it's kind of implied that there will be equal ownership of property...

[KC]

Man, having no choice in brands is just fantastic, right?

Who is it that said instead of manufacturing products to meet needs, we're not manufacturing needs to meet products? I don't remember who it was, but it's completely true. The thing is that there's 20 different brands of just about every product out there. Who needs to choose between 20 different brands of toilet paper? If you really don't see a problem with that, then you're an idiot.

[wtfm8lol]

If you really don't see a problem with that, then you're an idiot.

"that" being forcing people to use the same brand regardless of what they want because you can't accept that people are different and two different people might want to use different minor variations of the same product? i agree.

[Phalanx]

Who is it that said instead of manufacturing products to meet needs, we're not manufacturing needs to meet products? I don't remember who it was, but it's completely true. The thing is that there's 20 different brands of just about every product out there. Who needs to choose between 20 different brands of toilet paper?

Again, how are you going to decide the needs of some and the needs of others? If I like product A, but 51% of the community doesn't, and it gets voted down, 49% of the community and I are without the product we like, just because the community told us we didn't need it.

[Rawthentic]

Again, how are you going to decide the needs of some and the needs of others? If I like product A, but 51% of the community doesn't, and it gets voted down, 49% of the community and I are without the product we like, just because the community told us we didn't need it.
Its called democracy; majority rules. Your scenarios are useless.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:28 pm

Who is it that said instead of manufacturing products to meet needs, we're not manufacturing needs to meet products? I don't remember who it was, but it's completely true. The thing is that there's 20 different brands of just about every product out there. Who needs to choose between 20 different brands of toilet paper?

Again, how are you going to decide the needs of some and the needs of others? If I like product A, but 51% of the community doesn't, and it gets voted down, 49% of the community and I are without the product we like, just because the community told us we didn't need it.
I would rather a system in which a 51-49 vote between two products results in a 51-49% ratio of production of product A to production of product B (relative to the average amount consumed by an average person, of course).

[Phalanx]

Its called democracy; majority rules. Your scenarios are useless.

I prefer the system that provides the goods and services that people expect.

[wtfm8lol]

I would rather a system in which a 51-49 vote between two products results in a 51-49% ratio of production of product A to production of product B (relative to the average amount consumed by an average person, of course).

and if there are multiple options, several of which receive less than a percent of the vote?

[RNK]

Man, having no choice in brands is just fantastic, right?

You're an idiot, and this proves your complete lack of knowledge about socialism. Please don't make another post until you've learned what communism actually is.


if you truly produced it yourself you wouldn't have to buy it.

How many people do you know can afford the material and tools to build a car? Or a house? Or their own electric power plant? Or their own water purification plant?


"that" being forcing people to use the same brand regardless of what they want because you can't accept that people are different and two different people might want to use different minor variations of the same product? i agree.

I've come to the conclusion that you're being stupid on purpose. You've been here long enough, and had it explained to you enough times, that you should know that there will be no such thing as the "same brand" of any product. Every factory can manufacture their products however they see fit. For instance, during World War Two, the production of T-34 tanks was split up between many different factories, who each produced the T-34 as they saw fit. Some used dovetail welding, some rivetting, some a combination; some used one type of engine or another, or used wooden wheel rims instead of rubber or metal. The point is, "brands" will exist just as much, if not more, than they do now, as every factory will probably have its own way of producing things; some may take an hour to make a pair of shoes, others may take 3 hours and produce a higher-quality shoe; in the end, that difference in production time will determine the value of that shoe.


Again, how are you going to decide the needs of some and the needs of others? If I like product A, but 51% of the community doesn't, and it gets voted down, 49% of the community and I are without the product we like, just because the community told us we didn't need it.

You're thinking in terms of representative democracy, ie, "first past the post", ie, "whoever gets the most wins ALL". This is a failed way of doing things. Another similar analogy would be having a council made up of 9 wolves and 1 sheep decide what to have for dinner. In the end, the needs of those 49% are not ignored; socialism is by no means inhumane, and will always provide for the needs of the minority, so long as they don't infringe on the needs for the majority. In any case, if you don't like it, hey, guess what! You'll be able to voice your opinion on the matter, if it ever came down to it. Maybe change a few minds, maybe become an activist in your community to change peoples' perceptions.


I prefer the system that provides the goods and services that people expect.

Idiocy.


and if there are multiple options, several of which receive less than a percent of the vote?

I doubt a community will vote against a number of people having access to something they need.

You're going to have to be more elaborative on your examples if you want a full answer. If someone wants to pass a motion legalizing murder, are you saying that he should be allowed to murder, simply because he wants it for himself?

[wtfm8lol]

How many people do you know can afford the material and tools to build a car? Or a house? Or their own electric power plant? Or their own water purification plant?

a couple. but that has nothing to do with what i said.

[R_P_A_S]

what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.

[Lark]

I think self-interest and social conscience will motivate people, pretty much as it does now.

In a more indepth way success in performing in social relationships will dictate happiness and motivate, as it always has done, we're a group living species, evolution has given us innate traits from birth for that very purpose and successful nurturing only develops these traits further.

If you're interested in this topic I'd recommend Bowlby, Winnicott, Howe and their findings on attachment theory and individual and family development, besides Seligman's theories about learned optimism, its probably the greatest description of the formation of internal models of thought, behaviour, affect (emotion).

I dont believe that everyone will get equal shares in any alternative to capitalism, issues like optimal allocation of scare resources wont go away with capitalism, we're as close to super abundance as we are going to get, I believe, and I'm not sure its sustainable how it is.

[luxemburg89]

If you're interested in this topic I'd recommend Bowlby, Winnicott, Howe and their findings on attachment theory

You are an idiot if you believe Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis. Hodges and Tizard found that it was utter rubbish in their study into the development of children in privation.

DON'T READ BOWLBY'S THEORY IT IS UTTER SHIT - HE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED BY ALMOST EVERY MAJOR THEORIST IN ATTACHMENT THEORY.

Look up Ainsworth's strange situation and Hodges and Tizard for intelligent, cohesive and accurate findings.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:27 pm
what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.
I dont think you need to talk to anyone like that, I really dont think you're going to persuade anyone like that and you're making extremely poor show for your own political positions. That's hardly any kind of example of a pro-social attitude, it's basic, you should be the change you want to see in the world and it seems like you're all about the hating.

Answer me this, how are people to create a classless society if, as you say, they will be more class conscious? If people are going to preserve a revolution do you think that society is static?

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:01 am

If you're interested in this topic I'd recommend Bowlby, Winnicott, Howe and their findings on attachment theory

You are an idiot if you believe Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis. Hodges and Tizard found that it was utter rubbish in their study into the development of children in privation.

DON'T READ BOWLBY'S THEORY IT IS UTTER SHIT - HE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED BY ALMOST EVERY MAJOR THEORIST IN ATTACHMENT THEORY.

Look up Ainsworth's strange situation and Hodges and Tizard for intelligent, cohesive and accurate findings.
I was thinking along the lines of The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds or The Secure Base, which are available from Routledge Classics and have aged better than some of his other ideas, though if you look at what I posted you'll see that I mentioned David Howe, he's the latest of the attachment theorists or writers on the topic.

I'm not exactly sure why or how theorists would discredit Bowlby and remain attachment theorists, he was the originator of the trend of thought but no ideas remain static if that's what you mean.

[luxemburg89]

Lark, mate, we aren't in favour of loving all society - yes we feel anger and hate, towards the bourgeoisie - R_P_A_S was merely suggesting that the bourgeois members of this site fuck off, which, as a 'supposed' leftist, you should probably be in favour of.

[luxemburg89]

I'm not exactly sure why or how theorists would discredit Bowlby and remain attachment theorists, he was the originator of the trend of thought but no ideas remain static if that's what you mean.

No, he was not, he developed one theory, you can infact trace the idea of attachment theory back to Freud, an equally idiotic, egocentric (lol) twat, psychodynamism (his attachment theory) has proven to be utter rubbish, even if psychoanalysis can continue to be used.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:06 am
Lark, mate, we aren't in favour of loving all society - yes we feel anger and hate, towards the bourgeoisie - R_P_A_S was merely suggesting that the bourgeois members of this site fuck off, which, as a 'supposed' leftist, you should probably be in favour of.
I dont think you should address me as mate when you neither know me, nor do I detect any especial affinity feeling in your post. Otherwise you're just trivialising language.

I'm not sure why I should be in favour of anyone fucking off, unless they have personally insulted me and given me a cause of grievance, I dont think hatred serves any great purpose and I dont hate on anyone when economics and politics are supposed to be about institutions and social relations for the larger part rather than individuals.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:10 am

I'm not exactly sure why or how theorists would discredit Bowlby and remain attachment theorists, he was the originator of the trend of thought but no ideas remain static if that's what you mean.

No, he was not, he developed one theory, you can infact trace the idea of attachment theory back to Freud, an equally idiotic, egocentric (lol) twat, psychodynamism (his attachment theory) has proven to be utter rubbish, even if psychoanalysis can continue to be used.
How was psycho-dynamism proved to be utter rubbish? I'm sorry, there are a lot of things in Frued which have been disproved but pretty much the ideas of conscious and unconconscious and psycho-dynamism are intact and respected.

The tripartite division of consciousness into Id, Ego and Super-ego is contested, there are alternatives, like transactional analysis but they all assume dynamism, basic "mind-mindedness", development of cognition and affect regulation is a sign of psycho-dynamism surely.

You're right that Bowlby developed concepts within Freudian analysis or rather psycho-analysis, The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds is all about that but he stressed the need to move the whole study and practice onto a more testable and scientific basis, introducing ideas from ethology (spelling), which had previous studied the interaction of learning, conditioning and innateness in animals, the strange situation study that you mentioned follows on from experimental psychological studies of monkeys responses to wire parents and stuff like that.

In fact the whole of The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds is about suggestions for further research and development, he wasnt dogmatic about his theories like Freud was.

You're making some pretty sweeping statements, this is pretty off topic too, if you'd like to create a thread instead I'd be happy to read it, I'm assuming that you prefer cognitive, behaviour or cognitive-behavioural theories to psycho-dynamics if you think its all nonsense.

[La Comédie Noire]

What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?

Well first let's talk about what Marx defined as Alienation.

In a Capitalist Society the worker "works to live". He has no say in what he produces or how he goes about it. Neither does he receive the full value of his labor at the end of the work week anyway, only enough to keep him standing. Thus he is alienated from his labor. It has lost all "charm" he has no passion because it is not his own. How much he Improves his life really depends on how much of a market there is in improving it.

Now as some kind sir said in the first couple of posts, a worker, in a Socialist economy will have "equal stake" in the production of goods. He will get to decide what he surrounds himself with and how he goes about making it. He will have the incentive to make innovation simply because the choice is his, and because it will not only further the condition of society, but also the condition of his own life.

Did the painters, inventors, thinkers, and innovators of past epochs simply stop furthering their own society simply because they did not receive some sort of monetary reward? Hell no!

If you were a doctor would you stop developing a cure for cancer just because you did not receive privelage over your fellow human being for doing so? Remeber where there is privelage there are those without.

You are full of false conciousness my friend.

[luxemburg89]

hey you're the one that started going off on a tangent - i was merely putting you on the right path. No I don't want to waste my time denouncing Freud I have to do that enough in my lessons and no one here wants to waste their time reading it, except you and you seem to know more than enough on the subject anyway, so no.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Lark+June 02, 2007 12:27 am--> (Lark @ June 02, 2007 12:27 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 12:20 am

I dont think you should address me as mate when you neither know me, nor do I detect any especial affinity feeling in your post. Otherwise you're just trivialising language.


Fair enough, I'll just call you **** in future.
And people wonder why socialism isnt popular. [/b]
Now theres a sweeping statement.

[luxemburg89]

And people wonder why socialism isnt popular.

No, this is merely an example of why you aren't popular with us and I'm not popular with you lot.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:26 am
hey you're the one that started going off on a tangent - i was merely putting you on the right path. No I don't want to waste my time denouncing Freud I have to do that enough in my lessons and no one here wants to waste their time reading it, except you and you seem to know more than enough on the subject anyway, so no.
You'd need to know the right path to put me on it.

I didnt start off on any tangent and I wasnt criticising you when I said it was off topic, its just that if you wish to discuss those things posting a thread about it might attract more people who are specifically interested in it to the discussion. There could be someone who's really keen on that topic but wouldnt think it would feature in a thread with this title and they'd over look it.

You never know there could well be people interested in Freud, I think he's at least as important a theorist as Marx, as influential and if you consider Weber's idea that culture or ideology is as important a factor in determining an economy as material factors like scarcity ideas like Freud's can seem pretty important.

[luxemburg89]

Yeah but people don't wanna read my opinions on Freud

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:29 am

And people wonder why socialism isnt popular.

No, this is merely an example of why you aren't popular with us and I'm not popular with you lot.
Like I said before, and the two of you are free to take it on board, you should really be the change you want to see in the world otherwise you're a complete hypocrite.

If you'd like to see a world were pro-social behaviour is the norm I very much doubt you reach that by being as unsocial or anti-social as you like.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:35 am
Yeah but people don't wanna read my opinions on Freud
Yeah, you'll only really be able to gauge that if you post a thread but its up to you.

I think Trotsky is an evil scum bag BTW.

[luxemburg89]

hehe, well Trotsky wouldn't think much of you either. Yet again we are concerning ourselves with private matters. The question in hand, that is what motivates people under communism, well ideally it would be working for the good of common workers. We have to work on that basis.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:40 am
hehe, well Trotsky wouldn't think much of you either. Yet again we are concerning ourselves with private matters. The question in hand, that is what motivates people under communism, well ideally it would be working for the good of common workers. We have to work on that basis.
Private matters? I dont understand, however if you mean its off topic you're right, Trotsky probably would deserve a thread the same as Freud.

I dont believe that altruism or gift relationships can be a complete substitute for self-interest in pursuing the welfare or good of each and all.

Adam Smith would have accepted that altruism and gift relationships were very important, he did so in a book about Sentiment but ultimately he concluded that it wasnt because of the good of their heart or altruism that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker worked to meet his needs.

The early Quakers and religious supported capitalism because it was a social system, requiring co-operation and contract, than previous systems.

Marx accepted self-interest too and pretty much eulogises capitalism in contrast to pastoral socialism in the communist manifesto.

[luxemburg89]

I meant that discussing private matters (as in trading insults and our own opinion) was not related to the discussion in hand. I am not disguarding personal interests, rather those interests that are at the expense of the rest of society.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:54 am
I meant that discussing private matters (as in trading insults and our own opinion) was not related to the discussion in hand. I am not disguarding personal interests, rather those interests that are at the expense of the rest of society.
Oh right OK.

I would probably agree with that POV but Marx would have dismissed it as "bourgousie cantor", both Marx and Engels didnt think very much of political concepts like society or equality and maybe woulnt even have balked at Thatcher saying "There's no such thing as society, just individuals and their families".

I do think social conscience counts for something, I do think altruism and gift relationships are important too but I think they've pretty much been tested to their limits already.

[luxemburg89]

This is gonna be a fair question (and try not to include Marx and Engels in favour of your arguments you have displayed enough crap tonight to show you reject them).

Right don't flip or get angry but what are you actually doing on this site?

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:05 am
This is gonna be a fair question (and try not to include Marx and Engels in favour of your arguments you have displayed enough crap tonight to show you reject them).

Right don't flip or get angry but what are you actually doing on this site?
Why do you find me threatening? Dont fit into any of your clearly demarcated categories?

How do you know what I think about either Marx or Engels? It never came up and you're making ASSumptions again, I think that Engels was easily the better writer and probably the better theorist too, the latest Penguin classics copy of the communist manifesto with the good introduction has a chapter about him and I've got an out of print collected works which is easily better than Marx, with the possible exception of some of Marx's journalism.

I like what the social psychologist Eric Fromm has to say about Marx and enlightenment humanism but that's it pretty much, have you read Marx?

The Communist Manifesto is in part a homage to capitalism, he thought it was far superior to the agrarian or pastoral societies that a lot of socialists in his day supported, he thought it was much more modern and could maximise production but like Smith, Ricardo and a lot of the classical economists he thought it would self-destruct.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by Lark+June 02, 2007 01:33 am--> (Lark @ June 02, 2007 01:33 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:05 am
This is gonna be a fair question (and try not to include Marx and Engels in favour of your arguments you have displayed enough crap tonight to show you reject them).

Right don't flip or get angry but what are you actually doing on this site?
Why do you find me threatening? Dont fit into any of your clearly demarcated categories?

How do you know what I think about either Marx or Engels? It never came up and you're making ASSumptions again, I think that Engels was easily the better writer and probably the better theorist too, the latest Penguin classics copy of the communist manifesto with the good introduction has a chapter about him and I've got an out of print collected works which is easily better than Marx, with the possible exception of some of Marx's journalism.

I like what the social psychologist Eric Fromm has to say about Marx and enlightenment humanism but that's it pretty much, have you read Marx?

The Communist Manifesto is in part a homage to capitalism, he thought it was far superior to the agrarian or pastoral societies that a lot of socialists in his day supported, he thought it was much more modern and could maximise production but like Smith, Ricardo and a lot of the classical economists he thought it would self-destruct. [/b]
Ok here we go:

1. I was getting at that you suggested it, and also a favourability of Thatcher over Lenin indicates you are by no means a Marxist.
2. Of course I've read Marx - I couldn't call myself a Marxist without reading it.
3. Capitalism is a better political situation than Feudalism, but Socialism, in Marxist thought, is greater than both.
4. I'm not threatened by you Lark, I'm tired and I really don't want a personal argument with you, I would rather deal with this politically at this time of night, well morning now.
5. Marx is full of the imagery and Romanticism that attracts me to the cause - the Communist Manifesto is poetic, and I consider myself something of a Romantic so I favour Marx but obviously Engels is great too.
6. Capitalism, particularly Lenin's 'State Capitalism' can be considered the stopping-off point of the historical stages. Now that is a statement not an opinion. My opinion is that Capitalism is oppressing those who work for its survival - the workers, and giving barely nothing back to them in return, and that must be overthrown

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 01, 2007 07:25 pm

What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?

Well first let's talk about what Marx defined as Alienation.

In a Capitalist Society the worker "works to live". He has no say in what he produces or how he goes about it. Neither does he receive the full value of his labor at the end of the work week anyway, only enough to keep him standing. Thus he is alienated from his labor. It has lost all "charm" he has no passion because it is not his own. How much he Improves his life really depends on how much of a market there is in improving it.

Now as some kind sir said in the first couple of posts, a worker, in a Socialist economy will have "equal stake" in the production of goods. He will get to decide what he surrounds himself with and how he goes about making it. He will have the incentive to make innovation simply because the choice is his, and because it will not only further the condition of society, but also the condition of his own life.

Did the painters, inventors, thinkers, and innovators of past epochs simply stop furthering their own society simply because they did not receive some sort of monetary reward? Hell no!

If you were a doctor would you stop developing a cure for cancer just because you did not receive privelage over your fellow human being for doing so? Remeber where there is privelage there are those without.

You are full of false conciousness my friend.

Let's say it is so that a worker directly, through some sort of vote, gets to choose his working environment, how he goes about producing, his innovations ect.

Who cares?

What is the purpose of socialism? Is it equitably as possible distribute goods? Or is it to give people control of their jobs? The two goals are often at odds.

Why should the worker be setting the terms of production? Why should society cater to them? Is it not more rational that the person who wishes a particular product set those terms, and the worker has to respond? Why should the fellow in the computer factory decide how many computers are available for consumption, what they look like, how they perform ect. What sense is that?

[Lark]

1. I was getting at that you suggested it, and also a favourability of Thatcher over Lenin indicates you are by no means a Marxist.


Marx wasnt a marxist either or at least he told Engels.

Now dont deliberately misconstrue any statement I said about Thatcher, I could as easily have said better Satan than Lenin, would you be seriously debating whether I'm a satanist if I'd said that?


2. Of course I've read Marx - I couldn't call myself a Marxist without reading it.


You'd be surprised.


3. Capitalism is a better political situation than Feudalism, but Socialism, in Marxist thought, is greater than both.


You could be crystal ball gazing there you know, in fact Marx was critical of anyone drawing conclusions like that, apart from one or two really utopian passages were he said that people should be able to fish in the morning, write in the evening and work in a factory at night or something to that effect.


4. I'm not threatened by you Lark, I'm tired and I really don't want a personal argument with you, I would rather deal with this politically at this time of night, well morning now.


Well, it seemed like you were inviting me to leave.


5. Marx is full of the imagery and Romanticism that attracts me to the cause - the Communist Manifesto is poetic, and I consider myself something of a Romantic so I favour Marx but obviously Engels is great too.


I take your point, Marx styled himself on Goethe or Balzac.


6. Capitalism, particularly Lenin's 'State Capitalism' can be considered the stopping-off point of the historical stages. Now that is a statement not an opinion. My opinion is that Capitalism is oppressing those who work for its survival - the workers, and giving barely nothing back to them in return, and that must be overthrown

Not altogether sure what you're getting at here but I'm sure you'll elaborate at some stage, talk to you again some time. Cheers.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:27 pm
what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.
Certainly. The new socialist man will rise up after the old reactionaries die off, and old thinking ends. A whole new society will exist, and people will think the correct ways. Such was the hope and dream of the International Socialists (ie. Stalin) and the National Socialists (ie Hitler). Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares.

[Rawthentic]

This is the type of ignorance you parasites come up with.

Hitler was a fascist, you goddam imbecile, you're not even worth the time.


Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares.
Do poor people steal because they are hungry or because they are naturally greedy?
That oughtta answer you idiocy.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Lark+June 02, 2007 12:02 am--> (Lark @ June 02, 2007 12:02 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 11:27 pm
what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.
I dont think you need to talk to anyone like that, I really dont think you're going to persuade anyone like that and you're making extremely poor show for your own political positions. That's hardly any kind of example of a pro-social attitude, it's basic, you should be the change you want to see in the world and it seems like you're all about the hating.

Answer me this, how are people to create a classless society if, as you say, they will be more class conscious? If people are going to preserve a revolution do you think that society is static? [/b]
normally I don't talk like that., I mean is just frustration. why?
Because I don't think the comments and attacks on communism are well thought out.
just a bunch of random pessimistic rants.

And depending on my mood at the time.

and about your question. I dont. im still trying to understand many things. :unsure:

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 02, 2007 02:10 am--> (ZX3 @ June 02, 2007 02:10 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 06:27 pm
what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.
Certainly. The new socialist man will rise up after the old reactionaries die off, and old thinking ends. A whole new society will exist, and people will think the correct ways. Such was the hope and dream of the International Socialists (ie. Stalin) and the National Socialists (ie Hitler). Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares. [/b]
oh please.. fucking spare me bro. Stalin? Hitler??

Stalin was an international socialist? are you fucking kidding me... fuck stalin and first of all he was not an Internationalist... "socialism in ONE COUNTRY" ring a bell?

and dont fucking even TRY to align Hitler with any of us. or socialism. just because his party bear the name does not mean he was one.

weak attempt. very weak.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think I posted on this thread already but I'll post again if I didn't. People are motivated in the socialist and communist system by the fact everything they do, everything they produce collectively makes the masses wealthier also by the fact that they are actually rewarded for making society work unlike in capitalism where the rich just get richer for doing less while the workers just get poorer for doing more. Instead in socialism, you are garunteed the rights of a human, you are treated like a human not like a piece of trash in the way the capitalist system degrades workers to. Also, because you are no longer a wage-slave, you do your job not because you need cash now to feed your kids and pay the rent or mortage or w/e but because it is something liberating to do. You'll also have more opportunities. This will create a break down in the contradictions between mental and manual labor resulting in the equalization of all work in the long term. People are not naturally lazy. See its the system that instills its values into the people not the other way around, at least in this system. In a society which promotes rampant consumerism and a "get rich or die tryin'" mentality, of course you're going to have people looking out for themselves, not givin a shit about community or their class or a better world just getting payed in whatever way possible: even if it means that crime becomes perfectly rational. Socialism promotes a sense of collective interests of "we're all in this together to make the world better" you're going to see the exact opposite results from this type of mentality being promoted day-in-day-out to the masses.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 01, 2007 10:04 pm
This is the type of ignorance you parasites come up with.

Hitler was a fascist, you goddam imbecile, you're not even worth the time.


Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares.
Do poor people steal because they are hungry or because they are naturally greedy?
That oughtta answer you idiocy.
The simple, undeniable fact is that the National Socialists insisted that as a result of their victory, a new better, human being would emerge.

You make the same argument.

Fascism and Communism are simply different sides of the same coin.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+June 01, 2007 10:55 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ June 01, 2007 10:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:10 am

[email protected] 01, 2007 06:27 pm
what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.
Certainly. The new socialist man will rise up after the old reactionaries die off, and old thinking ends. A whole new society will exist, and people will think the correct ways. Such was the hope and dream of the International Socialists (ie. Stalin) and the National Socialists (ie Hitler). Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares.
oh please.. fucking spare me bro. Stalin? Hitler??

Stalin was an international socialist? are you fucking kidding me... fuck stalin and first of all he was not an Internationalist... "socialism in ONE COUNTRY" ring a bell?

and dont fucking even TRY to align Hitler with any of us. or socialism. just because his party bear the name does not mean he was one.

weak attempt. very weak. [/b]
No. Simply pointing out that the National Socialists and Communists are simply different sides of the same coin.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 02, 2007 04:21 am--> (ZX3 @ June 02, 2007 04:21 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:55 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:10 am

[email protected] 01, 2007 06:27 pm
what some of you cap fucks don't understand is that this society will emerge after a couple generations. so obviously people wouldn't be so shit face and ignorant like you. It would be a far more class conscious population that would live and work to preserve their revolution.

i hate to use Cuba as an example because we all know they aren't socialist. but is the closes ting we got...sorta. look at how different this new generation of Cubans is? look how much more people support their revolution. now more than ever.

so fuck off.
Certainly. The new socialist man will rise up after the old reactionaries die off, and old thinking ends. A whole new society will exist, and people will think the correct ways. Such was the hope and dream of the International Socialists (ie. Stalin) and the National Socialists (ie Hitler). Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares.
oh please.. fucking spare me bro. Stalin? Hitler??

Stalin was an international socialist? are you fucking kidding me... fuck stalin and first of all he was not an Internationalist... "socialism in ONE COUNTRY" ring a bell?

and dont fucking even TRY to align Hitler with any of us. or socialism. just because his party bear the name does not mean he was one.

weak attempt. very weak.
No. Simply pointing out that the National Socialists and Communists are simply different sides of the same coin. [/b]
ok?

well i dont get why you guys like to come down on us so fucking hard for wanting to have a fair society and a true democracy.

[La Comédie Noire]

Since everyone seems to be in a mood to lob obscenity s at one another I shall take it into my own hands to add to the discussion.(no offense to anyone in particular)

http://history.eserver.org/fighting-fascism/


oh and ZX3 did you reply to my initial post? I seem to have lost it in the scrimmage

[red team]

What motivates people to work harder or to come up with new innovative ideas or products?

Afterall, everyone will get the same as everyone else no matter how hard they work?

What motivated the great philosopher Rene Discartes to write his great works?

He died relatively poor, but without him the scientific method as we know it now would not be possible.


If person A is capable of cleaning 10 toilets but is only required to clean 6 to receive his share, he is asking what motivates him to clean 10 toilets instead of 6.

Something wrong with the toilet design.
...
Oh look, a self-cleaning toilet!


Not necessarily inventing new products, but the motivation to try harder. The economy would become stagnant because the absolute lack of motivation. If conditions wouldn't improve considerably for a janitor, he wouldn't try to become part of the assembly line. Very few janitors will approach their work as an art.

Why are there no elevator operators anymore?
...
Why are there no janitors anymore?

[luxemburg89]

The simple, undeniable fact is that the National Socialists insisted that as a result of their victory, a new better, human being would emerge.

You make the same argument.

Fascism and Communism are simply different sides of the same coin.

*sigh* Ok, you are an idiot. Hitler planned the extermination of races to create a world for the aryan race, which was supposedly superior. We believe the opposite, that no 'race' is above another, we encompass all nationalities in our struggle. One could say that the difference between us, and certainly not the only one, is that Fascists concern themselves with racial issues, and we concern ourselves with class issues.
Another difference is that fascism is generally supported by the upper-middle class, and the aristocracy - our ideological enemies. It proposes that there should be a military dictatorship whereas we want a dictatorship of the proletariat - that is a state run by the workers. I know this may not have been realised in so called 'socialist' states past and present, certainly not to the extent to which the instigators of such revolutions wanted. Fascism is a step backwards, almost a slip into Feudalism, whereas we want to go forward into socialism.
We do not argue better human beings would emerge, we argue a better system would emerge, and hopefully a better world as a result. We want a society run by those who work hardest to maintain it, and, as yet, have received the least for their hard work. Fascism proposes that everything should be gained by those who are 'privaleged' - that is the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. We want to do away with all of that. The Anarchists on the site would probably argue a different system and a different method.
With regard to Communism, the parallels with fascism can only be drawn in two ways. 1. Stalin - political methods and theory are not too different to Hitler ('Socialism in one country' vs National Socialism), but was rarely concerned with Racial issues compared to Hitler 2. Pol Pot - murdering bastard. HOWEVER to view these two in this way you must consider this: We do not preach any love for either of them, nor do we support their repressive actions, rather the opposite, you'll find a lot of hate for Stalinists on this site, and by attacking Stalinists you are not attacking us, and so we should feel no guilt or pain in your insults

Lot's of love, Lux :D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:27 pm
ok?

well i dont get why you guys like to come down on us so fucking hard for wanting to have a fair society and a true democracy.
Because the OIers do not believe that those noble ends can be reached by the means which socialists propose.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 02, 2007 02:35 am


If person A is capable of cleaning 10 toilets but is only required to clean 6 to receive his share, he is asking what motivates him to clean 10 toilets instead of 6.

Something wrong with the toilet design.
...
Oh look, a self-cleaning toilet!


Not necessarily inventing new products, but the motivation to try harder. The economy would become stagnant because the absolute lack of motivation. If conditions wouldn't improve considerably for a janitor, he wouldn't try to become part of the assembly line. Very few janitors will approach their work as an art.

Why are there no elevator operators anymore?
...
Why are there no janitors anymore?
Sure, technological advance is a good thing. Is it better to have a self-cleaning toilet versus deploying labor to clean them? Absolutely.

But such production does not just come about. Sure, the community can marshall its resources to mass producing such products, but it would need to a system to determine whether THAT effort is worth the effort (because the entire community cannot be deployed to creating and producing self-cleaning toilets. Other things still need to be done, which means labor and other resources still need to be deployed in those other areas, and which means could be effected if the efforts were for the toilets).

But in any event, self-cleaning toilets will come about as a result of capitalist economic calculation, not socialist economic economic calculation, when the costs of such commodes are less than the costs of deploying labor to clean 'em.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:22 am

The simple, undeniable fact is that the National Socialists insisted that as a result of their victory, a new better, human being would emerge.

You make the same argument.

Fascism and Communism are simply different sides of the same coin.

*sigh* Ok, you are an idiot. Hitler planned the extermination of races to create a world for the aryan race, which was supposedly superior. We believe the opposite, that no 'race' is above another, we encompass all nationalities in our struggle. One could say that the difference between us, and certainly not the only one, is that Fascists concern themselves with racial issues, and we concern ourselves with class issues.
Another difference is that fascism is generally supported by the upper-middle class, and the aristocracy - our ideological enemies. It proposes that there should be a military dictatorship whereas we want a dictatorship of the proletariat - that is a state run by the workers. I know this may not have been realised in so called 'socialist' states past and present, certainly not to the extent to which the instigators of such revolutions wanted. Fascism is a step backwards, almost a slip into Feudalism, whereas we want to go forward into socialism.
We do not argue better human beings would emerge, we argue a better system would emerge, and hopefully a better world as a result. We want a society run by those who work hardest to maintain it, and, as yet, have received the least for their hard work. Fascism proposes that everything should be gained by those who are 'privaleged' - that is the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. We want to do away with all of that. The Anarchists on the site would probably argue a different system and a different method.
With regard to Communism, the parallels with fascism can only be drawn in two ways. 1. Stalin - political methods and theory are not too different to Hitler ('Socialism in one country' vs National Socialism), but was rarely concerned with Racial issues compared to Hitler 2. Pol Pot - murdering bastard. HOWEVER to view these two in this way you must consider this: We do not preach any love for either of them, nor do we support their repressive actions, rather the opposite, you'll find a lot of hate for Stalinists on this site, and by attacking Stalinists you are not attacking us, and so we should feel no guilt or pain in your insults

Lot's of love, Lux :D
It was RPAS who declared that a new human would result from the victory of socialism, not me. I should probably have pointed out that such a by a socialist claim seems to come about as the result of a dodge of the issues: Since society will be so different in a socialist community, the criticisms of it launched by OIers are irrelevent since people will act and think differently. in this socialist community. The criticisms are therefore useless. One theme one often runs into here by revlefters is that humanity is not yet ready for socialism; that we have not yet progressed far enough in social organisation, thinking and beliefs.

Of course, such a claim itself requires proof and explanation (does society need to change first in order to support socialism, or can socialism change society in order to support itself?).

My comment with respects to National Socialism observed that RPAS's claims are not new, novel or untried. The nazis, and communists, both argued that humanity would change as a result of their victory. Both were proven wrong, and with disaterous results for humanity.

I would deny your characterisations of fascism. I would also completely agree that not all socialists are stalinists, and most hereabouts would condemn the man and the system.

I would further add, from my perspective, that the Stalinists would insist they are the real socialists and theirs is the way to go. As an OIer, I have no particular reason, with all due respect, to accept your characterisation of socialism over that of the Stalinists. Or for that matter, to accept yours over the National Socialists, who after all, always insisted they were socialists. In other words, that socialists quarrel amongst themselves over socialism, even here amongst non-stalinists, means socialists themselves do not agee over the center point of socialism. As an OIer, I should not have to accept one socialist claims as being a "true" socialist over the claims of someone else making the same claim that he or she is the "true" socialist.

And I never have.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:22 am

The simple, undeniable fact is that the National Socialists insisted that as a result of their victory, a new better, human being would emerge.

You make the same argument.

Fascism and Communism are simply different sides of the same coin.

*sigh* Ok, you are an idiot. Hitler planned the extermination of races to create a world for the aryan race, which was supposedly superior. We believe the opposite, that no 'race' is above another, we encompass all nationalities in our struggle. One could say that the difference between us, and certainly not the only one, is that Fascists concern themselves with racial issues, and we concern ourselves with class issues.
Another difference is that fascism is generally supported by the upper-middle class, and the aristocracy - our ideological enemies. It proposes that there should be a military dictatorship whereas we want a dictatorship of the proletariat - that is a state run by the workers. I know this may not have been realised in so called 'socialist' states past and present, certainly not to the extent to which the instigators of such revolutions wanted. Fascism is a step backwards, almost a slip into Feudalism, whereas we want to go forward into socialism.
We do not argue better human beings would emerge, we argue a better system would emerge, and hopefully a better world as a result. We want a society run by those who work hardest to maintain it, and, as yet, have received the least for their hard work. Fascism proposes that everything should be gained by those who are 'privaleged' - that is the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. We want to do away with all of that. The Anarchists on the site would probably argue a different system and a different method.
With regard to Communism, the parallels with fascism can only be drawn in two ways. 1. Stalin - political methods and theory are not too different to Hitler ('Socialism in one country' vs National Socialism), but was rarely concerned with Racial issues compared to Hitler 2. Pol Pot - murdering bastard. HOWEVER to view these two in this way you must consider this: We do not preach any love for either of them, nor do we support their repressive actions, rather the opposite, you'll find a lot of hate for Stalinists on this site, and by attacking Stalinists you are not attacking us, and so we should feel no guilt or pain in your insults

Lot's of love, Lux :D
<.<...I hate to do this, but he brings up a good point. Just because &#39;we&#39; think we&#39;re right doesn&#39;t mean we are. "Pure" Communism(whatever form ya&#39; want) could be the worst thing to ever happen to Humanity as we know it, or it could be the best.

One must always question their beliefs, and why one *really* believes them.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 02, 2007 04:20 am--> (ZX3 @ June 02, 2007 04:20 am)
Voz de la Gente [email protected] 01, 2007 10:04 pm
This is the type of ignorance you parasites come up with.

Hitler was a fascist, you goddam imbecile, you&#39;re not even worth the time.


Somehow in practice such dreams have been demonstrated to be nightmares.
Do poor people steal because they are hungry or because they are naturally greedy?
That oughtta answer you idiocy.
The simple, undeniable fact is that the National Socialists insisted that as a result of their victory, a new better, human being would emerge.

You make the same argument.

Fascism and Communism are simply different sides of the same coin. [/b]
no he said that the German blooded man is the most advanced in the world. Capitalist and Imperialist countries say that today. Socialists and Communists are Internationalists so don&#39;t suscribe to such nonsense


Stalin was an international socialist? are you fucking kidding me... fuck stalin and first of all he was not an Internationalist... "socialism in ONE COUNTRY" ring a bell?

try reading up on what socialism in one country actually was before you make stupid comments like this. Stalin aided the revolution all over Eastern Europe, In the China, North Korea, and so called "Stalinists" like Mao have done the same in Vietnam, All over Africa, and in North Korea again. So yeah don&#39;t be full of shit please, thank you. All Socialism in One Country advocated was that a country like the Soviet Union COULD build socialism and couldn&#39;t stay in defeatist State Capitalism like the trotskyists wanted to have until the west caught up. All Socialism in One Country meant was that instead of continuing state capitalist policies of Bukharin and Trotsky, the Soviet Union would push forward and do what had never been done in history before, give the land to the people, collectivize all land and make all property publicly controlled


Pol Pot - murdering bastard.

no Pol Pot was just a dumb Neo-Jeffersonian Agarianista . Despite this I think its funny all the shit that he gets flung at him in the name of communism considering that he never considered himself a communist just a left nationalist turning to wherver he could for aid. Also Cambodia&#39;s infrastructure had been completely destroyed from US bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail. Cities were cut off from the markets providing them with food. The US estimated that whoever came into power no matter what: there would be a million casualties from the bombings.


Stalin - political methods and theory are not too different to Hitler

other than that they were polar opposites.

[luxemburg89]

Nietzsche - and I hate to call you that because you aren&#39;t him (no offence or anything) - I have said earlier that to question our beliefs is important - but I firmly believe I have chosen the right ideology for the future of mankind.

Right ZX3, your post was polite and not at all pretencious, and so I will respond in the same manner. I do hope you understand that &#39;National Socialism&#39; was just a name to attract all kinds of people the party - they were fascists through and through. &#39;National Socialism&#39; - or &#39;Socialism in one country&#39; seems, to us, exclusive of the world-wide struggle, and Stalin and Hitler&#39;s theory reject the Marxist proposal of the struggle of one worker in one country is the struggle of all workers in every country. Trotsky&#39;s &#39;Permanent Revolution&#39; is much closer to Marxist thought. I hope that makes more sense than my earlier post.
I think One major difference between fascism and communism is that a fascist may promise equality (without being interested in it or believing it) and never carry it out - and this goes for Stalinists too - whereas we communists will propose equality and with all our hearts try to carry it out.
I understand you don&#39;t trust my voice over that of a Stalinist but you&#39;re going to have to take my word for it that type of communism being potrayed here - that which rejects Stalin - is the future of Communist beliefs - Stalin and Pol Pot are dead, and long may they remain that way. Stalinist Communism does in fect reject much, no, most of what we actually stand for (whether you believe that or not) and so I take deep, personal offence that my belief should be associated with those two bastards - Hitler and Stalin. I can promise you that we want to prevent a world like 1984 as much as any. If what you want is the death of Stalinism and &#39;National Socialism&#39;, then we fired the first shots.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:00 pm
Nietzsche - and I hate to call you that because you aren&#39;t him (no offence or anything) - I have said earlier that to question our beliefs is important - but I firmly believe I have chosen the right ideology for the future of mankind.

Right ZX3, your post was polite and not at all pretencious, and so I will respond in the same manner. I do hope you understand that &#39;National Socialism&#39; was just a name to attract all kinds of people the party - they were fascists through and through. &#39;National Socialism&#39; - or &#39;Socialism in one country&#39; seems, to us, exclusive of the world-wide struggle, and Stalin and Hitler&#39;s theory reject the Marxist proposal of the struggle of one worker in one country is the struggle of all workers in every country. Trotsky&#39;s &#39;Permanent Revolution&#39; is much closer to Marxist thought. I hope that makes more sense than my earlier post.
I think One major difference between fascism and communism is that a fascist may promise equality (without being interested in it or believing it) and never carry it out - and this goes for Stalinists too - whereas we communists will propose equality and with all our hearts try to carry it out.
I understand you don&#39;t trust my voice over that of a Stalinist but you&#39;re going to have to take my word for it that type of communism being potrayed here - that which rejects Stalin - is the future of Communist beliefs - Stalin and Pol Pot are dead, and long may they remain that way. Stalinist Communism does in fect reject much, no, most of what we actually stand for (whether you believe that or not) and so I take deep, personal offence that my belief should be associated with those two bastards - Hitler and Stalin. I can promise you that we want to prevent a world like 1984 as much as any. If what you want is the death of Stalinism and &#39;National Socialism&#39;, then we fired the first shots.
I am not here of accusing you of being dishonest in what you say. I have no reason to believe that you would not be opposed to a 1984 type of world, and would indeed work against the creation of one. Nor would I dispute that yours is future direction of socialism (those types of issues are for socialists to hash out, and the purpose of the other boards on this site, and I have no interest if whether your views on the matter will win out).

But what I am saying is that just because socialists say "We will do "A," and as a result "B" will occur" does not mean you will be correct. I am also saying that there are reasons why for the failures, thus far, in socialism. And that it has nothing to do with socialists having adopted "stalinism" over some other system in the past. But, to be fair here, I do see no other reasonable, or rational way for socialism to conquer capitalism without employing stalinist means.

With regards to equality: It should be pointed out that the National Socialists were fanatics on promoting equality, within their sphere. All germans were to live under the same laws (regional governments were abolished in favor of a unitary German state ( a situation which had NEVER existed in German history)), speak the same language with the same accent (regional dialects and speech patterns were frowned upon) and were to even be biologically equal (blonde hair, blue eyes) through planned "breeding." That they promoted their drive for equality in a slightly different sphere than other socialists is of little account.

I do agree that social democrats were the first, substantial "anti-communists" in the world, raising the alarm by the mid 20s (even if many of their Russian comrades had joined Lenin). Its part of the reason why I scoff at the proof so often given that the nazis were not socialists because they were "anti-communists."

[luxemburg89]

Its part of the reason why I scoff at the proof so often given that the nazis were not socialists because they were "anti-communists."

Ah I see. We&#39;re dicussing two different types of Socialism. That is parliamentary socialism, and that will always be temporary, whereas we plan for a permanent socialism. The Social Democrats in Germany, and in Britain in the 1980s, were in fact more in line with Liberal Democracy.
I must ask you to consider again, that National Socialism is what it implies. Equality (well not really because hitler was always going to be the main beneficiary of it - the personality cult, where there are also parallels with Stalin) for the Aryan race only whereas we want equality based on all races - we generally want an end to countries, and the discrimination Nationalism and Patriotism can bring. Please remember National Socialism was a lie - it was merely a name to make them seem representative of both sides of the political spectrum. However, I must stress the importance of this, to do anything to aid the advancement of the right - that is the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats, will be at the expense of the workers. The workers suffered much under Hitler (&#39;Strength through Joy&#39; and all that - where they were promised prizes for working hard, yet excuses were always made and they were never received - the working hours and conditions were rediculously poor) yet we, should we succeed in our plight, will always protect the interests of the workers.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

What motivates people under socialism is the same thing that&#39;s supposed to motivate them under capitalism; aggrandizement. The difference is that once you own your tools and place of work, you have a real, rather than a manufactured, incentive to maximize the things you own. Once you have a share of the profits, you have an incentive to maximize production.

Under capitalism, you&#39;re working for somebody else, under socialism you&#39;re working for yourself, and with everybody else. That&#39;s the difference, that&#39;s the motivation.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:39 pm

Its part of the reason why I scoff at the proof so often given that the nazis were not socialists because they were "anti-communists."

Ah I see. We&#39;re dicussing two different types of Socialism. That is parliamentary socialism, and that will always be temporary, whereas we plan for a permanent socialism. The Social Democrats in Germany, and in Britain in the 1980s, were in fact more in line with Liberal Democracy.
I must ask you to consider again, that National Socialism is what it implies. Equality (well not really because hitler was always going to be the main beneficiary of it - the personality cult, where there are also parallels with Stalin) for the Aryan race only whereas we want equality based on all races - we generally want an end to countries, and the discrimination Nationalism and Patriotism can bring. Please remember National Socialism was a lie - it was merely a name to make them seem representative of both sides of the political spectrum. However, I must stress the importance of this, to do anything to aid the advancement of the right - that is the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats, will be at the expense of the workers. The workers suffered much under Hitler (&#39;Strength through Joy&#39; and all that - where they were promised prizes for working hard, yet excuses were always made and they were never received - the working hours and conditions were rediculously poor) yet we, should we succeed in our plight, will always protect the interests of the workers.
If one is to say that the workers suffered under the nazis, therefore the National Socialists cannot be considered socialists, it would seem to lead to the general conclusion that socialism cannot fail. Socialism can never be disproven. A regime which professes to be socialist, but turns out to be a horror show, is disqualified because of its failure. That sort of thinking seems a real disservice for socialists, as it does not allow them to analyse the source of the failure. The failure is simply written off as because "true" socialism was not followed, which always seems to be of the type of socialism which that socialist critic believes in.

After all, I can observe that the National Socialists put all Germans to work (hardly objectionable to socialism), fixed wages and prices (thereby freeing the workers from the vagaries of the capitalist in his adjustments to accrue personal profit. Again, hardly objectionable to socialism), forbade capitalist terminations (again guaranteeing employment which would be hardly objectionable to socialism), established vacation resorts for the workers on the lands expropriated from the nobility (again, hardly objectionable to socialism). These sorts of things are certainly in the interests of the workers. Yet as you say, National Socialism was a total failure, even on these terms.

I could also point out that the National Socialist desire to make all germans equal, knocks down the status of the capitalist AND the nobilty (and indeed, the nazi hatred of the old Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs and other German nobility is well documented) which is certainly the aim of other socialists as well. They also planned for a "permanent socialism" as well, of their variety "The victory of National Socialism means socialism has conquered the people and the state (Haid) or "National Socialism is socialism. socialsim in constant change" (Hitler)

Again, I must stress I am not here calling socialists nazis or stalinists.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by People&#39;s [email protected] 03, 2007 03:51 pm
What motivates people under socialism is the same thing that&#39;s supposed to motivate them under capitalism; aggrandizement. The difference is that once you own your tools and place of work, you have a real, rather than a manufactured, incentive to maximize the things you own. Once you have a share of the profits, you have an incentive to maximize production.

Under capitalism, you&#39;re working for somebody else, under socialism you&#39;re working for yourself, and with everybody else. That&#39;s the difference, that&#39;s the motivation.
If the worker for the socalist community is working for himself, it must mean that worker has the right to dispose of the property he owns as he sees fit (restricted by whatever laws exist on the matter).

Yet that makes no sense, since the purpose of production is to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers, not the needs and wants of the workers making those products.

[Rawthentic]

Its for human needs.

You will never disprove socialism, sorry.

[La Comédie Noire]

Yet that makes no sense, since the purpose of production is to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers, not the needs and wants of the workers making those products.

The Producers are also Consumers.

Socialism is merely concentrating the means of production into the hands of the workers so they may carry out their duty to society as efficiently as possible while not sacrificing well being and dignity.

The consumers would get to decide what they want, the workers would just be able to decide how they go about doing that ( I.E. working conditions) and since they double as consumers that would be the most efficient way possible.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ZX3+June 02, 2007 01:35 pm--> (ZX3 @ June 02, 2007 01:35 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 11:27 pm
ok?

well i dont get why you guys like to come down on us so fucking hard for wanting to have a fair society and a true democracy.
Because the OIers do not believe that those noble ends can be reached by the means which socialists propose. [/b]
oh but the "noble" way that capitalism "works"..poverty, exploitation, starvation and racism is much better right? certainly it is because it don&#39;t affect "us rich folks"

[Rawthentic]

They cannot be achieved other than by the forcible overthrow of the capitalist class, we cannot "sweetalk" them into giving us liberty, for as Comrade Lenin said, class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

[R_P_A_S]

It was RPAS who declared that a new human would result from the victory of socialism, not me. I should probably have pointed out that such a by a socialist claim seems to come about as the result of a dodge of the issues:

why is it so hard for you or anyone else to just look at this from out the box...
the human under capitalism did not exist 300 years ago.

where humans in the 15th century or something all thriving to open up their own business, hire a couple good people and become a millionaire, buy a fancy car (or ship) and own expensive cool clothes??? NO

sorry im not getting in depth. but seriously you dont believe people under a more social society will just be better off..specially when they aren&#39;t deprive of their human nature?

human nature is not working 40 hours a week and spending 2 hours in your car and locking ur self up in your appartment eating TV dinners and watching CNN..

ahhhh now im just ranting.. :wacko:

[Rawthentic]

Its okay RPAS.

Human nature is not static as these parasites would like to think, it moves and changes as history and material conditions do.

Under capitalism for example, poor people steal because they need something that is denied to them because the wealth is in the hands of a few.

Under communism, power is in the hands of the workers and everybody&#39;s needs are met so we dont have this problem.

This might sound like its coming from a children&#39;s elementary book, but it just goes to show how ignorant the OIers really are.

[red team]

What motives people under Communism?

That&#39;s not a very interesting question.

What is more interesting to ask should be what would motivate me and most other people to work when the majority of "work" is really unnecessary given present technologies and the massive pool of wasted talent in engaging what is akin more to slow death than life?

For those who have to work in the bureaucratic, impersonal, exploitative machine known as the price system for somebody else&#39;s financial dominance and freedom to live their lives as they choose and your own self-imposed enslavement you would know exactly what I mean.

So please answer that question first, before I begin to answer your uninteresting question.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 04, 2007 04:04 am

What motives people under Communism?

That&#39;s not a very interesting question.

What is more interesting to ask should be what would motivate me and most other people to work when the majority of "work" is really unnecessary given present technologies and the massive pool of wasted talent in engaging what is akin more to slow death than life?

For those who have to work in the bureaucratic, impersonal, exploitative machine known as the price system for somebody else&#39;s financial dominance and freedom to live their lives as they choose and your own self-imposed enslavement you would know exactly what I mean.

So please answer that question first, before I begin to answer your uninteresting question.
that was a great answer comrade.. ahhh thanks for that read

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:48 pm
Because the OIers do not believe that those noble ends can be reached by the means which socialists propose.
oh but the "noble" way that capitalism "works"..poverty, exploitation, starvation and racism [/quote]
the most significant advances against racism have been made sense capitalism has been around. note i&#39;m not crediting capitalism for it but rather the information revolution, but i also think it&#39;s wrong to blame it.

[Rawthentic]

Racism is a product of class society.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:25 am

Because the OIers do not believe that those noble ends can be reached by the means which socialists propose.
oh but the "noble" way that capitalism "works"..poverty, exploitation, starvation and racism
the most significant advances against racism have been made sense capitalism has been around. note i&#39;m not crediting capitalism for it but rather the information revolution, but i also think it&#39;s wrong to blame it. [/quote]
i think is dumb to credit any advances in technology to capitalism...just because they happened under that system. so computers wouldn&#39;t of had existed if it were for Capitalism? oh so i guess fucking satellites and space travel would never existed either or it would had been prolonged if it weren&#39;t for "communism".. :rolleyes:

[R_P_A_S]

and lets not forget that the NAZI&#39;s invented some of the best damn Microphones still used today in many professional studios. the Telefunken 251 and the AKG 414s.. damn jewels i love them&#33;

so yeah your argument is pointless...

[Rawthentic]

Actually RPAS, Marx credited capitalism with its amazing ability to expand the productive forces on a level never before seen in human history. He saw, and was right, that capitalism was progressive compared to feudalism.

But that was in his era, that of ascendant capitalism. We know that today it is in its age of imperialism, its decadent stage of wars and nukes.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 04, 2007 04:42 am
Actually RPAS, Marx credited capitalism with its amazing ability to expand the productive forces on a level never before seen in human history. He saw, and was right, that capitalism was progressive compared to feudalism.

But that was in his era, that of ascendant capitalism. We know that today it is in its age of imperialism, its decadent stage of wars and nukes.
yeah i know he credit it. i read the manifesto.. you know? but yes imperialism is bad. is like it cant grown any more. it cant help more people. it has reach a point where is just dangerous..

[La Comédie Noire]

But that was in his era, that of ascendant capitalism. We know that today it is in its age of imperialism, its decadent stage of wars and nukes.

Ah yes, the limits of private property. :D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 08:30 pm

Yet that makes no sense, since the purpose of production is to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers, not the needs and wants of the workers making those products.

The Producers are also Consumers.

Socialism is merely concentrating the means of production into the hands of the workers so they may carry out their duty to society as efficiently as possible while not sacrificing well being and dignity.

The consumers would get to decide what they want, the workers would just be able to decide how they go about doing that ( I.E. working conditions) and since they double as consumers that would be the most efficient way possible.
How many computers of the total which the computer workers produce, do they themselves actually consume? Statistically, probably 0%. The same sort of figure would be the case for any other worker producing any other good.

The interests of the worker as a producer is different than his interest as a consumer.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 03, 2007 04:56 pm
Its for human needs.

You will never disprove socialism, sorry.
Yep, like that "invisible sky wizard" someone on this board keeps prattling about, socialism in the eyes of the socialist will never be disproven.

Doesn&#39;t say much about its supposed "scientific" nature though.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:54 pm

It was RPAS who declared that a new human would result from the victory of socialism, not me. I should probably have pointed out that such a by a socialist claim seems to come about as the result of a dodge of the issues:

why is it so hard for you or anyone else to just look at this from out the box...
the human under capitalism did not exist 300 years ago.

where humans in the 15th century or something all thriving to open up their own business, hire a couple good people and become a millionaire, buy a fancy car (or ship) and own expensive cool clothes??? NO

sorry im not getting in depth. but seriously you dont believe people under a more social society will just be better off..specially when they aren&#39;t deprive of their human nature?

human nature is not working 40 hours a week and spending 2 hours in your car and locking ur self up in your appartment eating TV dinners and watching CNN..

ahhhh now im just ranting.. :wacko:
Okay, so now the great vision of socialism is creating a community analogous to life in the 15th Century. I thought the objective was to make EVERYONE wealthy and living full lives, not just the "ruling classes."

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:36 pm


Because the OIers do not believe that those noble ends can be reached by the means which socialists propose.
oh but the "noble" way that capitalism "works"..poverty, exploitation, starvation and racism
the most significant advances against racism have been made sense capitalism has been around. note i&#39;m not crediting capitalism for it but rather the information revolution, but i also think it&#39;s wrong to blame it.
i think is dumb to credit any advances in technology to capitalism...just because they happened under that system. so computers wouldn&#39;t of had existed if it were for Capitalism? oh so i guess fucking satellites and space travel would never existed either or it would had been prolonged if it weren&#39;t for "communism".. :rolleyes: [/quote]
Then why should anyone expect any sort of technological advancement under socialism? It will "just happen."

[La Comédie Noire]

How many computers of the total which the computer workers produce, do they themselves actually consume? Statistically, probably 0%. The same sort of figure would be the case for any other worker producing any other good.

The interests of the worker as a producer is different than his interest as a consumer.

Please elaborate.

[angus_mor]

I thought communism was about absolute equality? I was simply asking where everyone would live?

If it were you, say, you could live where ever you wished in which ever house were available to you. If you want, you could live in a mansion, but I don&#39;t see the point; I, for one, don&#39;t require a lot of space. I only have some books, records, a bed and some musical instruments. I&#39;m also a very communal person, I&#39;d probly go insane in a huge million-dollar estate all by myself, so I would definitely live in a large communal dwelling. How cool would that be, huh? Wake up; go to mess hall; pig out with comrades; get shit done; maybe brew some ale; sup with yon bonny lass ;D party down and hit the hay&#33;

[red team]

How many computers of the total which the computer workers produce, do they themselves actually consume? Statistically, probably 0%. The same sort of figure would be the case for any other worker producing any other good.

The interests of the worker as a producer is different than his interest as a consumer.

That&#39;s only because they are unaware of computers running everything from their microwaves to the electrical system that power their house. They consume it alright, they just take the benefits of it for granted.

The difference between workers being consumers and businesses being consumers is that they for businesses they take something for granted which is really the product of many other people working for motives that may not simply be for private gain. But this is irrelevant for private businesses. Anything that may be useful whether publicly available or private is irrelevant. If it is free or of low cost then it&#39;s simply taken as a free resource for furthering the encroachment of private property.


Okay, so now the great vision of socialism is creating a community analogous to life in the 15th Century. I thought the objective was to make EVERYONE wealthy and living full lives, not just the "ruling classes."

Define wealthy.

Can wealth be defined in absolute terms within a system of money circulation such as a country or trading block?

If not and the answer can be proven to be no then "wealth" has really no definition from a material perspective and is as silly as defining weight by comparing the difference among a group of obese people or among a group of starving walking skeletons.


Then why should anyone expect any sort of technological advancement under socialism? It will "just happen."

Then you agree that something as complicated as culture "just hapens". If you do then it&#39;s clear that no debate is possible with somebody who is as ignorant as you.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 03, 2007 11:35 pm
Racism is a product of class society.
no it&#39;s a product of ignorance

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 04, 2007 11:52 pm

How many computers of the total which the computer workers produce, do they themselves actually consume? Statistically, probably 0%. The same sort of figure would be the case for any other worker producing any other good.

The interests of the worker as a producer is different than his interest as a consumer.

That&#39;s only because they are unaware of computers running everything from their microwaves to the electrical system that power their house. They consume it alright, they just take the benefits of it for granted.

The difference between workers being consumers and businesses being consumers is that they for businesses they take something for granted which is really the product of many other people working for motives that may not simply be for private gain. But this is irrelevant for private businesses. Anything that may be useful whether publicly available or private is irrelevant. If it is free or of low cost then it&#39;s simply taken as a free resource for furthering the encroachment of private property.


Okay, so now the great vision of socialism is creating a community analogous to life in the 15th Century. I thought the objective was to make EVERYONE wealthy and living full lives, not just the "ruling classes."

Define wealthy.

Can wealth be defined in absolute terms within a system of money circulation such as a country or trading block?

If not and the answer can be proven to be no then "wealth" has really no definition from a material perspective and is as silly as defining weight by comparing the difference among a group of obese people or among a group of starving walking skeletons.


Then why should anyone expect any sort of technological advancement under socialism? It will "just happen."

Then you agree that something as complicated as culture "just hapens". If you do then it&#39;s clear that no debate is possible with somebody who is as ignorant as you.
1. I was talking about consumption directly. Substitute radios or toothbrushes if you wish. I do not understand what you are talking about with respect to business and individuals as consumers.

2. Define wealthy as you wish it to be. The objective of socialism, from what has been made heretofore clear, is to make the community, and thus the individuals within, wealthier and better off than they were in a capitalist community.

3. My comment regarding things "just happening" was in rsponse to RPAS comment that capitalism should not be given credit for technological that jst sort of "happened" when when capitalism was ruling the roost. Considering his ebullient approval of your note concerning the technological advancement possibilities of socialism, I simply wondered why technological advancement just happens under capitalism, but can be the result of socialism.

[Eleftherios]

I once watched a documentary on the early days of the Soviet Union (damn, I forgot which one it was) and it showed how the workers were so enthusiastic about working because they felt like they were in control of the workplace and because they wanted to build a new socialist society and greatly improve their standard of living. Russia was transformed from a backward empire into an industrialized superpower in a matter of a few years.

In one part of the movie, it showed how an American visitor to the Soviet Union pointed out to the workers that in America people eat with metal spoons. The Soviet workers were then determined to eat with metal spoons and began working on making them immediately without any orders from the authorities. The next day, the workers began eating with metal spoons and the American visitor could not remember another time when he was so enthusiastic using a metal spoon.

Many proponents of capitalism incorrectly assume that once workers take control of the workplace, society will just collapse because nobody will force them to work. This is nonsense. There are things other than money that motivate people to work hard.

[red team]

1. I was talking about consumption directly. Substitute radios or toothbrushes if you wish. I do not understand what you are talking about with respect to business and individuals as consumers.

Individual consumers ultimately use what is purchased for consumption rather than production purposes. The product or services that they use ultimately extends up the economic ladder to the people that uses the commodities that they have for the further accumulation of those commodities as private property. For every small operator that uses a personal computer for a small desktop publishing business, the limited assets that they own ultimately depends on people that have a commanding position in the overall economy. Further, since private business have only one determining factor for further operations which is profit and because there is only a limited amount of value circulating in an economy in any one time. The bigger businesses will be able to bring to bear more resources for their private property accumulation which further increases their available business resources for this accumulation in an increasing and recursive feedback loop. This in the end will inevitably squeeze out the viability of small operators to operate in a market in which consumers which because of the aformentioned processes of private accumulation will in their majority represent those who have to sell their labour power to survive and therefore will have limited financial resources to either open up their own private concerns or afford the higher prices of the small operators because of the economy of scale that the larger business can bring to bear in selling their products and services thus again destroying the viability of those small businesses to compete successfully with the larger monopolies and therefore will leave the bankrupt operators of those small businesses with no choice, but to join the army of workers that are working for the large monopolies.

As a case and point, small private consulting businesses of computer technicians were once viable because of:

1. The limited number of highly trained and educated computer professionals means they could negotiate a higher price for their services in the market with the implied threat of non-performance of work if the customer offer to pay a lower price.

2. Large businesses had either their own computer technician department or contracted out the work to these independent proprietorship as the limited pool of highly skilled technicians made starting a business unit for the purpose of mass dissemination of technical computer services as a profitable private operation unrealistic.

Because of more people being educated in those specialized technical areas which increases the size of available talent in recent years the previously mentioned scenario for technical professionals are no longer true.

Large retail oligopolies that sell computer equipment to either the mass consumer market or the capital market of large corporations now have the realistic and profitable choice of bundling their computer hardware products with a subscription service to technical support that is operated by a formal dedicated business unit of computer workers who can no longer support their privileged positions as independent operators in a over-saturated labour pool of computer technicians. They are now no more special and not much higher paid than a telephone salesperson. Along with loss of privilege also comes loss of negotiating power for work conditions and wage and therefore you also witness the regimentation and alienation of computer professionals that are rated in performance and adherence to shop floor discipline by time sheets and performance reviews.

In short there&#39;s a whole world of difference that separates individual consumption from private business capital asset purchases

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 09, 2007 02:50 am

1. I was talking about consumption directly. Substitute radios or toothbrushes if you wish. I do not understand what you are talking about with respect to business and individuals as consumers.

Individual consumers ultimately use what is purchased for consumption rather than production purposes. The product or services that they use ultimately extends up the economic ladder to the people that uses the commodities that they have for the further accumulation of those commodities as private property. For every small operator that uses a personal computer for a small desktop publishing business, the limited assets that they own ultimately depends on people that have a commanding position in the overall economy. Further, since private business have only one determining factor for further operations which is profit and because there is only a limited amount of value circulating in an economy in any one time. The bigger businesses will be able to bring to bear more resources for their private property accumulation which further increases their available business resources for this accumulation in an increasing and recursive feedback loop. This in the end will inevitably squeeze out the viability of small operators to operate in a market in which consumers which because of the aformentioned processes of private accumulation will in their majority represent those who have to sell their labour power to survive and therefore will have limited financial resources to either open up their own private concerns or afford the higher prices of the small operators because of the economy of scale that the larger business can bring to bear in selling their products and services thus again destroying the viability of those small businesses to compete successfully with the larger monopolies and therefore will leave the bankrupt operators of those small businesses with no choice, but to join the army of workers that are working for the large monopolies.

As a case and point, small private consulting businesses of computer technicians were once viable because of:

1. The limited number of highly trained and educated computer professionals means they could negotiate a higher price for their services in the market with the implied threat of non-performance of work if the customer offer to pay a lower price.

2. Large businesses had either their own computer technician department or contracted out the work to these independent proprietorship as the limited pool of highly skilled technicians made starting a business unit for the purpose of mass dissemination of technical computer services as a profitable private operation unrealistic.

Because of more people being educated in those specialized technical areas which increases the size of available talent in recent years the previously mentioned scenario for technical professionals are no longer true.

Large retail oligopolies that sell computer equipment to either the mass consumer market or the capital market of large corporations now have the realistic and profitable choice of bundling their computer hardware products with a subscription service to technical support that is operated by a formal dedicated business unit of computer workers who can no longer support their privileged positions as independent operators in a over-saturated labour pool of computer technicians. They are now no more special and not much higher paid than a telephone salesperson. Along with loss of privilege also comes loss of negotiating power for work conditions and wage and therefore you also witness the regimentation and alienation of computer professionals that are rated in performance and adherence to shop floor discipline by time sheets and performance reviews.

In short there&#39;s a whole world of difference that separates individual consumption from private business capital asset purchases
I continue to fail to see the relevence of this note. I merely pointed out a few days ago that the cosumer of goods has different interests than the producer of goods. Your long essay seems to confirm your agreement.

[Purple]

Historically, this was a big flaw in the totalitarian forms of communism. Under Stalin the workers saw no point in producing as all the products went to the front and for developing the USSR&#39;s heavy industry while they went hungry, and during the Mao years in China the same thing happened, only the corrupted system, the import of all goods into the cities and the disfunction of the collectivization farming made it go to hell. During Xiao Ping&#39;s (I think it was) rule reforms were made, which allowed the farmers to sell all the goods that remained after they had produced the state-implemented quota, hence using personal gain as an incentive, which is in a way capitalist.

Of course this is pure bullshit considering that the workers cannot be motivated under a totalitarian state, but it puts it into the perspective of the one-party-communist states.

[sh0t2]

Workers get their true value on the market.

IN general, the workers don&#39;t own the machines they are using or most of the tools. The factory owner saved HIS money, bought those machines and the employees use them. Their wage is typically difference between the employee&#39;s effort and the finish good&#39;s price minus the rate of interest for the time it takes that good to get to market.

If a good can be sent from the factory into a costumer&#39;s hand instantly, they&#39;d get the full share. But the factory owner has to absorb that uncertainity while the good is waiting for purchase, so that&#39;s why the employee gets his wage discounted by the rate of interest, on average.

Many companies are employee owned. Maybe some employees don&#39;t WANT to own stock in the company. Maybe they just want to be pure laborers and not working about anything else. They might prefer to sell their stock in the employee owned enterprise to buy some tuna fish sandwiches or a boat to retire on.

The main problem with communism isn&#39;t how to give people incentives to work. The main problem is what do you tell workers to do in the first place?

Without a market and price system to allocate goods to areas they are most badly wanted, what criteria will the state/whatever use to determine what should be done?

[Red Tung]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:37 pm
Workers get their true value on the market.

IN general, the workers don&#39;t own the machines they are using or most of the tools. The factory owner saved HIS money, bought those machines and the employees use them. Their wage is typically difference between the employee&#39;s effort and the finish good&#39;s price minus the rate of interest for the time it takes that good to get to market.

If a good can be sent from the factory into a costumer&#39;s hand instantly, they&#39;d get the full share. But the factory owner has to absorb that uncertainity while the good is waiting for purchase, so that&#39;s why the employee gets his wage discounted by the rate of interest, on average.

Many companies are employee owned. Maybe some employees don&#39;t WANT to own stock in the company. Maybe they just want to be pure laborers and not working about anything else. They might prefer to sell their stock in the employee owned enterprise to buy some tuna fish sandwiches or a boat to retire on.

The main problem with communism isn&#39;t how to give people incentives to work. The main problem is what do you tell workers to do in the first place?

Without a market and price system to allocate goods to areas they are most badly wanted, what criteria will the state/whatever use to determine what should be done?
But, how do higher prices benefit the consumer? If you were a Capitalist wouldn&#39;t higher consumer demand give you an incentive to charge more for your goods. There could be the counter-argument that other producers could charge less, but what would motivate them to do so if less revenue would mean less resources to dominate the market versus your competitors? But, also in the real world how much in proportion of this higher prices for consumer products that are in demand goes to Capital investment to make more goods at a faster time and how much of it goes to profit. Further, since profit is entirely different from capital asset investment, how does that satisfy consumer demand rather than make the purchase price of goods more expensive than it needs to be?

[krankrank]

WHO and how turns the lethal-threat-over-everybody into a interiorized-hope-of-HEALTH-and-improvement-of-the-system, thus: WHO and how turns extermination into motivation? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65554&view=findpost&p=1292338675)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292338675 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65554&view=findpost&p=1292338675)

[Eleftherios]

http://www.marxist.com/sanitarios-maracay-...-assembly-4.htm (http://www.marxist.com/sanitarios-maracay-workers-assembly-4.htm)

This video shows to some degree how a factory run by workers looks like.

[krankrank]

WHO and how turns the lethal-threat-over-everybody into a interiorized-hope-of-HEALTH-and-improvement-of-the-system, thus: WHO and how turns extermination into motivation?

A hint: did ever exist any other kind of doctors and therapies than the above mentioned?

Just some hints else about the real context:
Under capitalism people are constrained to sell themeselves, working out in favour of the monetary interests and needs of the system, against their own needs, thus under conditions that permanently injure the body of the people, conditions which kill the people, proof: growing illness, e.g. growing boredom up to “sui”cide (=homicide), respectively answered with growing murderous reactions, from euphemism up to euthaNAZI.

People doesn’t feel motivated at all, but fears to be killed, to be rejected and abandoned as a sick one, as a broken one. People doesn’t feel motivated to sell themselves, working in order to earn a wage, in a process which corrupts and kills their own bodies, nor people want to runnig away from respective illness, running away to the doctor and paying for therapies in order to return permanently-and-“healthily” “motivated” to those lethal conditions up to death, but people feels forced to do that because if they don’t do that in that way, then also they risk their own life, be it due hunger and misery but always due isolation and terrorism.

That’s the secret and the material-soul of any motivation in the ruling reality and the substance of the money: broken-life.

Increment of MONEY, compulsory internalized in everybody as the desire of the supreme VALUE so-called HEALTH, that is the violent-dead-soul motivating and animating the system AGAINST everybody’s urgent necessity of truly life, thus against the living-soul of the people, which could not become manifest but as ILLNESS.

Under these ILL-circumstances which all-share-in-COMMON, for sure people doesn’t have to worry about a future communism, but if here and now indeed remains anybody, be it supposedly only one single body, be it temporary, who still needs to be motivated -and the emergence of a respective question involving that word is nothing else, but also nothing less, than a symptom- then really still exists around, the conditions and THE OTHERS responsibles of breaking and killing not only the so-called willingness to live but indeed the UNITY, thus the whole life of everybody. Therefore, what remains to DO is not any therapy against the affected ones with their questions, neither with academic discussions about the psycological or sociological thus economical aspects of the “motivation”; BUT what remains urgently to do is true COLLECTIVE ACTIONS, be it eMOTIONal ones, but collective PRACTICAL REVOLUTIONARY ACTIONS BASED ON COMMON ILLNESS actions to turn this question AGAINST the system and the respective medical imposers of the common ALIENation, in order to defend and reanimate the life, the truly willingness to live, the decisive determination to abolish the real dead-and-unwilling-conditions, thus to create the common HUMAN SPECIES which is lacking everywhere.

Those who are bore to death, questioning tedious or be it motivating questions, have the right. Precisely, if boredom is as heavy as inquisitive, then exactly that is the germ-force that is able and ready to be turned into a force against the system.
Thus: turn illness into a weapon, into a revolutionary weapon for knowledge and change.

Instead of running away from illness, thus running away from the other patients,
better: illnesses UNITE PRO ILLNESS.

For example see: The secret of illness is human species (http://www.spkpfh.de/human%20species.htm) at www.spkpfh.de (http://www.spkpfh.de/)

[MarcX]

if i was in a communist society i would be a golfer.

[wtfm8lol]

i would professionally piss people off

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Yes, under communism you would receive professional training.

[MarcX]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+July 03, 2007 07:29 pm--> (CornetJoyce @ July 03, 2007 07:29 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Yes, under communism you would receive professional training. [/b]
My statement of being a golfer is trying to show that if you get to do what you want you most likely do not do something productive.

me drinking beer and golfing all day doesn&#39;t contribute to the community but it is what i would do.


And if here where to receive training to piss people off the entire world would explode >:@

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+July 03, 2007 02:29 pm--> (CornetJoyce @ July 03, 2007 02:29 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Yes, under communism you would receive professional training. [/b]
that makes your system perhaps the only one that not only wastes resources providing training for worthless trades at everyone&#39;s expense but prides itself on it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Under socialism, Unless you have a disability or other legitimate reason (not to work or study) and you dont have a positive or practical contribution to make to society then you would starve.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:34 pm
My statement of being a golfer is trying to show that if you get to do what you want you most likely do not do something productive.

me drinking beer and golfing all day doesn&#39;t contribute to the community but it is what i would do.


And if here where to receive training to piss people off the entire world would explode >:@
That doesn&#39;t mean you wouldn&#39;t have to perform certain tasks that need to undertaken for survival.

I am sure that, if you lived in a neighborhood that was building up excess trash that was making life unbearable, there eventually would be someone who would perform the task of collecting this garbage; with the preexistence of some sort of neighborhood or workplace assembly that signifies the governing unit of socialism itself, these tasks would be assigned democratically in accordance to who deserves to do it, who has the physical ability to do it, and many other factors.

I am guessing that if you chose to simply be a golfer, there would be no stopping your advancement towards this profession, but there would come a time in which your contributions would be evaluated; there would be a moment in which you are looked critically on, considering that your neighborhood needs you to sustain itself, and you may not be putting in your two cents to make it a functional community. There would be a moment in which your association would be put into question - you would either have to be a trash man or a janitor for a few weeks and continue your profession, or face the obstacle of being unable to associate yourself with the community.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by RedDali
I am sure that, if you lived in a neighborhood that was building up excess trash that was making life unbearable, there eventually would be someone who would perform the task of collecting this garbage
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/07/05/s...es/14052187.htm (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/07/05/stories/14052187.htm)

[CornetJoyce]

"My statement of being a golfer is trying to show that if you get to do what you want you most likely do not do something productive.

me drinking beer and golfing all day doesn&#39;t contribute to the community but it is what i would do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
That sounds fine to me. There are, of course, many visions of communist utopia. In mine, adults would work and the disabled, children and adult children would not.
In any event, golf courses and beer require labor and you might not find that labor available to you.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 03, 2007 05:15 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 03, 2007 05:15 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Under socialism, Unless you have a disability or other legitimate reason (not to work or study) and you dont have a positive or practical contribution to make to society then you would starve. [/b]
Elsewhere, you have insisted that in a socialist community, the individual would be freer to choose the type of work he or she wished. This would be a freer system as their would not be those pesky artificial restrictions placed upon what you, as an individual, wished to work at. And that all work, regardless of what it is, is equal in value to all other work.

Now you say that work chosen in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it. So in other words, the work needs to have value to other people, else you starve.

So which is it: People can produce whatever they wish to produce, and have that considered equally valuable? Or that the work needs to be in an area which others need and want? And please don&#39;t dodge by saying those other notes were along the lines of being dillatantes. I am addressing specifically your comment that work in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3+July 04, 2007 10:33 pm--> (ZX3 &#064; July 04, 2007 10:33 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 05:15 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Under socialism, Unless you have a disability or other legitimate reason (not to work or study) and you dont have a positive or practical contribution to make to society then you would starve.
Elsewhere, you have insisted that in a socialist community, the individual would be freer to choose the type of work he or she wished. This would be a freer system as their would not be those pesky artificial restrictions placed upon what you, as an individual, wished to work at. And that all work, regardless of what it is, is equal in value to all other work.

Now you say that work chosen in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it. So in other words, the work needs to have value to other people, else you starve.

So which is it: People can produce whatever they wish to produce, and have that considered equally valuable? Or that the work needs to be in an area which others need and want? And please don&#39;t dodge by saying those other notes were along the lines of being dillatantes. I am addressing specifically your comment that work in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it. [/b]
Very few categories of occupation I can think of provide &#39;no positive or practical&#39; contribution to society per se. Scientists, engineers teachers etc provide intellectualism and technology, while artists and sportspeople entertain us. To name but a few examples.

The only category that comes to mind that provides no mutual benefit between individual and society (with the exception of the disabled, welfare dependants, prisoners, career criminals etc) is the private capitalist, whose only contribution is the accumulation of wealth for the elite society and the seizure of labour value of the proletarian class. In the response to the argument &#39;&#39;well he gives the working man his pay&#39;&#39;, the pay he recieves falls far short of his actual contribution in society&#39;s lot.


BTW You misquoted me. If you read my post again, I did acknowledge the difference between &#39;positive&#39; and &#39;practical&#39;. I do acknowledge that regardless of how noble one&#39;s career is, it is not always possible to make a contribution in the &#39;practical&#39; context. However as long as they are completing a &#39;positive&#39; task, then I havent got a problem with that.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 05:41 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 05:41 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:33 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 05:15 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Under socialism, Unless you have a disability or other legitimate reason (not to work or study) and you dont have a positive or practical contribution to make to society then you would starve.
Elsewhere, you have insisted that in a socialist community, the individual would be freer to choose the type of work he or she wished. This would be a freer system as their would not be those pesky artificial restrictions placed upon what you, as an individual, wished to work at. And that all work, regardless of what it is, is equal in value to all other work.

Now you say that work chosen in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it. So in other words, the work needs to have value to other people, else you starve.

So which is it: People can produce whatever they wish to produce, and have that considered equally valuable? Or that the work needs to be in an area which others need and want? And please don&#39;t dodge by saying those other notes were along the lines of being dillatantes. I am addressing specifically your comment that work in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it.
Very few categories of occupation I can think of provide &#39;no positive or practical&#39; contribution to society per se. Scientists, engineers teachers etc provide intellectualism and technology, while artists and sportspeople entertain us. To name but a few examples.

The only category that comes to mind that provides no mutual benefit between individual and society (with the exception of the disabled, welfare dependants, prisoners, career criminals etc) is the private capitalist, whose only contribution is the accumulation of wealth for the elite society and the seizure of labour value of the proletarian class. In the response to the argument &#39;&#39;well he gives the working man his pay&#39;&#39;, the pay he recieves falls far short of his actual contribution in society&#39;s lot.


BTW You misquoted me. If you read my post again, I did acknowledge the difference between &#39;positive&#39; and &#39;practical&#39;. I do acknowledge that regardless of how noble one&#39;s career is, it is not always possible to make a contribution in the &#39;practical&#39; context. However as long as they are completing a &#39;positive&#39; task, then I havent got a problem with that. [/b]
I was not splitting "positive" or "practical."

But in any event, we are back to the workers in the typewriter factory, whose work would be positive, and at one point was quite practical.

But at that point when it was, THAT is all which mattered in a socialist community.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3

I was not splitting "positive" or "practical."

But in any event, we are back to the workers in the typewriter factory, whose work would be positive, and at one point was quite practical.

But at that point when it was, THAT is all which mattered in a socialist community.
I dont care about any given time, Just generally.
If someone turns up at their workplace and does nothing then of course they should recieve as little as anyone else who does nothing. Although the whole point is the kind of career alienation which causes freeloading wouldnt be an issue any longer.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by ZX3+July 04, 2007 10:33 pm--> (ZX3 @ July 04, 2007 10:33 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 05:15 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 07:25 pm
i would professionally piss people off
Under socialism, Unless you have a disability or other legitimate reason (not to work or study) and you dont have a positive or practical contribution to make to society then you would starve.
Elsewhere, you have insisted that in a socialist community, the individual would be freer to choose the type of work he or she wished. This would be a freer system as their would not be those pesky artificial restrictions placed upon what you, as an individual, wished to work at. And that all work, regardless of what it is, is equal in value to all other work.

Now you say that work chosen in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it. So in other words, the work needs to have value to other people, else you starve.

So which is it: People can produce whatever they wish to produce, and have that considered equally valuable? Or that the work needs to be in an area which others need and want? And please don&#39;t dodge by saying those other notes were along the lines of being dillatantes. I am addressing specifically your comment that work in a socialist community has to have a "positive and practical" side to it. [/b]
Read my post and critique it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 06:19 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 06:19 pm)
ZX3

I was not splitting "positive" or "practical."

But in any event, we are back to the workers in the typewriter factory, whose work would be positive, and at one point was quite practical.

But at that point when it was, THAT is all which mattered in a socialist community.
I dont care about any given time, Just generally.
If someone turns up at their workplace and does nothing then of course they should recieve as little as anyone else who does nothing. Although the whole point is the kind of career alienation which causes freeloading wouldnt be an issue any longer. [/b]
You want to creat a community where workers like working where they work. That is certainly important and worthwhile.

But it cannot be AIM of the community. The aim has to be provide needed goods and services REGARDLESS of the opinions of those workers in those professions.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3+July 04, 2007 11:29 pm--> (ZX3 @ July 04, 2007 11:29 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 04, 2007 06:19 pm

ZX3

I was not splitting "positive" or "practical."

But in any event, we are back to the workers in the typewriter factory, whose work would be positive, and at one point was quite practical.

But at that point when it was, THAT is all which mattered in a socialist community.
I dont care about any given time, Just generally.
If someone turns up at their workplace and does nothing then of course they should recieve as little as anyone else who does nothing. Although the whole point is the kind of career alienation which causes freeloading wouldnt be an issue any longer.
You want to creat a community where workers like working where they work. That is certainly important and worthwhile.

But it cannot be AIM of the community. The aim has to be provide needed goods and services REGARDLESS of the opinions of those workers in those professions. [/b]
The vast proportion of jobs that people dislike doing can be automated. Then putting the workers from those roles into training will prepare them for more demanding tasks. We get more efficient production, and a more educated workforce. It is a win win scenario.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 03, 2007 05:17 pm--> (RedDali @ July 03, 2007 05:17 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 07:34 pm
My statement of being a golfer is trying to show that if you get to do what you want you most likely do not do something productive.

me drinking beer and golfing all day doesn&#39;t contribute to the community but it is what i would do.


And if here where to receive training to piss people off the entire world would explode >:@
That doesn&#39;t mean you wouldn&#39;t have to perform certain tasks that need to undertaken for survival.

I am sure that, if you lived in a neighborhood that was building up excess trash that was making life unbearable, there eventually would be someone who would perform the task of collecting this garbage; with the preexistence of some sort of neighborhood or workplace assembly that signifies the governing unit of socialism itself, these tasks would be assigned democratically in accordance to who deserves to do it, who has the physical ability to do it, and many other factors.

I am guessing that if you chose to simply be a golfer, there would be no stopping your advancement towards this profession, but there would come a time in which your contributions would be evaluated; there would be a moment in which you are looked critically on, considering that your neighborhood needs you to sustain itself, and you may not be putting in your two cents to make it a functional community. There would be a moment in which your association would be put into question - you would either have to be a trash man or a janitor for a few weeks and continue your profession, or face the obstacle of being unable to associate yourself with the community. [/b]
I assume you mean this post.

It has been addressed in the past.

The problem with that solution is (aside from the tyrannical nature of it) is that you are removing skilled workers from serving the community. The communiuty has spent time and effort training them to do their professions, and then it decides to have the person do something else, even if for a short period of time. It is a total waste and does not benefit the community.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The problem with that solution is (aside from the tyrannical nature of it) is that you are removing skilled workers from serving the community. The communiuty has spent time and effort training them to do their professions, and then it decides to have the person do something else, even if for a short period of time. It is a total waste and does not benefit the community.

It&#39;s "tyrannical"? It&#39;s even more tyrannical for that individual to sit back and allow the community to become unclean and dirty; the Black Death, in case you didn&#39;t know, occurred as a result of a lack of hygiene at the many market places and docks that spanned Europe at that time. It&#39;s even more tyrannical for that individual to allow trash to accumulate and make the community a pigsty where live is unbearable for the whole mass of inhabitants. It&#39;s no more "tyrannical" than your parents and siblings demanding that you mow the lawn while you sit your lazy ass on the computer and ramble idiocy over this forum.

How are we removing the skilled workers? If I worked at an electric plant, I would be less likely to contribute to the community since I am already playing a massive role to it&#39;s very sustainment; it is my labor, the working hours that I put into it, that gives my neighbors and family electricity to power their place of occupancy. It would also mean that I already gave a large part of my week and day to this important profession, so my tasks would most likely be limited. I would have no problem with children having to collect garbage; it would make them more productive, and teach them a fantastic lesson that they need to contribute in order to ensure the livelihood of themselves and their family.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:39 pm

The problem with that solution is (aside from the tyrannical nature of it) is that you are removing skilled workers from serving the community. The communiuty has spent time and effort training them to do their professions, and then it decides to have the person do something else, even if for a short period of time. It is a total waste and does not benefit the community.

It&#39;s "tyrannical"? It&#39;s even more tyrannical for that individual to sit back and allow the community to become unclean and dirty; the Black Death, in case you didn&#39;t know, occurred as a result of a lack of hygiene at the many market places and docks that spanned Europe at that time. It&#39;s even more tyrannical for that individual to allow trash to accumulate and make the community a pigsty where live is unbearable for the whole mass of inhabitants. It&#39;s no more "tyrannical" than your parents and siblings demanding that you mow the lawn while you sit your lazy ass on the computer and ramble idiocy over this forum.

How are we removing the skilled workers? If I worked at an electric plant, I would be less likely to contribute to the community since I am already playing a massive role to it&#39;s very sustainment; it is my labor, the working hours that I put into it, that gives my neighbors and family electricity to power their place of occupancy. It would also mean that I already gave a large part of my week and day to this important profession, so my tasks would most likely be limited. I would have no problem with children having to collect garbage; it would make them more productive, and teach them a fantastic lesson that they need to contribute in order to ensure the livelihood of themselves and their family.
The solution is to hire people to remove the garbage. You provide electricity; they pickup trash.

Your solution either:
1. Endorses child labor
2. Mandates people work in a particular task at a particular time when they may not wish to do so.

My solution is better.

[Dr Mindbender]

or
3. Use automated resources to collect it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:52 pm
The solution is to hire people to remove the garbage. You provide electricity; they pickup trash.

Your solution either:
1. Endorses child labor
2. Mandates people work in a particular task at a particular time when they may not wish to do so.

My solution is better.
Sure, that&#39;s what I am endorsing. Once again though, planning is democratic and rational; the whole mass of workers within their respective organizations determine how things are done. It doesn&#39;t matter if their work is mandated; if they want to associate themselves with the community, they need to contribute to it. If they fail to, they are merely a tumorous parasite that is feasting off the host of the community - they are using up the wealth of the community while failing to create wealth himself. That, in my opinion, is tyranny. They are the social downfall of the neighborhood itself.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 04, 2007 07:02 pm--> (RedDali @ July 04, 2007 07:02 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 11:52 pm
The solution is to hire people to remove the garbage. You provide electricity; they pickup trash.

Your solution either:
1. Endorses child labor
2. Mandates people work in a particular task at a particular time when they may not wish to do so.

My solution is better.
Sure, that&#39;s what I am endorsing. Once again though, planning is democratic and rational; the whole mass of workers within their respective organizations determine how things are done. It doesn&#39;t matter if their work is mandated; if they want to associate themselves with the community, they need to contribute to it. If they fail to, they are merely a tumorous parasite that is feasting off the host of the community - they are using up the wealth of the community while failing to create wealth himself. That, in my opinion, is tyranny. They are the social downfall of the neighborhood itself. [/b]
No. If the workers within their organisations "determine how things are done" it means THEY are deciding for everyone else. Who cares how much electricity the electrical workers wish to produce? All that matters is how much eklectricity is needed by the community.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 04, 2007 07:01 pm
or
3. Use automated resources to collect it.
Sure. What work should not be done while creating such a machine?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3
Sure. What work should not be done while creating such a machine?

There will have to be a temporary transition period where some menial tasks will have to be carried out by hand. However utilising the potential workforce not used at the moment (including the present existing beourgiouse class ;) ) will mean a smaller quantity of required labour per person. After all menial tasks have been filled by automation, it will be possible to begin the education of the workforce.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 07:37 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 07:37 pm)
ZX3
Sure. What work should not be done while creating such a machine?

There will have to be a temporary transition period where some menial tasks will have to be carried out by hand. However utilising the potential workforce not used at the moment (including the present existing beourgiouse class ;) ) will mean a smaller quantity of required labour per person. After all menial tasks have been filled by automation, it will be possible to begin the education of the workforce. [/b]
Okay. So let&#39;s look at the scenario: the revolution occurs. The effort is now made to automate the community (btw, if the community is not automated at the time of the revolution, it must mean the highest factor of production has not been reached. So if it is possible to build socialism greater than the capitalism which existed before, how can an argument against the USSR be that it was never a socialist community because of the smallness of its capitalist economic production it took over from?).

Now the revolutio wishes to build machines to clean bathrooms. But it does not magically occur. There will need to be space to research and test, there will need to be labor to work it, and resources to be used. And of course time. We are told this is possible using excess labor ([perhaps the unemployed from the capitalist era) and also the former bourgeoise. Fine.

Except that the revolution didn&#39;t occur because there were people needed to clean bathrooms. It occureed because people are starving, they do not have decent housing, clothing, they were slaves, they did not enjoy the full fruits of their labor ect ect ect. Why should the socialist community be wishing to invent a bathroomm cleaning machine ahead of solving all these other miseries? After all, the labor, the time, the resources going into building that machine CANNOT be used to building decent housing ect ect ect and solving all the other grievances which the socialist community has. It could very well make that choice to do so, of course. But it does not strike me as a particularly wise or rational decision since the value of having machines scrub toilets would seem to be less than the value of having a three squares a day.

Choices, choices, choices. The bane of socialism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:16 am
Except that the revolution didn&#39;t occur because there were people needed to clean bathrooms. It occureed because people are starving, they do not have decent housing, clothing, they were slaves, they did not enjoy the full fruits of their labor ect ect ect. Why should the socialist community be wishing to invent a bathroomm cleaning machine ahead of solving all these other miseries? After all, the labor, the time, the resources going into building that machine CANNOT be used to building decent housing ect ect ect and solving all the other grievances which the socialist community has. It could very well make that choice to do so, of course. But it does not strike me as a particularly wise or rational decision since the value of having machines scrub toilets would seem to be less than the value of having a three squares a day.

Choices, choices, choices. The bane of socialism.
What&#39;s your argument?

I don&#39;t understand why building the machinery, as well as allocating the surplus capital of the bourgeoisie to suit to the livelihood of the working person, could not be accomplished. It is not like we are going to set off on accomplishing everything immediately; Rome wasn&#39;t built in a single day. In a situation where most of the daily needs and wants of the vast majority can already be produced rather cheaply through machines and an increased standard of living that permits longer hours, the case in a socialist society that emerges on the basis of the most advanced capitalist production would be able to go even more distances from it&#39;s conception. You can see that the working class already has the means at it&#39;s disposal to determine it&#39;s own conditions of labor; to determine how far beyond the necessary labor for the maintenance of themselves and of the society that they are willing to work to create surplus wealth for themselves. I don&#39;t see why we have to consider "opportunity costs" or "economic limitations", considering that we are a country where the richest 1 percent of the population controls 40 percent of the wealth and corporate CEOs make 430 times an average worker&#39;s pay - the notion that there is not enough money to meet the needs of all working people is an insult to intelligence. The further notion that, we can&#39;t expand our frontiers at the same time amidst this tremendous cache of material wealth, is also an insult to intelligence.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 04, 2007 09:56 pm--> (RedDali &#064; July 04, 2007 09:56 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 01:16 am
Except that the revolution didn&#39;t occur because there were people needed to clean bathrooms. It occureed because people are starving, they do not have decent housing, clothing, they were slaves, they did not enjoy the full fruits of their labor ect ect ect. Why should the socialist community be wishing to invent a bathroomm cleaning machine ahead of solving all these other miseries? After all, the labor, the time, the resources going into building that machine CANNOT be used to building decent housing ect ect ect and solving all the other grievances which the socialist community has. It could very well make that choice to do so, of course. But it does not strike me as a particularly wise or rational decision since the value of having machines scrub toilets would seem to be less than the value of having a three squares a day.

Choices, choices, choices. The bane of socialism.
What&#39;s your argument?

I don&#39;t understand why building the machinery, as well as allocating the surplus capital of the bourgeoisie to suit to the livelihood of the working person, could not be accomplished. It is not like we are going to set off on accomplishing everything immediately; Rome wasn&#39;t built in a single day. In a situation where most of the daily needs and wants of the vast majority can already be produced rather cheaply through machines and an increased standard of living that permits longer hours, the case in a socialist society that emerges on the basis of the most advanced capitalist production would be able to go even more distances from it&#39;s conception. You can see that the working class already has the means at it&#39;s disposal to determine it&#39;s own conditions of labor; to determine how far beyond the necessary labor for the maintenance of themselves and of the society that they are willing to work to create surplus wealth for themselves. I don&#39;t see why we have to consider "opportunity costs" or "economic limitations", considering that we are a country where the richest 1 percent of the population controls 40 percent of the wealth and corporate CEOs make 430 times an average worker&#39;s pay - the notion that there is not enough money to meet the needs of all working people is an insult to intelligence. The further notion that, we can&#39;t expand our frontiers at the same time amidst this tremendous cache of material wealth, is also an insult to intelligence. [/b]
Ulster Socialist is presenting the issue that it WILL be built in a day.

Sure, you can take the "surplus capital" of the bougoise. You can take it once, and only once. Then that wealth is all gone. Then you have to stop depending upon them to bail out the socilaist revolution and solve the issues yourself.

And I will say what I have been saying for so many months now: Socialists cannot just "say" things will be better "somehow." You have to show it. That&#39;s the argument being made, and, for the most part from the socialist angle, not being made.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ZX3
Ulster Socialist is presenting the issue that it WILL be built in a day.
When did I say that? I said there would be a &#39;transition period&#39; . I think that makes a difference.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 07, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 07, 2007 06:21 pm)
ZX3
Ulster Socialist is presenting the issue that it WILL be built in a day.
When did I say that? I said there would be a &#39;transition period&#39; . I think that makes a difference. [/b]
Sure. And you still have the problems. What is NOT built, what is NOT done while designing and building house building robots, during this transition period?

Relying upon socialism to solve the problem of the transition perid, and relying upon capitalism to solve the problems of socialism does not seem a wise strategy.

[Dimentio]

http://en.technocracynet.eu

:D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:38 am
http://en.technocracynet.eu

:D
Technocracy&#33;&#33; Bah humbug&#33;&#33;

[red team]

Originally posted by ZX3+July 08, 2007 03:52 pm--> (ZX3 &#064; July 08, 2007 03:52 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 10:38 am
http://en.technocracynet.eu

:D
Technocracy&#33;&#33; Bah humbug&#33;&#33; [/b]
Don&#39;t be so sure to dismiss it.

The sociopath manipulators needs the mindless naive sheeple like the oppressor boss needs their downtrodden victims. 90% of the world&#39;s people needs to follow one leader or another. Why do you think casinos are one of the richest industries in the world and the people who are obese can&#39;t lose weight because they won&#39;t stay on diets?

Sheeple are people that follow blindly and never question their leaders. Their simple Motto is:

"Follow the Asshole in front of you"


We understand that we live in a global society that thrives on lawsuits, blame and greed, but there will come a time where the self-destructive logic inherent in the planned obsolescence of mass-marketed, consumable junk that is the staple of Capitalism will come to an end and with that the social manipulators and sheeple will have no one to depend on for their oppressor-victim mutual fuck-fest. Then what happens? Mutual self-annihilation would be a good idea.

The future belongs to the willing and the brave.