Communism - is it fair? - ?

[Nadyah]

Although I would definitly say that I am more of a leftist-thinker, I have some issues with communism. I don't believe the world has ever witnessed true communism though, not even in the USSR, so I cannot really say I know for sure whether it works or not. I am, howeverm a bit reluctant to adopt a purely communist attitude, because - to me - it seems a bit unfair that everyone should have the exact equal possibilities and priviliges. Let's say someone really choses to invest in education (university ect.) and consequently gets a successful career. Doesn't this person deserve it?? From what I have read, one of the main aspects of communism is that everyone is equally off. I'm not saying there should be huge financial gaps in the world, as there is today, yet is it so bad that some are better off than others??

I'd really like to hear your vies on this.

[bolshevik1917]

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp

[革命者]

it seems a bit unfair that everyone should have the exact equal possibilities and priviliges.wtf?

equalty makes us find a common goal, comrade-- as vice versa.

Scotty.

[Invader Zim]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????

[Show me the Money]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????

[革命者]

????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Show me the Money]

??????????????????????????????

[革命者]

??

(Edited by Scotty at 2:17 pm on April 6, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

????????????????????????????????

[ComradeJunichi]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????


Alright guys, it's time to make a fucking sticky for this. The argument that everyone gets "equal pay" and whatever. A garbage man and a doctor, and the same old shit.

[Blibblob]

Yes, so when a newbie comes to the site, they can immediatley have that question answered.

Get some stuff out of the "can communism work" thread too. And mass it all into a GIANT SUPER STICKY!!!

[redstar2000]

I don't understand all the "?s"...seems like a reasonably straightforward question to me.

The answer, Nadyah, is no. From the capitalist viewpoint, communism is terribly unfair. No matter how much you learn, no matter how hard you work, and no matter how brilliant your innovation(s), you will never be allowed to become "rich".

We think it more important and fairer, in a universal sense to guarantee a reasonably comfortable life to all as opposed to the capitalist sense of "fairness".

There may be some inequalities, but they will be trivial compared to those that exist now.

So you have to look at what "fairness" means to you.

:cool:

[Nick Yves]

I like the idea of a super sticky...do it...could answer a lot of questions (and maybe a few of my own.)

Because I would relly like to here a logical answer to what ComradeJunichi posted. Yes, a garbage man and a doctor making the same pay. Well, it is true, isnt it? So whats your answer to these questions then!?

[Iepilei]

man does not work and achieve for the sheer benefit of money - even Ayn Rand admitted to this. man works for the betterment of himself, and ultimately, society.

so when one exceedes, they do so at the desire of their OWN ambitions - the ability to support society with that skill is a secondary trait. Remember again, that money is not always the glorifying trait - only in capitalistic countries do we tie those together.

[MJM]

To talk about money and possesions as measures of wealth is a capitalist term.
In communism a dr gets what they need to live and works how long is required for those needs, or more if they want too. A rubbish man gets what they need and works how long they are required or more if they want too.
From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

The problem is we put todays measurements on a whole different society. Although the majority of people today want more free time over money, the system measures first their financial position then their social ie. free/leasure time. We're constantly reminded that to be a sucess you must be rich.
Then further more, to be rich you must work hard, this is not really the case most poor people work a lot harder than rich people.


If you look down below the surface a doctor pays for his education now, but eventually he is reimbursed by his paitients. Once he has got the return on his investment he doesn't drop his price but does he.

The rubbish man only has his labour to sell, on a market saturated by this very commodity. He takes whatever he can get, if he doesn't like it there's plenty of other suppliers of labour. The only thing he is reimbursed for is the food and shelter necessary to keep him alive.

What was his crime? To be from a poor family, or not smart enough to get through school, maybe he rebelled against the school system, perhaps all the ads showing happy people wearing expensive cloths made him decide to leave school and get a job- after all he couldn't afford to pay study fees anyway so whats the point?


(Edited by MJM at 11:36 am on April 7, 2003)

[canikickit]

Let's say someone really choses to invest in education (university ect.) and consequently gets a successful career. Doesn't this person deserve it??

Of course they do. The aim is to change how people measure "successful" (as Redstar said).

What I don't understand is, why people feel that seven years of study (or whatever) are somehow a greater achievment than seven years of working on the streets cleaning up other people's messes.

Why is the doctor more important to society, because they put in more effort to get there? While the doctor has been putting in the effort (of going to classes and sitting on chairs listening to people talk), the street cleaner (or builder, or painter, or farmer) has been putting in the effort contributing to society.

Eventually the doctor will also contribute. His contribution is no more important than that of the other. We'd be fucked without either of them.

I don't propose that we all wake up tomorrow and get the same pay. The change must be more gradual, it'll never hold together if the majority oppose it.

[Wolfie]

"it seems a bit unfair that everyone should have the exact equal possibilities and priviliges."

if everyone having Equal opportunities is unfair, then WTF is!!!!

[Wolfie]

"it seems a bit unfair that everyone should have the exact equal possibilities and priviliges."

if everyone having Equal opportunities is unfair, then WTF isnt!!!!

[trotskylives]

"Let's say someone really choses to invest in education (university ect.) and consequently gets a successful career. Doesn't this person deserve it??"

The first question here is should you HAVE to invest in education - ormore to the point - haven't we all already invested in our education - by paying taxes. In most ,if not all western states, working class people pay the vast majority of taxes. we pay for the health care system, education, waste collection, sewrage service, public transport (and some private companies too through PPP and PFI in Britain and ireland for example)

Anyway, shouldn't everyone have the right to a proper and decent education? are middle class or wealthy people naturally more intelligent than working clas people? indeed in most situations it is working class people who actually keep society going. How would the doctor get to work if there was no petrol in his car because the workers in the oil fields were on strike as were the bus and train drivers. Surely the doctors job would be made virtually impossible if disease was rampant because the bin workers were on strike. This is precisely the nub of the question - the position of the working class in society. If we, working class people are the reason why society trunddles along every day, if we create all the wealth in society, then why are we not entitled to the same opportunities as middle class people. and why stop there with "equal opportunities" (there is no such thing, nor can there be in a system based on exploitation) why, instead of having the same access to education... and leave it there..... why don't we take ALL the profit and use it to erradicate poverty, end the arms industry - use the money to pay eveyone a decent wage, a decent health care system, a decent education etc etc and by the way I've ever read or heard any socialist advocate everyone to be paid the exact same. "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need", I think that sums it up pretty nicely

[ComradeJunichi]

Quote: from jetgrind on 6:18 pm on April 6, 2003
I like the idea of a super sticky...do it...could answer a lot of questions (and maybe a few of my own.)

Because I would relly like to here a logical answer to what ComradeJunichi posted. Yes, a garbage man and a doctor making the same pay. Well, it is true, isnt it? So whats your answer to these questions then!?


No, it's not true. My thought of a socialist society is not equal pay for everyone. An equal start, and a pay according to work. The pays are in a sense equal, the ranges are very close. 'Bonus's are also given according to contribution.

I just don't think exactly equal pay will work right after revolution.

[chamo]

A Socialist society would give fair pay, not equal, but fair according to the job.

A Communist society would give equal pay as all jobs are as important to society, from a doctor to a garbage man, they are as important. Some people do nasty jobs so that we do not have to, so they are entitled to the same pay, yet they do not recieve it. How much money would you have to offer to a lawyer to get him to work as a garbage collector? I would say the same amount that he currently earns so therefore garbage collectors are entitled to equal pay. The final goal of communism is of course to eradicate the need for money and so therefore money is not an object, motivator or evil-doer. This is the running of a Utopian society where there is no money for trade and people contibute themselves to society so that it will run efficently.

[Iepilei]

I've always believed that what a man pays for with his mind, the other pays for with his body - and vice versa. Any job bears it's weight. I'd like to see a physician work in a steel mill, or coal mine - just as I'd like to see a construction worker perscribe medications, or perform bypasses.

People will do what they love... you can't stop this.

[Nadyah]

Just for the record, since I am experiencing some negative vibes here (bc of my -let me emphasise- HIGHLY RELEVANT question) I feel I should point out the fact that the question - as obvious the answer might be to some of you - is one of the most asked ones and consequently also one of the most disputed ones... Hence, in my opinion (and in this case, I know I'm right)t's a legitimate question!

Perhaps, if you would use your time to enlighten people instead of critising them when they seek knowledge, your beloved communism would perhaps even gain more support.

;)

[redstar2000]

Nadyah, I looked over the other posts and don't feel that there were any "negative vibes" expressed towards you because of your question.

Starting with page 2 of this thread, I think all the posts were honest attempts to deal with what is, after all, a lot more complicated than one might think.

As to page 1, I apologize to you for all those posts with the stupid question marks. As a moderator, I'm supposed to delete that kind of crap...and the next time it happens, I will.

I take honest questions from people very seriously...and I think it is a duty of all serious communists to do likewise.

I hope you'll feel free to ask any question that occurs to you.

:cool:

[Hate Is Art]

i don't think you can ever have a truly communist state, there will always be opposition and corruption, someone will always bend the rules, someone will always complain, there will always be unequality and freedom will not always be granted, but socialism is a good goal.
If everyone is payed according to their own workload then that will encourage each person to work harder, they harder you work the more you are paid, if a street cleaner works harder than a lawyer or doctor then he is paid more and vice-versa - that i think is an achievable goal

[Nadyah]

okei...I get the points...And I really like the idea about people being paid according to work and all that.

But let's look at the example with the street cleaner and the doctor... A doctor works very, very hard to actually become a doctor; motivation and effort being the key words. I cannot imagine that a street cleaner really sets out to become a street cleaner...Let's face facts; often (and I have to emphasise that I am NOT saying that this is always the case) people are just too lazy to make an effort and set themselves goals in life!! We cannot deny that fact! Now, a doctor has made such an effort...so shouldn't he get his reward?

Where I live (Norway) it is very, very common that people do not work just to recieve the unemployment benefits or equvivalent because the they are high enough for them to have a nice life without making any effort... It would really annoy me if I was a lawyer and someone that had spent their life living of my tax money suddenly became a street cleaner and got the same pay as I did...

I'm just wondering... ;p

[Hate Is Art]

That's a good point and I see what you mean, I can't really see an effective way round it exept maybe base pay, so a Doctor would get a Base pay of say £200 a week plus substanital bonuses for effort and quality street cleanr gets a base of £50 plus bonuses etc but if either is founf to be working very hard consistentatly base goes if they are slacking or doing a bad job either base reduction or re-job placement.

Hope you can get your head round it

[Nadyah]

That's a good point! I hadn't thought of that, but that seems like a really good system. That way people would be sort of "rewarded" for their efforts.

But I still am a bit confused as to what and who would define and determine "hard work." The idea is good, but who is to make a judgement about what the nature of "hard work" really is? I mean; there are different degrees of "hard work." And people disagree about what hard work really is because one becomes way too subjective to make an unbiased judgement.

Know what I mean?

[sc4r]

Quote: from Nadyah on 9:14 am on April 15, 2003
That's a good point! I hadn't thought of that, but that seems like a really good system. That way people would be sort of "rewarded" for their efforts.

But I still am a bit confused as to what and who would define and determine "hard work." The idea is good, but who is to make a judgement about what the nature of "hard work" really is? I mean; there are different degrees of "hard work." And people disagree about what hard work really is because one becomes way too subjective to make an unbiased judgement.

Know what I mean?

First off to correct one or two subtle but quite common errors that have crept in here.

It is perfectly tru to say that socialism rewards work but it is not true to say that under communism everybody is paid equally. The point of a communist society (which you cannot get to just by changing the legal and economic structures, you actually have to change human nature, which BTW marx does not just assume happens, he says how and why) is that people award themselves what they 'need' and voluntarily contribute what they are able. There is no point criticisng this idea from the perspective of attitudes aquited under capitalism that is not the perspective within which it is framed.

Now when it comes to how differential payments are decided in socialism there are several approaches :

1) It can simply be decided by the state acting as the interpreter of the people. This, except in a very small and simple society, is almost a guarantee that dissatisfaction and accusations of totalitarianism will arise.

2) You can allow market forces to dictate it in much the same way it does in a capitalist society (my preferred solution). Ther is nothing in marxist doctrine (and nothing wrong that I can see) in having a market in employment so long as nobody aquires any rights to another persons future production.

Amother pervasive idea that invades these sorts of discussions is that people (understandably since we are products of capitalist societies) assume that the only motivation that would make you untertake the training to be a doctor is extra payment. It is not. People even today do all sorts of things which they feel will give them extra status and put quite extreme effort into it without any prospect if financial reward.

And as a final note you probably should recognise that as a starting point you simply leave salry differentials much as they are to start with. If at some point you start to see fewer doctors than you wish to see you simply raise the reward at that point (and vice versa).

Bottom line is not to get hung up on interpreting everything in socialism thriough a capitalist money paradigm. It does not fit.

[redstar2000]

"Bottom line is not to get hung up on interpreting everything in socialism through a capitalist money paradigm. It does not fit." Well said!

There have been several threads in the past on this subject..."who will clean the sewers?" has been a constantly asked question probably since the day after the Communist Manifesto was published.

My own approach is to distinguish between jobs that are intrinsically rewarding in and of themselves and jobs that are generally regarded as "shit".

A doctor is in the first category; a street cleaner in the second. Both kinds of jobs are necessary for any kind of modern society to function.

My suggestion is that the "shit" jobs should pay a premium...those who are willing to perform those unpleasant, boring, and physically exhausting jobs should be rewarded above and beyond the basic level of average existence.

This suggestion has always met with skepticism...from within the capitalist paradigm.

I'm told that "no one" would wish to become <insert name of highly skilled and learned professional here> when they could make more money cleaning the sewers or sweeping the streets.

I think the objection misses the whole point of why one would want to become a skilled professional at all...the job is interesting. To be able to do something that is complicated, difficult, demanding, etc. and do it well is an enormous reward in and of itself. Someone who really is a rocket scientist commands respect and don't think for a second that s/he's not well aware of it and relishes it.

Those who do the "shit jobs" in society don't ordinarily get that sense of job satisfaction, much less any measurable respect from others. Yet, no social order can survive without them.

Therefore, in simple justice, they should at least receive additional material reward for doing "what no one else would do if they had an alternative."

It seems the least we could do.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:07 pm on April 15, 2003)

[Hate Is Art]

thats a good idea but I don't think it would work in real life, this get used a lot but it falls under the "good on paper not in real life" part of communism.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Nadyah on 9:46 am on April 6, 2003
Although I would definitly say that I am more of a leftist-thinker, I have some issues with communism. I don't believe the world has ever witnessed true communism though, not even in the USSR, so I cannot really say I know for sure whether it works or not. I am, howeverm a bit reluctant to adopt a purely communist attitude, because - to me - it seems a bit unfair that everyone should have the exact equal possibilities and priviliges. Let's say someone really choses to invest in education (university ect.) and consequently gets a successful career. Doesn't this person deserve it?? From what I have read, one of the main aspects of communism is that everyone is equally off. I'm not saying there should be huge financial gaps in the world, as there is today, yet is it so bad that some are better off than others??

I'd really like to hear your vies on this.


Everyone should have the same chances and possibilities in live, but people who work harder should also get a lil' more. Not enough to create classes, but enough to make a small difference.

This is a very discussed matter. We have had a good discussion on this. Started by SuperNova, dont remember the topicsname anymore. So the communistic opinions are very divided on this.
Altough my opinion

[Hate Is Art]

I think it just comes down this simple maxim "Those who work hardest get the best rewards"

[redstar2000]

Digital Nirvana, exactly why should an idea that's "good on paper" not be a good idea in real life?

Of course, there have been ideas that "looked good" on paper and turned out to be howling disasters. Usually, this is because the full consequences of the idea were never thought through.

But it doesn't seem to me that it has to be that way.

And to say that "those who work hardest get the best rewards" is meaningless unless you have some objective definition of "hard work" that everyone can agree upon. Perhaps that's possible, but it doesn't look that way now.

:cool: