Who gets to do certain jobs etc...

[Schfifty-Five]

These are't OV questions, I just don't know where else to post them.

Here are a few questions I have.

Who gets to be the professional sports people and how could they become such people? (footballers, F1 drivers etc)
Who gets to do the simple easy jobs where one only has to work a couple of hours at a time?
Won't the heavy labourers feel some resentment for those who are in easier jobs when they will both recieve the same pay?
What if the government decides you train to be a doctor, you spend 6 years at medical college and constantly fail the exam.
Will the population be allowed to own guns?
What would stop an underground currency system?
Would gambling be illegal?
What happens when people want to take foreign holidays? (How do they afford it without currency)
What happens when people leave the country because they prefer to live in a capitalist state?
If everyone recieves the same pay, everyone should be intitled to the same as everyone else, does this mean everyone gets a car, TV, Hovercraft, pet horse.... etc.
What if the majory vote in a capitalist governent?

I have lots more questions but these will do for now.

[RevSkeptic]

Who gets to be the professional sports people and how could they become such people? (footballers, F1 drivers etc)

whoever wants to. But, why professional? It doesn't contribute to anything other than entertainment value so you'll be paid as an entertainer.


Won't the heavy labourers feel some resentment for those who are in easier jobs when they will both recieve the same pay?

Obviously you haven't seen the prototype power suit that's been developed by a Japanese scientist. You can probably lift twice your weight with one arm.


What if the government decides you train to be a doctor, you spend 6 years at medical college and constantly fail the exam.

Do you take exams at work or do you simply become better and faster with practice?

Also, why timed exams and closed book exams?
If you forget something do you close your books at work or do most people have photographic memory?
Also, if you work on a problem that requires thought do you need time to ponder or do you "have to" rush through it?


Will the population be allowed to own guns?

Sure, but when do you need to take your gun out? Where is it stored? If you do take your gun out shouldn't everybody else need to know about it in case you do something bad with your gun?


What would stop an underground currency system?

abundance.


Would gambling be illegal?

Establishments whose only purpose is gambling should be.
Also, it should be made impossible.


What happens when people leave the country because they prefer to live in a capitalist state?

What if people prefer to live in a feudalist state? After the collapse and discreditation, it just wouldn't be attractive to go back.


If everyone recieves the same pay, everyone should be intitled to the same as everyone else, does this mean everyone gets a car, TV, Hovercraft, pet horse.... etc.

everybody can ride in self-driving taxis.
hologram projector: yes
Public hoverbus: yes
Pet horse: maybe

[synthesis]

Who knows? The point of communism is that the economy is controlled democratically, whereas under capitalism it is a select few.

If you know how to build computers, and you do it in your spare time, you could use it to reward those people who you feel are being productive to society, or you could trade it for things other people make or do in their spare time.

You have to understand that communism is fundamentally the elimination of the institution of wage slavery, not the homogenization of the human population.




Who gets to be the professional sports people and how could they become such people? (footballers, F1 drivers etc)

Probably people who are good enough that the rest of society would be willing to subsidize them to watch them play. Kind of like how it is now, minus the middlemen.


Who gets to do the simple easy jobs where one only has to work a couple of hours at a time?

Probably people who would settle for the bare minimum of what the rest of society is willing to offer.



Won't the heavy labourers feel some resentment for those who are in easier jobs when they will both recieve the same pay?

Who would force them to stay? And don't they already?

Think about it like this. If 6 billion people were to each donate 10 hours out of their week to productive purposes, that would equal 240 billion hours of labor a month - you can get a lot done in that time, and people would still have the rest of the week to engage in whatever their true calling may be.


Will the population be allowed to own guns?

Maybe. It would probably depend on the context of the revolution.



What would stop an underground currency system?

Nothing, not if no one does anything about it.


Would gambling be illegal?

What would you gamble with?



What happens when people want to take foreign holidays? (How do they afford it without currency)

How would they afford it without currency in the current system?

Again, there could easily be a system where travel is facilitated by people who think you're doing something positive for society, like providing medical care. These people could in turn receive benefits from others, who feel that they are doing something positive by providing services for people who do other positive things. If people believe that providing recreational travel is not adequately productive for society, then it is unlikely that they would be rewarded.

What I'm getting at is that these problems exist no matter which system you live under, and we argue that your reward for productive labor could be other people's productive labor, if they want to.


If everyone recieves the same pay, everyone should be intitled to the same as everyone else, does this mean everyone gets a car, TV, Hovercraft, pet horse.... etc.

See above.



What if the majory vote in a capitalist governent?

What you are really asking is: what if people wish to return to a system that necessitates a few people being employers and most people being employees, rather than everyone supporting each other based on the productivity of their labor?

Maybe they might. Who knows?

[apathy maybe]

First of all, you should really mention what system you are asking after...

Do you mean a system of classlessnes, without a state, and without hierarchy? (Possibly with property (being defined in the Marxian sense of non-personal possessions) being held in common by a community, and goods going to those who need them, with work done to the amount required?)

If so, why didn't you just say so! :P

(And if you are a leftist, a good place would be learning. But what the hell.)
The questions you ask are going to get a lot of answers. Rather then answer each and every one of them, I'll simplify them.

Who does what job? There are a variety of methods of job allocation. The simplest is those that want to do a job, do it (There wouldn't exist such jobs as "professional racing car driver", because it isn't productive. It might be a hobby for some types though.) As to shitty jobs (such as cleaning toilets...), random allocation, roster, machines, volunteers, more access to certain luxuries, and so on are all possibilities.

Why would anyone be a toilet cleaner? Why wouldn't everyone want to be a doctor? Why do doctors get paid the same as toilet cleaners? Because if you didn't have toilet cleaners, you would need more doctors... Besides, not everyone is "paid" the same (and you must get rid of the mind set of pay). People receive what they need.


Government, x, y, z. No government. Full stop. Anarchism is a society without such unnecessary evils.


Currency, gambling and so on. It depends on the economic system that is adopted, but in a communism system... These things don't exist. Well, gambling would, but it would be for fun, not profit. Currency in the sense of an item representing a certain amount of resources would, but probably only as an historical tool, not actually used in the society.


Countries, nationalism etc. Theoretically, none of these exist. Assuming a world wide revolution. But if there does exist geographical areas which are not anarchistic, why would anyone stop people from moving there? Well, apart from the capitalist government...

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

whoever wants to. But, why professional? It doesn't contribute to anything other than entertainment value so you'll be paid as an entertainer.

Now, here's my question. It seems most people on this board expect the elimination of currency in the communist state (entirely defensible under Marxism). So how will people be paid at all? How will value be judged? Let's say I spend all day producing widgets (useless things that nobody really wants). How will it be established that I'm not contributing to society?


Obviously you haven't seen the prototype power suit that's been developed by a Japanese scientist. You can probably lift twice your weight with one arm.

Obviously, you haven't either. That suit isn't anywhere near the point at which it could be used in an industrial capacity. Even if it gets to that point: so what? The fact remains, some jobs are harder than others. So, do we preferentially treat people who do harder jobs (sounds like you're re-establishing a hierarchy)?


Do you take exams at work or do you simply become better and faster with practice?

Also, why timed exams and closed book exams?
If you forget something do you close your books at work or do most people have photographic memory?
Also, if you work on a problem that requires thought do you need time to ponder or do you "have to" rush through it?

So you want to be operated on (in real life with all its unexpected turns) by a doctor who can't even pass an exam? We need some way of insuring people who do essential jobs are competent [excuse me for ideological self-promotion here, but capitalist-style competition has historically done a very good job of this, since inefficient persons can be readily replaced].



What would stop an underground currency system?

abundance.


I'm aware that there's a broad gap between an ideal communist state and those which have already been created, but (in all fairness) communist revolutions have never brought abundance (compare Taiwan vs. mainland China, eastern vs. western Germany, notice the food shortages that spiked dramatically shortly after the rise of the USSR).


What if people prefer to live in a feudalist state? After the collapse and discreditation, it just wouldn't be attractive to go back.


I disagree. They've tried to implement communism in Russia, Eastern Europe, South America and Africa and it's pretty much failed miserably everywhere. Nevertheless, the members of this forum still want to try again.

[synthesis]

I disagree. They've tried to implement communism in Russia, Eastern Europe, South America and Africa and it's pretty much failed miserably everywhere. Nevertheless, the members of this forum still want to try again.


I think I might have explained this to you elsewhere, but I'll explain it again.

None of those countries were industrialized, and they were also highly acclimated to autocratic governments - in short, all had conditions which will never be able to sustain real economic democracy.

Only the dinosaurs among us lend any credit to the idea that a Bolshevik-style revolution would suit the conditions of modern industrial capitalism.

Rather, we recognize that capitalism, during its natural vacillations, inevitably creates revolutionary conditions, and it is our intent to ensure that these revolutions are progressive in character - communism - rather than reactionary - fascism.

But the revolutions did not necessarily "fail" when examined empirically. For example, the vast majority of Cubans are far better off now than they were under Batista, with the exceptions of the business-people, the owners of gambling establishments and the Mafia members who controlled Havana back in the 50's. Not only that, but Cuba has attained a level of political autonomy that would have been unthinkable without revolution.

Same with China. China had been getting fucked over by various imperialist governments for decades, but Mao took over, and China now has political autonomy, economic leverage, and a rising urban merchant class.

And so the pattern continues. In autocratic, unindustrialized countries, a revolution led by Communists will inevitably result in a capitalist democracy - which is a necessary step on the road to genuine communism.

I can see that both of you you are quite ignorant of the Marxist system of historical analysis, so I will be happy to answer other questions you may have.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 03:06 pm
I think I might have explained this to you elsewhere, but I'll explain it again.

None of those countries were industrialized, and they were also highly acclimated to autocratic governments - in short, all had conditions which will never be able to sustain real economic democracy.

Only the dinosaurs among us lend any credit to the idea that a Bolshevik-style revolution would suit the conditions of modern industrial capitalism.

Rather, we recognize that capitalism, during its natural vacillations, inevitably creates revolutionary conditions, and it is our intent to ensure that these revolutions are progressive in character - communism - rather than reactionary - fascism.

But the revolutions did not necessarily "fail" when examined empirically. For example, the vast majority of Cubans are far better off now than they were under Batista, with the exceptions of the business-people, the owners of gambling establishments and the Mafia members who controlled Havana back in the 50's. Not only that, but Cuba has attained a level of political autonomy that would have been unthinkable without revolution.

Same with China. China had been getting fucked over by various imperialist governments for decades, but Mao took over, and China now has political autonomy, economic leverage, and a rising urban merchant class.

And so the pattern continues. In autocratic, unindustrialized countries, a revolution led by Communists will inevitably result in a capitalist democracy - which is a necessary step on the road to genuine communism.

I can see that both of you you are quite ignorant of the Marxist system of historical analysis, so I will be happy to answer other questions you may have.
Eastern Germany was very highly industrialized, and the revolution still failed (granted, it was imposed from outside). My essential point, however, is that these revolutions have historically not worked out well; you can keep blaming it on things other than fundamental ideological problems, but at some point I think that starts wearing thin (for me, it already has).

Furthermore, China didn't end up any better under Mao. Remember the massive famines? The Cultural Revolution? China is doing OK today, but it's effectively abandoned communism. Major corporations freely do business there, private proptery is legal and consumerism is rampant.

Why do you say Cuba was worse under Batista. Check out http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cubaprecastro21698.html for counterpoints. See also:
http://abcnews.go.com/Exclusiva/story?id=3568278
On top of that, Castro doesn't exactly have a clean human rights record (neither did Batista, but I wouldn't call it an improvement.)

[synthesis]

Eastern Germany was very highly industrialized, and the revolution still failed (granted, it was imposed from outside).

Revolutions are not imposed from outside.

Now that that basic fact is understood, you must also understand that most Western European countries were totally drained by WWII, and most were only saved from revolution by the Marshall Plan, which was economic aid specifically for the purpose of mitigating revolutionary conditions.

East Germany did not receive this aid, putting it in a drastically different position than West Germany. I believe Stalin actually expropriated East German finances as "reparations" for the war.


My essential point, however, is that these revolutions have historically not worked out well;

No, the revolutions usually do just fine. It is only after the revolution when people realize that a mostly agrarian economy cannot sustain economic democracy.


you can keep blaming it on things other than fundamental ideological problems, but at some point I think that starts wearing thin (for me, it already has).

Well, then I should be questioning what I am doing wrong if I am speaking truth and you still remain ignorant.

One thing you have to understand is that you are taking fundamentally idealist perspective, where history is determined by ideas, as opposed to a materialist perspective, where history is determined by conditions.

Until you recognize that the genesis of ideology is always rooted in material conditions, I can do nothing to help you shed yourself of this ignorance.




Furthermore, China didn't end up any better under Mao. Remember the massive famines? The Cultural Revolution? China is doing OK today, but it's effectively abandoned communism. Major corporations freely do business there, private proptery is legal and consumerism is rampant.

My point exactly. Leninist revolutions mostly occur in pre-industrial, pre-democratic ex-colonies. They have the inevitable effect of industrializing the country, establishing political autonomy in the face of neo-colonialism, and giving way to bourgeois democracy in places where democracy never existed in the first place.

In short - progress. These are the conditions that are necessary in order for genuine Communism to even become a possibility.



Why do you say Cuba was worse under Batista. Check out http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cubaprecastro21698.html for counterpoints.

Well, think about it like this. After Batista staged several coups, he was forced to hold an election where he was the only candidate - far less democratic than Castro, where people are allowed to vote for grassroots candidates who must still belong to the Communist Party.

This prompted massive civil unrest, and in turn, protesters were beaten, student leaders were assassinated, the constitution was suspended, the media was censored, universities were shut down, and torture of dissenters was widespread.

Why don't we see this kind of civil disobedience to Castro's regime? Read this for more information:

http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html

I think we can thusly dismiss the idea that Castro's regime was anything less than par for the course for these conditions.

So why is Batista the shit, according to this article? It claims that in 1950, the peso was equal to the U.S. dollar, but this was six years after Batista was voted out of office and two years before he staged a coup after reading that he was last in the polls.

It talks about how Cuba had a better infant mortality rate than America. It still does. The article also mentions that Cuba's literacy rate in 1958 was at 82%; now it surpasses America and England with a 99.8% literacy rate, while both the U.S. and the U.K. are at 99.0%.

And so on. No mention of life expectancy, which was around 60 under Batista, now another aspect where Cuba surpasses the U.S., even if only by a little - 78.3 and 78.2, respectively.

The article never explains how conditions deteriorated under Castro. Understand that the source for this article is a magazine run by Cuban political exiles, who are by and large the descendants of the business magnates who lost the most relative to the rest of Cuban society after the revolution.

Not to be confused with Cuba's "economic refugees", which are somehow construed to be more worthy of capitalist righteousness than "economic refugees" from Haiti and Mexico.

[Green Dragon]

delete

[MT5678]

That cuba-pre-castro article is bullshit. If conditions were as happy and rosy as it stated, then obviously people would have not been so thrilled when Batista was thrown out. Conditions have to be bad for a revolution to occur, and even then there is no guarantee of occurrence.

Before Castro, Cuba was a land of agribusiness plantations, drug cartels, wealth disparities, corruption, coups, and more. All those things have disappeared.

Perhaps this website can do a better job.
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/baa.html

[RevSkeptic]

Now, here's my question. It seems most people on this board expect the elimination of currency in the communist state (entirely defensible under Marxism). So how will people be paid at all? How will value be judged? Let's say I spend all day producing widgets (useless things that nobody really wants). How will it be established that I'm not contributing to society?

Actually there are other non-marxist systems that are currency free.

"Value" is judged by the quantity purchased by people who desire your work.
Value can't really be judged in any other way that doesn't lead to contradictions and manipulation.

People will be given bonus purchasing credits in addition to the products made from automated production, judged by how much personal labour and time sacrificed in work.

If you spend all day working on widgets that doesn't sell 100% then the quantity produced will be adjusted to how much it does sell or none if it doesn't sell at all. If it doesn't sell at all then you wouldn't be doing that job because you wouldn't be given additional purchasing credits that other people doing productive work will get.

Current inequality has more to do with psychological factors of over-inflated egoism than anything empirical and logical.


Obviously, you haven't either. That suit isn't anywhere near the point at which it could be used in an industrial capacity. Even if it gets to that point: so what? The fact remains, some jobs are harder than others. So, do we preferentially treat people who do harder jobs (sounds like you're re-establishing a hierarchy)?

What's your point. Hierarchy will always be necessary, but not unchallenged power as we have today.

The tools developed would make manual labour, that hasn't been automated already, a possible job for everybody. The range of possible jobs that a person can take can be expanded to include jobs a person is not inherently physically built for thus enlarging the pool of available labour that can be utilized to perform useful work. Now, whether or not the full potential of this labour pool is realized then becomes a political and psychological question rather than a question of physical limitations.

Take your example of hierarchy which sounds more like the human psychological desire to achieve social dominance which is also a trait found in many "lower" animals like gorillas. Whether or not people can suppress or surpass this psychological desire remains an open and non-political question. Many "Communist" leaders also display this trait of trying to achieve social dominance so it's ultimately a human question rather than a political one.

But "humanity" not being a monolithic group may be that only certain individuals are genetically more likely to be skeptical, non-egoist, intelligent and intellectually curious so it may be the job of governments to hide these next stage of humanity in bunkers while the rest of the world blows itself up in the inevitable resource wars to come. But, then again a cornered beast might want to take everybody down with him when he goes down so there would be no variants of humanity left to save on doomsday.


So you want to be operated on (in real life with all its unexpected turns) by a doctor who can't even pass an exam? We need some way of insuring people who do essential jobs are competent [excuse me for ideological self-promotion here, but capitalist-style competition has historically done a very good job of this, since inefficient persons can be readily replaced].

Depends on the exam and the job he's trained for. With further critical thought we discover that the only jobs that require any kind of fresh intelligent thoughts are creative in nature like being an artist or inventor or scientist. Anything else that does not have a creative content required for it's performance must be routine which means it's algorithmic in nature. This means that these other jobs are limited by only one of three things that can all be remedied either through technology or organization.

1. The job exceeds the physical demands of the individual which we already have answered with developing technology to make this limitation irrelevant. Increasing mechanization means the power at the hands of a physically limited individual exceeds his own inherent weakness and is only limited by available resources like fuel. All the five senses of a human being already have developed tools that can enhance an individual with inherent weaknesses in them. We have early prototypes that enhance the individual senses which must be at least present. For example: glasses, chemical sensors, hearing aids, power tools.....
But, the logical conclusion after decades of development will be that all human senses can be replaced by a manufactured device with the same functionality so physical limitations will inevitably become obsolete.

2. Jobs that require an algorithmic routine like being a doctor can be learned with enough practice by practically any human being without mental retardation.

3. The excessive complexity of algorithms require to solve a problem can be broken down by organizing the job into many individuals each performing a simpler routine which by point 2 above will eventually be mastered with enough practice. The complexity of the routine can further be ameliorated through relying on the one technology that was designed to run repetive and predictable algorithms which is the computer.

4. What's the institution that could most likely nurture and develop skilled individuals through repetitive practice and not cutthroat Capitalist competition? See my signature area or better yet do some research on Technocracy and the Venus Project. So far nothing of the sort was implemented in a society wide scale in either Capitalist or Communist (Marxist) systems. What exactly does this tell you about the propaganda you hear in any type of system that's advocated as either the status quo or the popular mainstream "radical" solution?


I disagree. They've tried to implement communism in Russia, Eastern Europe, South America and Africa and it's pretty much failed miserably everywhere. Nevertheless, the members of this forum still want to try again.

Communism of the Marxist variety doesn't work and will inevitably lead to nationalization which means instead of many competing corporations you get one big country wide super corporation which is still Capitalism by any other name.

Which brings me to the point that you don't challenge the authority of your boss if you are working in a corporation no matter how competent you are and how incompetent you view your boss unless you want to get fired or have your career options severely limited. What does "getting fired" or have "limited career options" in a super corporation that is basically the whole country means?