Caring for granny post-capitalism [Archive]

View Full Version : Caring for granny post-capitalism

Robert

15th July 2008, 12:43

Bud Struggle

15th July 2008, 14:26

I think Robert means: after the Revolution--who is going to do the dirty jobs in the convelesent homes? Wouldn't everyone rather just sing and play guitar instead of changing bedpans?

Kwisatz Haderach

15th July 2008, 14:34

I think Robert means: after the Revolution--who is going to do the dirty jobs in the convelesent homes? Wouldn't everyone rather just sing and play guitar instead of changing bedpans?
No, because for most normal people it is impossible to watch a vulnerable person suffer or struggle without offering help.

If anything, I think the number of people willing to volunteer to help the elderly or infirm would increase if these volunteers wouldn't have to worry about getting a job that pays better.

pusher robot

15th July 2008, 17:17

No, because for most normal people it is impossible to watch a vulnerable person suffer or struggle without offering help.

If anything, I think the number of people willing to volunteer to help the elderly or infirm would increase if these volunteers wouldn't have to worry about getting a job that pays better.

You're delusional. First of all, a far simpler solution to the problem of finding it "impossible to watch a vulnerable person suffer or struffgle" is to simply put them in a place where they can't be seen. Problem solved on your end.

Second of all, you are not recognizing that there is a limit to how far most people will give of themselves, even to alleviate the suffering of others. At some point (and in the case of dirty jobs like the ones we are talking about, pretty quickly) the alleviation of suffering itself becomes suffering, and all things being equal, most people are simply more attentive to their own suffering than the suffering of others, meaning they will not continue to toil unless their suffering is alleviated somehow - like, say, with a paycheck.

Robert

15th July 2008, 17:35

What do you mean here? If you volunteer to help the elderly in capitalism, what's changed in communism? You would still volunteer wouldn't you?As others note, I'm worried about who will volunteer to do the dirty work. All of it, every day, not a little here and there until you get tired of it and want to go plant trees or something.

Yes, I am always happy to play and sing along with elderly shut ins for free under communism or capitalism. I won't volunteer to give them baths, and I'm being decorous in mentioning the baths only. Go work in a nursing home for one day and you'll see what I mean, but I'm sure you can imagine. They need help doing everything, and they may not have family, or none that cares.

I do salute your optimism and high opinion of your fellow man, Kwisatz.

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 21:15

pusher robot

15th July 2008, 21:34

Well, first off, the objective should be to keep seniors out of the centers in the first place.

Why?

There should be an increase of home services, with free groceries and meal preparation, a free visiting nurse, and an adviser of some sort, so that their physical and emotional needs are met.

Also, beautiful women should stop by my apartment periodically, so that my certain physical and emotional needs are met (no fatties.)

Yes, we understand that you have a utopian vision. We're sort of wondering, um, how you imagine this to work. As in, why would all these people be doing this?

If they can not tend for themselves, then the senior centers should be publicly funded so that the "unfavorable jobs" could be carried out by professionals that do not puke easily.

How do you "publicly fund" something without money? I.e., without "funds?"

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2008, 21:38

15th July 2008, 21:47

Well, first off, the objective should be to keep seniors out of the centers in the first place.

There should be an increase of home services, with free groceries and meal preparation, a free visiting nurse, and an adviser of some sort, so that their physical and emotional needs are met.

If they can not tend for themselves, then the senior centers should be publicly funded so that the "unfavorable jobs" could be carried out by professionals that do not puke easily.

I disagree for a number of reasons.

First I think that the fixation with the nuclear family centered home as the basis for society is not an inherent good in itself but part of patriarchal ideology designed to reproduce the working class both physically and ideologically; its glorification is part of bourgeois ideology.

There is no reason why living collectively, with other people in your own generation should be seen as undesirable; on the contrary it both allows for a vastly more efficient resource and time management (fewer hours of work per person needed for meal preparation, laundry, clean up, etc in collective environments, freeing people from the oppressive drudgery of domestic "work"/toil); more importantly it allows people to have a broader social network, to replace the isolation and social oppression of the nuclear family with the less alienating larger community.

In a post-class communist society, people too old or too young to care for themselves will live collectively; day care for children and collective homes for old people will be seen as the normal and socially healthy way of living and living on your own or with just a sex partner or children will be seen as depressing. ;)

Demogorgon

15th July 2008, 21:49

I was never out of the bloody places when my Grandfather was still alive. raveling twenty miles several days a week to visit somebody who is having increasing trouble holding a conversation or remembering what has happened is not particularly fun.

Anyway, as to the issue discussed. The answer is really the same as it is to all of these questions. The idea that everything under Communism will be based on people volunteering to do everything needing done or that there will be an infinite amount of resources or whatever is naive.

Rather when a job needs done the obvious solution is to make it clear the job needs done, interview interested parties and award the job to the best candidate. The best candidate will then be rewarded with an income, or to put it more basically, their share of goods and services. Unlike under capitalism they will receive a fair amount incidentally.

This discussion of "how does one do x without money?" is getting boring. I mean does anybody here actually know how an advanced economy could function without either money or Labour vouchers? I don't suppose they do. The goal of socialists therefore is to find something better than capitalist money to work as the fuel for the economy. Either Labour Vouchers or, as I believe is best, something else.

Joe Hill's Ghost

15th July 2008, 22:05

Bud Struggle

15th July 2008, 22:11

Its rather simple, jobs that are shitty and neccesary will be shared by all workers at the location. Michael Albert calls it a "balanced job complex" (shitty name), anyway, everyone will have their share of the good and bad, though with technological progress focused towards the elimination of "the bad," it will become increasingly less cumbersome.

Excellent idea. One month I'll change bedpans, the next brain surgeon, the next fireperson, the next rocket scientist....till of course we get those damn robots on line. Now there's a plan for the future.

FYI: I'm going to name my robot "Pusher." :lol:

Bud Struggle

15th July 2008, 22:13

Sugar Hill Kevis

15th July 2008, 22:20

I'm what my government terms a 'young carer'. I live with both of my grandparents, one of whom is seriously disabled. My grandfather is still reasonably independent, but understandably there's a lot that is past him to do, let alone for my grandmother to do. It mostly involves chores and such, as well as being constantly alert to their needs etc. The area I live is fairly elderly, so I do a few chores for some of our neighbours as well.

Post-capitalism, I'm sure that family relationship would still exist. However, there would theoretically be more community support.

As far as care homes go; my mother works nights in a care home (the reason I was raised by my grandparents). It's not tremendously well paying, my mother could easily earn the same working the lunch counter at Woolworths. If you ask my mother why she does it, in spite of physical abuse, clearing shit off the walls and unsocial hours; she'll say it's because it's rewarding helping the vulnerable in our society. I see no reason why this attitude would dissipate post-capitalism.

And, you get paid for entertaining in care homes? I never used to.

pusher robot

15th July 2008, 23:06

This discussion of "how does one do x without money?" is getting boring. I mean does anybody here actually know how an advanced economy could function without either money or Labour vouchers? I don't suppose they do. The goal of socialists therefore is to find something better than capitalist money to work as the fuel for the economy. Either Labour Vouchers or, as I believe is best, something else.

I agree 110%. The problem seems to be that so few are interested in tackling these issues, maybe because they solutions can't consist of railing against capitalism. Obviously capitalism is not perfect, but critiquing it against a insubstantive ideal is no great insight.

nuisance

15th July 2008, 23:07

I work at a 'home', what of it? Myself and many other of the workers enjoy working there. So what the fuck is the problem?

Robert

15th July 2008, 23:43

Also, beautiful women should stop by my apartment periodically, so that my certain physical and emotional needs are met (no fatties.)After the revolution, "I would imagine" there will be many trim and lovely volunteers to address these needs.

And, you get paid for entertaining in care homes? I never used to.To: Paperstacks -- Yes, I usually get paid, but not invariably. If they ask me to play for free and it's a run down place, I will. The nursing homes in my area are mostly owned by big corporations. They actually have small entertainment budgets and entertainment coordinators looking for entertainers. I used to play for free until one coordinator looked at me like I was crazy. $40 for 1 hour of playing (really 3 hours with driving and set up) covers the costs of my gasoline and strings, etc. Some of the homes are over 60 miles round trip.

I salute you and your mother. You sound like really good people.

Joe Hill's Ghost

15th July 2008, 23:52

Excellent idea. One month I'll change bedpans, the next brain surgeon, the next fireperson, the next rocket scientist....till of course we get those damn robots on line. Now there's a plan for the future.

FYI: I'm going to name my robot "Pusher." :lol:

Your mind works only in individualist dimensions. A balanced job means a balanced job, not a smattering of occupations. In any place of work there are some easier jobs and some harder jobs, in capitalism these are often split into two different occupations. Post capitalism all would undertake in the good and the bad. You would clean shit, and you would entertain the residents. Not that difficult.

Bud Struggle

16th July 2008, 00:17

Your mind works only in individualist dimensions. A balanced job means a balanced job, not a smattering of occupations. In any place of work there are some easier jobs and some harder jobs, in capitalism these are often split into two different occupations. Post capitalism all would undertake in the good and the bad. You would clean shit, and you would entertain the residents. Not that difficult.

:lol::lol::lol:

Robert, you future employment after the Revolution is clear! Whistle while you work. :)

Dr Mindbender

16th July 2008, 00:36

id like to think that due to the change in material and social circumstances, ie increased life expectancy, people having to work fewer hours and spend more time with family, it would subsequently become more practical for elderly people to be cared for by their next of kin, or even spouses in cases where the person concerned still mantains their full faculties.

I think we'd all agree that is the best scenario.

Kronos

16th July 2008, 01:39

Robert the Great, I must say that your question is silly. I almost feel like you are trying to be stupid, I don't know.

As I have said before, any job that is "undesirable" is so because of contexts, not because the job is so in itself.

I personally would have no problem with emptying shit pans as long as somebody who doesn't work is not profiting from my work. Either empty the shit pan yourself, or, perform a job which produces a reciprocal advantage for me and everyone else.

Everybody works, and everybody decides what everybody else does. If the proletarian dictatorship decides that you are qualified only for emptying shit pans, then that is what you do. Here, the only objection you might have is that you don't like the work because of its monotony, for instance, but you will have no objections other than that. You are not being exploited by a capitalist that does nothing but sit on his ass. This is the factor that makes the context unbearable.

You ask anyone who empties shit pans why they don't like their job and I can almost guarantee you that they will feel unsatisfied with their wage.

In a socialism, one makes a wage that they might not agree with, but, nobody is profiting from his labor in addition to him making that low wage.

That makes a world of difference.

In a communism, obviously, there are no wages, so this isn't even an issue.

Robert

16th July 2008, 01:53

more practical for elderly people to be cared for by their next of kin, or even spouses in cases where the person concerned still mantains their full faculties.

I think we'd all agree that is the best scenarioActually, I do agree. When possible, the elderly should stay with their children if they can't live alone, until it becomes just too difficult. But that concept of "just too difficult" never even occurred to my grandparents, who of course nursed their parents at home till death. Also, so many people just do not have next of kin.

Someone above, Tragiclown I think, said the family unit was the basis of some kind of discredited patriarchal structure, I think was the gist of it. Here it is:

the nuclear family centered home as the basis for society is not an inherent good in itself but part of patriarchal ideology designed to reproduce the working class both physically and ideologically; its glorification is part of bourgeois ideologyMaybe so, but at least the old folks knew where they were going to live.

If cleaning duties were distributed evenly throughout the community, it would hardly be a problem for the individual would it?

There's that passive voice again.

RGacky3

16th July 2008, 01:55

Let me ask you Robert, for the majority of nursing homes out there, how are they funded? Are they profit based? Or are they non-profit or government, i.e. social-care, if the latter, is'nt that an argument for socialization, i.e. that society will take care of human needs without profit motive?

Killfacer

16th July 2008, 02:34

Kronos, you're wrong. In no context is wiping an old man's shitty arse an okay job.

Robert

16th July 2008, 02:34

For the majority of nursing homes out there, how are they funded? Are they profit based? Or are they non-profit or government, i.e. social-care, if the latter, is'nt that an argument for socialization, i.e. that society will take care of human needs without profit motive?
Gack, you're not going to like the answer. Here's a nutshell of the way it works. The overwhelming majority of nursing homes are privately owned and the funding is of mixed sources. You and I could open up a home tomorrow and charge whatever we like. We do have to get permits from our states.

We print up some glossy brochures and put an ad in the paper, and along comes a young, affluent couple who grew up in the 50's looking for a place to dump, er, store, er, care for grandma.

We charge the youngsters $50,000 to $70,000 per year for our services. How they pay is their problem, and the solutions are complicated.

The resident is primarily responsible for the bills. The home will ask the kids to co-sign the contract. They can buy private insurance, but yes it's expensive and only the rich can afford it.

No insurance? They pay out of pocket until (I think) the elderly person's (but not the kids') resources are exhausted. Then they are eligible for Medicare, which is part of Social Security entitlements, to pay for actual medicine and skilled nursing care. But that doesn't cover the actual feeding and cleaning: that can be paid by Medicaid (health care for the poor), and the kids can supplement that with whatever they want.

You and I as owners may or may not be making money on this deal, and so we typically incorporate and then sell out to private investors who never go near the places. If you have a 401K or IRA, you may be a part owner yourself.

About two thirds of the nation's nursing homes are owned by private equity companies (corporations who sell stock to the public), and another third are owned either by the government or by non-profit organizations.

So bottom line answer to your question: they are mostly funded by taxpayers through medicare and medicaid, and they try to make a profit. Many do, but sometimes they fail. Should they become socialized? They practically are already what with the regulation and the public source of funding. It's a dilemma though; the publicly funded homes run by the Veterans Administration are as likely to be understaffed as the privately owned homes. Morale is obviously higher in the more affluent nursing homes that can afford tea parties, excursions, and more staff.

So elimination of the profit motive will not necessarily translate into better care; often it's the reverse. Very informative link below.

http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/06/how-much-do-we.html

Kronos

16th July 2008, 02:40

Kronos, you're wrong. In no context is wiping an old man's shitty arse an okay job.Until you happen to be the old man who needs his ass wiped, right?

Killfacer

16th July 2008, 02:42

thats not the point and you know it. What the old man wants/needs has no bearing on whether it is a nice job.

Kronos

16th July 2008, 02:47

It is a nice job because it is useful, productive, and for somebody's welfare. Isn't that a nice thought? Aren't you happy the old man can sit comfortably on the couch and watch his game shows now that you've cleaned his ass? Of course you are, because you are a communist, young man.

Look, this discussion belongs to you people. In my communism, I'd execute old people who couldn't wipe their own ass.

(kidding)

Killfacer

16th July 2008, 02:50

yes but that does not make the job okay. You're deluded if you think that. Wiping some incontinent old blokes arse is never going to be a nice job, even if you are helping someone.

Robert

16th July 2008, 02:58

Kronos, you're wrong. In no context is wiping an old man's shitty arse an okay job.Finally somebody puts into words what I've been timidly insinuating from the beginning. What a way with words Killfacer has! :laugh::laugh:
God alMIGHTY that was funny!!!

Killfacer, you see things more clearly than anybody here If you were king (or chief comrade) for a year, how would you fix this problem of getting the old man's "shitty arse" wiped? I won't talk back. I just want to listen.

On edit, just saw this:
Wiping some incontinent old blokes arse is never going to be a nice jobHe's on a roll. Get the hell out the way! Omigod it feels good to laugh.

BIG BROTHER

16th July 2008, 03:04

Well I don't see why all the hassle. After the revolution, society would be barely transitioning from capitalism to communism. There fore we would still be using either money, or labor vouchers to compensate "dirty" jobs. I mean I see what your question is, but like I said after a revolution we won't automatically jump into a gift economy you know?

Either way by the time we reach communism, I'm sure we'll figure something out, like idk we could have "bondmen" like in thoma's more's utopia and put them in charge of those jobs, or have people rotate through though jobs. Or who knows maybe by that time we'll have robots:D

pusher robot

16th July 2008, 04:53

Could you please explain the term passive voice?

From http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html:

Defining the passive voice

A passive construction occurs when you make the object of an action into the subject of a sentence. That is, whoever or whatever is performing the action is not the grammatical subject of the sentence. Take a look at this passive rephrasing of a familiar joke:

Why was the road crossed by the chicken?

Who is doing the action in this sentence? The chicken is the one doing the action in this sentence, but the chicken is not in the spot where you would expect the grammatical subject to be. Instead, the road is the grammatical subject. The more familiar phrasing (why did the chicken cross the road?) puts the actor in the subject position, the position of doing something—the chicken (the actor/doer) crosses the road (the object). We use active verbs to represent that "doing," whether it be crossing roads, proposing ideas, making arguments, or invading houses (more on that shortly).
Once you know what to look for, passive constructions are easy to spot. Look for a form of "to be" (is, are, am , was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle. (The past participle is a form of the verb that typically, but not always, ends in "-ed." Some exceptions to the "-ed" rule are words like "paid" (not "payed") and "driven." (not "drived"). Here's a sure-fire formula for identifying the passive voice:

[B]form of "to be" + past participle = passive voice

For example:

The metropolis has been scorched by the dragon's fiery breath.

When her house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways to delay her remarriage.

...

With the previous section in mind, you should also know that some instructors proclaim that the passive voice signals sloppy, lazy thinking. These instructors argue that writers who overuse the passive voice have not fully thought through what they are discussing and that this makes for imprecise arguments. Consider these sentences from papers on American history:

The working class was marginalized.

African Americans were discriminated against.

Women were not treated as equals.

Such sentences lack the precision and connection to context and causes that mark rigorous thinking. The reader learns little about the systems, conditions, human decisions, and contradictions that produced these groups' experiences of oppression. And so the reader—the instructor—questions the writer's understanding of these things.

It is especially important to be sure that your thesis statement is clear and precise, so think twice before using the passive voice in your thesis.
In papers where you discuss the work of an author—e.g., a historian or writer of literature—you can also strengthen your writing by not relying on the passive as a crutch when summarizing plots or arguments. Instead of writing

It is argued that…

or Tom and Huck are portrayed as…

or And then the link between X and Y is made, showing that…

you can heighten the level of your analysis by explicitly connecting an author with these statements:

Anderson argues that…

Twain portrays Tom and Huck as…

Ishiguro draws a link between X and Y to show that…

By avoiding passive constructions in these situations, you can demonstrate a more thorough understanding of the material you discuss. You show that you're not a lazy, sloppy thinker.

[end excerpt]

In this case, he is criticizing the formulation of "cleaning duties were distributed evenly," which leaves unanswered certain important questions, such as: Who exactly has the power to distribute cleaning duties?

Chapter 24

16th July 2008, 05:39

Okay, here's how it'll go:

when you volunteer to do dirty jobs at a nursing home, such as wiping an old man's ass or giving him a sponge bath, you are given a voucher. you do your job accordingly and efficiently and you will be given a certain number of vouchers before you are no longer required to do it.

Then when YOU are the one in a nursing home you trade in all your vouchers and YOU get bathed and wiped by a younger guy.

Note if you didn't wipe and/or bathe and/or do something else before, you won't receive vouchers and therefore when you're in a nursing home you're fucked. :)

RGacky3

16th July 2008, 05:41

I personally think that its the obligation of the children to care for their aging parents in their last years, the same way its the obligatoin for the parents to care for their children, (I'm obviously talking morally here, not legislative or anything).

I also believe that the same way Capitalism has hurt family relationships its also hurt elder and child relationships, some children cannot simply afford to take care of their parents by themselves, no time, no money, and many times those that can, the wealthy, have such a twisted viewpoint on life (if you've ever talked to these guys, i.e. big shot business men, you'd understand), they value their carrears, chasing money, chasing power often more than their own families, thats really become part of our culture.

Capitalism and the mentality it breads is to pump out any type of solidarity or social unity and try and replace it with selfishness and power ambition.

The fact that things like medicare or medicaid, exist at all, shows that in a socialist atmosphere, where selfishness and power ambition is replaced with solidarity and social responsibility, taking care of granny should'nt be a problem.

So elimination of the profit motive will not necessarily translate into better care; often it's the reverse. Very informative link below.

Not in a Capitalist society no, obviously in a society where one must work with a profit motive, iether that or a survival motive, obviously that going to be teh case, but in a society where profit motive is non-existance, and survival is not an issue, I feel things will be different.

Labor Shall Rule

16th July 2008, 06:18

I disagree for a number of reasons.

First I think that the fixation with the nuclear family centered home as the basis for society is not an inherent good in itself but part of patriarchal ideology designed to reproduce the working class both physically and ideologically; its glorification is part of bourgeois ideology.

There is no reason why living collectively, with other people in your own generation should be seen as undesirable; on the contrary it both allows for a vastly more efficient resource and time management (fewer hours of work per person needed for meal preparation, laundry, clean up, etc in collective environments, freeing people from the oppressive drudgery of domestic "work"/toil); more importantly it allows people to have a broader social network, to replace the isolation and social oppression of the nuclear family with the less alienating larger community.

In a post-class communist society, people too old or too young to care for themselves will live collectively; day care for children and collective homes for old people will be seen as the normal and socially healthy way of living and living on your own or with just a sex partner or children will be seen as depressing. ;)

Yeah, you're right, I'm wrong.

It's obvious that we all (O.I.er lapdogs of the racist imperialist capitalist system and Rev-lefters alike) owe the elderly whatever they need. The ruling class is obviously anti-old people, with their attempts to either privatize Social-Security or offset the federal deficit by allocating Social Security trust funds for that purpose. They refuse to create a minimum annual retirement income (as other industrialized countries have), and with their refusal to grant free and accesible health care, many are uninsured and punished.

pusher robot

16th July 2008, 06:31

when you volunteer to do dirty jobs at a nursing home, such as wiping an old man's ass or giving him a sponge bath, you are given a voucher.

First of all, given by who? Most of the existing elderly never worked in a nursing home; they don't have vouchers to give.

Second of all, this is extremely inefficient. Some people's talents and labor (e.g., the gerontologists') are wasted by employing them on tasks that others who lack those talents could do instead. This gross inefficiency will dramatically reduce economic output and cause a collapse in the standard of living for everybody, especially if we apply your system to all the other dirty jobs, so now you have to get your nursing home vouchers, and your trash vouchers, and your sewage vouchers, and your pig farming vouchers, and your valet vouchers, and your oil-drilling rig vouchers, and your short-order cook vouchers, ad inifinitum.

EDIT: Third of all, what about immigrants?

Joe Hill's Ghost

16th July 2008, 07:42

:rolleyes: Pusher, for a free market fetishist you don't much seem to like competition! Gerontologists aren't all that great. In fact most doctors aren't wizards of modern medicine, but there to sell expensive treatments, tests, and to address symptoms. They violently attack any other approach to medicine for this very reason. Doctors have a guild monopoly, they can act as inefficient and stupid as they want.

Robert

16th July 2008, 13:01

you are given a voucher.

Alas, Pusher, after all that work ....

16th July 2008, 15:25

1. Simply put, socialism will structure incentives in such a way that people will fill socially necessary jobs.

In capitalism, the highest "paid" people are investment bankers, venture capitalists, hedge fund managers, and more rarely industrial capitalists, these people's renumeration is based on how much profit they can extract from the assets they control; i.e. to what extent they can intervene in the market in such a way that their share of total surplus value exceeds their share of investment in a ratio that exceeds the average ratio of the total market. This is an inherently exploitive system of 'incentives'.

This does not however mean that all incentives are necessarily exploitive. In a socialist society, those who produce and control surplus value (i.e. the industrial proletariat) may choose democratically how much they pay non-productive workers in an open manner so that jobs they feel are necessary are performed. Naturally in such a system one would expect that jobs that involve disgusting physical labour would likely receive either greater renumeration or require fewer hours for full renumeration than those that are clean and safe. This is in fact how semi-skilled workers are compensated in many highly regulated environments in capitalism such as non-educated state employees in capitalism.

2. In a capitalist society, i would be willing to agree that people who deliberately and freely choose to have children, morally have certain obligations to them, even though the system itself that creates such obligations is immoral and ought to be abolished. The children had no say in their creation whereas the parents knew that in creating them they were in effect contracting to provide certain things for them for 16-22 years depending on cultural class and location, and failing that obligation would harm them.

It is, unlike say working for money to eat, an optional relationship which parents have freely chosen to engage in; they could have chosen not to have children.

Children however make no similar deliberate assumption of responsibility towards their parents, their relationship is not an optional one, it is one they were essentially coerced into by accident of birth. They can't freely choose not to have parents (though some do not have parents). Given this its ridiculous to suggest that children have *any* moral obligation towards their parents at any stage in their lives. They may voluntarily wish to take care of them, but thats up to them and they shouldn't be expected to.

The relationship between children and parents (provided of course that were talking about parents who deliberately and freely chose to have children because they wanted to) in capitalism is one where the parents are voluntary participants with superior power and less at stake since they can materially survive without the relationship, and one where the children are involuntary participants with less power and more at stake. Given this there is only a one way moral obligation, of parents to children but not the other way around.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th July 2008, 15:58

You're delusional. First of all, a far simpler solution to the problem of finding it "impossible to watch a vulnerable person suffer or struggle" is to simply put them in a place where they can't be seen. Problem solved on your end.
How many people do you think would like to put their elderly parents or grandparents "in a place where they can't be seen", to have them die slowly? How many people do you think would tolerate such behaviour in their local community?

Second of all, you are not recognizing that there is a limit to how far most people will give of themselves, even to alleviate the suffering of others. At some point (and in the case of dirty jobs like the ones we are talking about, pretty quickly) the alleviation of suffering itself becomes suffering, and all things being equal, most people are simply more attentive to their own suffering than the suffering of others, meaning they will not continue to toil unless their suffering is alleviated somehow - like, say, with a paycheck.
In a communist society, care workers - like everyone else - will have full, unrestricted access to the things that are currently bought using your paycheck. In other words, they will get [the equivalent of] a paycheck.

Granted, they will get the equivalent of an average paycheck, so you might say that this will not be sufficient compensation for their work. But in that case your argument would be contradicted by empirical evidence. In capitalism, care workers are not paid a premium for doing "dirty jobs". You don't get rich taking care of old people in a nursing home. So it cannot be true that people will only do those "dirty jobs" if they are given above-average paychecks, since they seem perfectly willing to do them right now, in capitalism, for below-average paychecks.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th July 2008, 16:29

In a post-class communist society, people too old or too young to care for themselves will live collectively; day care for children and collective homes for old people will be seen as the normal and socially healthy way of living and living on your own or with just a sex partner or children will be seen as depressing. ;)
You're going into far too much detail about the living arrangements of a society that will not exist for at least a couple of generations. Of course it's possible that, in communism, people will live the way you've described. But I think it's more likely that there will not be any single, universally embraced form of living arrangement, and different groups of people will live in different kinds of homes depending on personal preferences and cultural standards. Some people will want to live collectively, others with a single partner, others with their parents, etc.

Bud Struggle

16th July 2008, 16:43

You're going into far too much detail about the living arrangements of a society that will not exist for at least a couple of generations. Of course it's possible that, in communism, people will live the way you've described. But I think it's more likely that there will not be any single, universally embraced form of living arrangement, and different groups of people will live in different kinds of homes depending on personal preferences and cultural standards. Some people will want to live collectively, others with a single partner, others with their parents, etc.

It's interesting to note that in the (I guess, quasi-) Communist societies of the SU and China--no such his was even suggested. In China parents live in the homes of their children till death.

Demogorgon

16th July 2008, 16:56

It's interesting to note that in the (I guess, quasi-) Communist societies of the SU and China--no such his was even suggested. In China parents live in the homes of their children till death.

During the Cultural Revolution attempts at Communal living were made, the other well known example of COmmunal living are Kibbutz in Israel.

Really though, I would hope in a free (Communist) society, people will be able to live as they choose. If you want to live communally, live communally. If you want to live in a family unit, live in a family unit. If you want to live on your own, live on your own and so forth.

Bud Struggle

16th July 2008, 20:07

Really though, I would hope in a free (Communist) society, people will be able to live as they choose. If you want to live communally, live communally. If you want to live in a family unit, live in a family unit. If you want to live on your own, live on your own and so forth.

You know Demogorgon, you and Dean and Sentinal and a couple of others make the Communist proposition seem a most reasonable way of life.

As a Capitalist I much prefer BOGOVICH as my Commie of record. :lol:

Good post.

Bud Struggle

16th July 2008, 20:38

How we Capitalist's do old age in California and Florida:

http://www.thevillagesgcc.com/

http://www.thevillages.com/

RebelDog

16th July 2008, 23:19

Any of you guys spend time in nursing homes? I do. I play guitar and sing as a volunteer. Sometimes I get $40. On my song list is "This Land is Your Land" (proud of me?)

Caring for elderly strangers is hard and often dirty work. In the USA, there are no shortages of employment opportunities, increasing every day. I imagine it's the same in much of Europe. You guys who are looking for work should consider applying to nursing homes; there are skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled positions available in every city I know of.

But my question is this: post capitalism, do you see people just volunteering to care for your most basic needs as you age? Personally, if I have a choice after the revolution between playing guitar and singing versus giving you a sponge bath, well ... let's try "Hey Good Lookin!' " In A major.

Its very easy to share out tasks that are not as 'popular' as others by scoring them. What amounts to a week, month or a years work would have some of the unpopular tasks mixed with the empowering ones. In other words, we should share a mixture of all tasks for the workplace divisions of labour to really be destroyed and the least popular tasks would score higher than the easier ones. Bear in mind that socially positive actions and acts of kindness are quite common beyond the confines of the free-market!

Robert

17th July 2008, 02:26

Bear in mind that socially positive actions and acts of kindness are quite common beyond the confines of the free-market!I think I know that.

Are you bearing in mind just how much "positive action and acts of kindness" is necessary to compassionately and thoroughly run a nursing home filled with elderly, incontinent Alzheimers patients?

You can't run it on volunteerism. You need to have strong people with a serious sense of obligation, i.e., a job, to go in there 40-50 hours a week to keep the residents clean and medicated. And it'll be 70 - 100 hours per week if your co-workers have the right to just glide in and out whenever they want.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th July 2008, 02:51

You need to have strong people with a serious sense of obligation, i.e., a job, to go in there 40-50 hours a week to keep the residents clean and medicated.
Again, are these people currently being paid premiums or above-average wages?

If not, what makes you think they won't do the same job for the equivalent of an average wage under communism?

RGacky3

17th July 2008, 02:55

Children however make no similar deliberate assumption of responsibility towards their parents, their relationship is not an optional one, it is one they were essentially coerced into by accident of birth. They can't freely choose not to have parents (though some do not have parents). Given this its ridiculous to suggest that children have *any* moral obligation towards their parents at any stage in their lives. They may voluntarily wish to take care of them, but thats up to them and they shouldn't be expected to.

Choice has nothing to do with moral obligation, if you see an old lady that fell over on the road, and you don't pick her up, sure its not your legal obligation to help her, sure you won't be punished for not doing it, but its your Moral obligation to help her, morally, that would be the right thing to do.

Thats what I mean by moral obligation, you don't have to do it, but you should do it.

Robert

17th July 2008, 04:45

If not, what makes you think they won't do the same job for the equivalent of an average wage under communism?No, they are not paid more, they are paid pretty low, so maybe they will do the same under communism. I guess I get confused as to what the consensus opinion here is as to what that "equivalent of an average wage" really is.

If you have to work in order to get these vouchers, and if the nursing home gig is all there is available this week, then that's the job you do and you get your voucher and then it sounds to me like we're back where we started. How much coffee can you buy with a voucher? Who decides? How many sponge baths and diaper changes do you get? You surely agree that we can't have central authorities deciding that kind of thing.

If we rotate jobs, then it sounds equitable but dangerous and chaotic. Plus we have the problem of who gets to run the job clearinghouse, or do we rotate that job too?

Imperfect as the market is, I trust it, reasonably regulated, as much as I will trust brigade leaders or whoever will be in charge of the world you envision.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

17th July 2008, 18:55

You're delusional.

Pot. Meet kettle.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

17th July 2008, 19:00

Apparently post-capitalism translates into lack of incentives - whether that comes from energy accounting, money, vouchers, or labor-time required. Quite an interesting topic to chime in on since elderly homes were (and still are where there isn't oversight) notorious for killing off expensive "costumers."

Do people even read the FAQs anymore?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th July 2008, 19:34

Good grief, can't you cappies come up with any original arguments?

Who Will Clean the Sewers? September 12, 2003 by RedStar2000
(http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory0d16.html?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The question has been brought up many times before and is not "unsolvable" by a country mile.

pusher robot

17th July 2008, 19:57

Quite an interesting topic to chime in on since elderly homes were (and still are where there isn't oversight) notorious for killing off expensive "costumers."

Why do nursing homes need expensive costumers anyways? Can't the employees wear simple uniforms? And the tenants should be capable of handling their own wardrobe.

RGacky3

19th July 2008, 22:24

Good grief, can't you cappies come up with any original arguments?

They just use the same arguments in different senarios, then they take the answers and nit pick at them trying to find any minor flaw not matter how implausible, even though our answer beats Capitalisms answer by miles. Same Story.

Green Dragon

20th July 2008, 04:13

Shekky Shabazz

20th July 2008, 06:12

Do people even read the FAQs anymore?

6-''If everyone gets paid the same what motivation will there be to work harder?''
Revleft says- To paraphrase Karl Marx - if that argument had merit then bourgeois society should have gone to the dogs long ago! There are several schools under socialism which combat this argument, but the most common one is that those who 'free-ride' will be excluded and will not enjoy the spoils of societies labours.

I clipped the technocratic part, if that is what you were suggesting, please say so. I don't see how this addresses changing labor conditions given a lack of incentives?

RGacky3

20th July 2008, 21:09

is "unsolvable."

Well, considering almost all Socialist schools of thought have various answers to that question, all of which are workable to different degress, we can conclude that it is solvable, infact, its solved, many times over.

Green Dragon

21st July 2008, 14:50

Well, considering almost all Socialist schools of thought have various answers to that question, all of which are workable to different degress, we can conclude that it is solvable, infact, its solved, many times over.

No. They have claims.

RGacky3

23rd July 2008, 03:26

No. They have claims.

What do you mean 'claims'. every solution to any problem could be considered a claim, whats that supposed to mean.

Shekky Shabazz

23rd July 2008, 06:57

What do you mean 'claims'. every solution to any problem could be considered a claim, whats that supposed to mean.

If I may speak for GD, the linked article was full of 'assertions' that are lacking logical reasoning. Simply repeating 'claims' or assertions' or whatever other term you'd like to use does not make it so. If that redstar2000 link was your reply to the argument metioned throughout tis thread, well, I'd have to agree with others here, it's a joke.

Could you please provide a reasonable link (or an argument of your own) to address the impact of reducing incentives on the labor market?

Green Dragon

23rd July 2008, 13:56

What do you mean 'claims'. every solution to any problem could be considered a claim, whats that supposed to mean.

Somebody linked to an essay from Red Star. The first paragraph said it all, by its claim that socialists/communists have no idea what the result will be as a result of their victory. Their belief in what will happen is along the lines of what Pope Benedict believes will happen to people upon their deaths. Its total faith.

Its nothing more than a claim. We "claim" that people will do XY and Z. No analysis is offerred as to whether the claim makes any sense, or if implemented, would prove to be the better alternative.

Bud Struggle

23rd July 2008, 15:17

Somebody linked to an essay from Red Star. The first paragraph said it all, by its claim that socialists/communists have no idea what the result will be as a result of their victory. Their belief in what will happen is along the lines of what Pope Benedict believes will happen to people upon their deaths. Its total faith.

Its nothing more than a claim. We "claim" that people will do XY and Z. No analysis is offerred as to whether the claim makes any sense, or if implemented, would prove to be the better alternative.

Excellent post. We really don't have a clue what will happen after the "Revolution." What little info we have looks like it might be a worldwide USSR.

But it indeed all based on faith. The Godless Religion of Marx.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd July 2008, 18:19

Somebody linked to an essay from Red Star. The first paragraph said it all, by its claim that socialists/communists have no idea what the result will be as a result of their victory.

Lies. Speculation is not the same thing as having "no idea".

Their belief in what will happen is along the lines of what Pope Benedict believes will happen to people upon their deaths. Its total faith.Standard cappie "Marxism is a religion" claptrap without any supporting arguments whatsoever.

Its nothing more than a claim. We "claim" that people will do XY and Z. No analysis is offerred as to whether the claim makes any sense, or if implemented, would prove to be the better alternative.You obviously didn't read it properly (if you even read past the first paragraph), since you're making nothing but assertions without (honestly) addressing anything that's mentioned in the article.

Excellent post. We really don't have a clue what will happen after the "Revolution." What little info we have looks like it might be a worldwide USSR.

You contradict yourself. First you say "we really don't have a clue", and then you make the ludicrous (not to mention a-historical) supposition that there might be a "worldwide USSR".

Which is it going to be?

Green Dragon

23rd July 2008, 21:14

[quote=NoXion;1200629]Lies. Speculation is not the same thing as having "no idea".

For the purposes of that essay, yes it is.

Standard cappie "Marxism is a religion" claptrap without any supporting arguments whatsoever.

I can only respond to what is posted. The author said "we know" what a communist society will look like- without any supporting evidence.

You obviously didn't read it properly (if you even read past the first paragraph), since you're making nothing but assertions without (honestly) addressing anything that's mentioned in the article.

Post the article, not just link to it, and I'll respond to it, almost line by line.

Joe Hill's Ghost

23rd July 2008, 22:04

Excellent post. We really don't have a clue what will happen after the "Revolution." What little info we have looks like it might be a worldwide USSR.

But it indeed all based on faith. The Godless Religion of Marx.

I'm going to enjoy riding that 60 thousand dollar horse of yours. All through your house.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th July 2008, 21:58

For the purposes of that essay, yes it is.You're going to have to provide something a bit more substantial than mere assertion to convince anyone with half a brain and/or access to a dictionary.

I can only respond to what is posted. The author said "we know" what a communist society will look like- without any supporting evidence.How about the fact that "communism" has a specific political meaning and that any communist society must be conform to that meaning in order to actually, you know, be communist?

Post the article, not just link to it, and I'll respond to it, almost line by line.Is clicking the mouse and/or using the Copy+Paste function too difficult for you?

Who Will Clean the Sewers? September 12, 2003 by RedStar2000

Anything we write about communist society must perforce be speculative; we are not able to leap 50 or 500 years into the future and "see for ourselves".

But the temptation to speculate is difficult to resist...especially for those of us who anticipate a revolutionary transformation of human society.

What we "know" about communist society is that there will be no classes, no wage-slavery, and no repressive state apparatus. And we are always asked how things will "get done" in such a society.

In particular, we are asked "who will clean the sewers?".

So herewith some speculations on sewer-cleaning and other aspects of communist society. As like as not, I'll turn out to be miles off the mark...probably much too conservative in my "forecasts".

But it's fun to try.

http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/www.revolutionaryleft.com/images/redstar.html
========================================

In communist society, work is "voluntary"...that is, any given person may "take" what s/he "needs" for a dignified life without being compelled to so much as lift a finger.

Thus people will gravitate towards that kind of "work" which they enjoy; people will not have "jobs" but rather interests or projects that they will pursue with considerable diligence...because it's "what they really like to do" since they "are really good at it".

There will be, of course, social prestige attached to particular interests or projects...those who choose interests and projects which benefit society in ways that people perceive as important will be highly regarded. Those whose interests are more personal will probably be looked down upon and possibly even snubbed entirely.

It will be something of a trade-off: "she is an electrical engineer specializing in reliable power generation...and is on the A-list of every social group in the region" while "he spends his time studying old internet archives and only other antiquarians enjoy his company".

But what of the socially necessary tasks that are not interesting and rewarding in themselves?

Or as you will hear from day one of first telling people that you're a communist: who will clean the sewers?

If survival is not at stake, who will have the "incentive" to do the "dirty jobs"?

Let's face it, "boring, dirty, and unpleasant" is a reasonably accurate description of most jobs under capitalism.

Some of this unpleasantness could be alleviated by simple improvements in working conditions and reduction in the hours of work "expected"...it's one thing to spend a day on the back of a garbage truck once a week or once every two weeks and quite another to do it 48 hours a week. It's one thing to do it with a facemask and other protective gear, quite another to do it without.

This suggests one possible approach: divide up the unskilled shit work amongst everyone. Everyone "must" put in, say, 8 or 16 hours a month performing some unpleasant but socially necessary task.

But you see the problem: whenever you say people "must" do something unpleasant, then you open a barrel of unpleasantness yourself. You will have to find people who are willing to enforce the "must"...a very unpleasant job in itself and a sharp reduction in the "freedom from compulsory labor" that we made our revolution to secure.

We could ask for volunteers, of course. And the minority who do volunteer could receive "social rewards" in prestige, public acclamation, etc. We could "teach" an "ethic" of volunteering on behalf of the general welfare and this would somewhat increase the "pool" of volunteers over time.

When 20th century Leninists talked about "the new man of socialist society", this is what they had in mind...even though there was no way any significant number of such "new men" (or women) could emerge in a Leninist class society. In class society, to volunteer for unpaid labor is, from a material standpoint, stupid.

And we know that material reality prevails, do we not?

Were we to "make a list" of the "shit jobs" under capitalism, some interesting conclusions could be drawn.

Many of those tasks will no longer be "necessary" under communism. In particular, the vast armies of clerical workers employed by state and corporate bureaucracies can be demobilized...as neither states nor corporations will exist.

The process of replacing manual labor with machine labor (automation/cybernation) in controlled environments has been going on for a long time and will doubtless continue. By the time of a communist revolution, there may not be much of it left.

Much of the "service industry" may well disappear after the revolution for a different reason--what many people actually do in the contemporary service industry is what servants used to do in the 19th century. It was considered "degrading" then; and is not particularly admired now.

Since a lot of it is not really "socially necessary", a lot of it will probably disappear.

Still, when all is said and done, the sewers must either be cleaned on a regular basis or they will become blocked, turds will float in the streets, and your toilet will stop working. How can we get people to be "willing" to take care of this socially necessary but very unpleasant task?

Well, let's consider. Remember that communism is not "Heaven". However abundant the material goodies of life might be, there will not be an infinite supply of everything that's desirable.

In other words, there will be rationing...to make sure that everyone gets an approximately equal share.

There will also be waiting lists...it's not possible to produce everything that everyone wants all at once. For example, products that require a substantial amount of co-ordinated labor to produce may be in relatively short supply...and though available upon request, may involve a considerable period of waiting before one is ready for you.

Here is a "window of opportunity" that communist society could use: those who are willing to clean the sewers and do the other kinds of boring, unpleasant jobs go to the head of the list for desirable goods in short supply. They do not get "more" than others in the long run, but they get what they want sooner.

What such people lose in "job satisfaction", they gain in "immediate material gratification"...or as close to "immediate" as we can manage.

I regard this as a temporary measure, of course. In the long run, we humans should be able to build robots to do any task that humans find boring or unpleasant. But the artificial intelligence community is still a long way from building anything more intelligent than an insect. So we need a way to "plug" the technological "gap" and make sure that the socially necessary work gets done.

In addition, there is a kind of justice to this arrangement that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect!

Thus, when you see someone driving a new car or who has a really swell apartment in a new building, unlike now, you will know that they really earned those things, doing work that you would not want to have to do yourself.

As we need to remind ourselves, under communism things will be very different.
------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RedGreenLeft on September 7, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread is not really about crime and criminals in communist society (maybe I'll write something on that soon)...

But briefly, the objective of communist society with regard to such people is to rehabilitate them.

Granted, this must be balanced against the need that people have for personal security from random violence; unlike some, I personally have no problem with the death penalty for violent crimes, even those short of murder.

Labor as punishment for non-violent crimes degrades the concept of labor itself. How can we, on the one hand, praise those who perform important functions on behalf of the community and then turn around and watch people in chains clean the highways (as is the case now in a number of American states)?

Our ethic at least approaches the view that socially useful work is almost a privilege...how can we then use it for punishment?

I don't think that will work.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 8, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------

Here is something interesting.

I posted this piece at two other "left" forums.

What I note is that in all the forums, the serious responses offered a number of ideas for handling the problem...including some things I wasn't even aware of.

Now, imagine a post-revolutionary society, where millions of people are contributing their ideas for solving practical problems, arguing over those ideas, and democratically deciding which are the best ideas.

Do you see how utterly banal and foolish the objections of our sheep-herders and reformists really are?

We communists are "impractical"...we don't have a "plan" formulated by "expert consultants" and implemented on the orders of a "great leader".

How utopian!

And right here in front of us we have a small example of what ordinary people can do when they put their minds to it.

Yes, ordinary people. There are no "geniuses" here. Certainly not me! Just people who are interested in the shape of future society and willing to give some thought to the matter.

And the usual narrow-minded philistines who can't see past class society, hierarchy, professional "expertise", and, of course, their own "career paths".

Yes, we are "impossible" -- their worst nightmares made flesh.

No wonder they hate us!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 8, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
...so when we talk about the final objective of life, COMMUNISM, one can be certain to be talking about several centuries.

Well, no one here has a crystal ball in good working order. Everything we say about the future must involve a considerable degree of speculation.

But I hope you are not hinting at that shabby Leninist mythology concerning "centuries of socialism" prior to a communist society. That's just their "ticket to ride" and has no relevance to this discussion.

A proletarian revolution in the second half of this century and the more or less immediate transition to communism would carry in its wake a good deal of the infrastructure that exists now.

And it would have to be maintained.

Also, I would not assume that communism is "the final objective of life". What humans will come up with next is impossible to predict...but we hairless primates do love to come up with new stuff and new kinds of relationships.

In a thousand years, communism may seem as primitive and backward to people then as Assyria or Babylon seem to us.

Things change.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 9, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------

"Shoes, shoes, all God's children got shoes"...except for the reformist. Let's see if we can fit him a pair...extra large, of course, as they will also have to fit his mouth.

No doubt in the early months after the proletarian revolution, existing stocks of shoes and boots will be "appropriated" by the folks who need them (and some who don't).

Workers at existing shoe-plants will be deciding more or less on their own what to keep producing and what to discontinue. Since existing networks of distribution will have collapsed, they will also have to decide how they want to distribute what they make. They will try to get in touch with the workers who supplied their plant with the necessary raw materials.

Gradually, a new network or series of networks for production and distribution of shoes will grow up. The use of card-swipe technology will tell the shoe factory workers what people "like" and "don't like" every morning and unpopular designs will be discontinued while production of popular designs increases.

The shoe as "fashion statement" will probably disappear for several decades; the main objective will be comfortable, well-made, durable shoes and boots. This is especially important for women--who are ripped-off enormously more than men with shoddy, uncomfortable, and over-priced footware in the present system.

What happens if one "network" makes "better shoes" than another? Some will make do with the inferior shoes; nearly all will put their names down on the waiting list for the good shoes.

At some point, a centralized data-collection agency (card-swipe again) will notice this...and send a gentle suggestion to the "bad shoe collective" that they should either improve their shoes or, perhaps, make something else.

This will be publicized; people will know about it...including the workers who supply the raw materials to the "bad shoe collective". Those workers will feel like their efforts are wasted...supplying raw materials for fuckups to make lousy shoes. They will stop doing that and instead offer their raw materials to the "good shoe collective" who will make better use of them.

You see, the way things are now, no one cares about the "end-product" or its "usefulness" unless they are paid to do so.

In communist societies, people will care very much about things like that...not least because their social standing in the community depends on it.

No one wants to be publicly labeled a fuckup or part of a collective of fuckups. People want to take pride in their work...including what it's used for. They want to now and some can; but for most working people now, it's just grind out the crap and get that paycheck.

Thus, perhaps after waiting a few weeks, our reformist gets his pair of new shoes...for the asking.

When he left, I think he was still grumbling about the wait...but it was hard to understand him with that shoe in his mouth.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 9, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
Who runs this ‘centralised data bank’? Who maintains it? Who maintains the network to which it is linked to all the millions of people? Who decides what it will and won't show?

The people who like to do that kind of stuff; the people who enjoy complicated computer networks and links and data compression, etc., etc., etc.

Who did you think was going to do it? Wage-slaves?

quote:
Surely these people have an awful lot of power, after all if they decide to show a favourite commune of theirs as producing highly prized goods then that commune benefits enormously.

Of course they could "rig" the numbers, but to what purpose? The commune that they favored would still be up against informed opinion ("I tried their shoes and they sucked!"--internet consumer review #35,172).

And what would be gained? Some temporary social approval that would turn into its opposite as soon as the fraud came to light.

There being no material incentive for corruption means that there will be very little actual corruption (not none, just very little).

quote:
Your system contains no mechanism for conveying the combinations of needs and desires together with relative values people place on each. That’s its whole problem

I'm sure there must be some kind of "sense" in this statement...but I'm damned if I know what it is.

What combinations? What needs? What desires? What "relative values"? You asked me about shoes!

People will want the "best quality stuff" and that's what will get produced. If there's not enough stuff available, then there'll be a waiting list. If people want to swap stuff, then they'll do it...who cares?

Are you under the impression that communist society will produce huge quantities of crap "for the masses" and a tiny amount of quality goodies "for the leaders"?

Are you still "thinking" in terms of class society?

Of course you are!

quote:
It gets even worse when you talk of production goods. Here there often will be a hard benefit in having the very best ‘widget’ instead of a lower quality substitute....But it takes no account of marginal efficiency

Widget-making communes will be just as concerned with the end-use of their products as shoe-making communes. They will "check out" very thoroughly a commune that wants a new widget and will do their best to make an informed choice.

But "marginal efficiency" will probably be ignored. They'll be looking at the end-users' plans, their track-record, the quality of their membership and, most importantly, exactly what they plan to make with the widget, how socially-useful is the ultimate end product.

quote:
And now I see that some communes are going to be restricting the supply of materials to others if they perceive that the latter is not producing top quality. Why exactly? Why are the needs of the producing communes so disregarded? I thought needs were always paramount.

Needs are paramount. The "bad shoe commune" is deprived of raw materials because they are making shoes that no one needs; i.e., crappy shoes. The raw-materials commune does not want to waste their labor providing raw materials to fuck-ups who make crappy shoes.

quote:
You still did not answer the question about who it is that funds new development or how even the desire / need for such development is communicated.

No one "funds" new development in the sense you use the word.

But it might work like this...

Let us say that the Yerba Buena (formerly San Francisco) Regional Transit Commune decides, after studying transit use, that a new subway line stretching from downtown to the Pacific Highway would be "a good idea"...that is, it would move more people more quickly than the existing (and overcrowded) bus lines while using less energy to do so.

They would have many meetings with communes in rail producing, construction, electric power, architecture, etc. If agreement was reached, then ground would be broken for the Geary Street subway line.

Suppose this project competed for resources for another large scale project in the same region? Then, ultimately, there would have to be a regional referendum on the matter...and likely a very heated one.

Communes that wanted to do a "large-scale project" would have to persuade other communes that the project "made sense"...not in terms of "return on investment" (which would not exist) but in terms of long-range social utility.

Communism is not "Heaven" where people never disagree and live always in peaceful harmony. Real humans disagree about stuff all the time and there will be many heated arguments about the proper allocation of resources to maximize utility.

But the outcome won't be decided by your precious marketplace...the richest bastard won't win the argument!

Because there won't be any of your precious rich bastards!

We will, with any luck, have guillotined the lot.

Enjoy your new shoes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 10, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The question of crime and punishment in communist society really deserves its own thread; it's complicated and fraught with unintended consequences.

But I do not think that compulsory labor is a proper punishment for any crime. There's no way we can create an "ethos" of the dignity of labor and turn around at the same time and use it for punishment.

It wouldn't work.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Urban75 on September 24, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
It's just a wee thought, but what would you do with tired old reactionaries such as meself who, after The Revolution would continue to distribute such subversive authors as Adam Smith...

I'm quite sure the works of Adam Smith and subsequent bourgeois economists will continue to be available in the public library...look in the section "Paleo-economics". For all I know, there may even be courses in it (the History Department would seem to have the best claim).

quote:
...and continue to want to make a profit off our own labour and the labour of others?

Well, no one would care what you "want"...it's what you actually do or try to do that might be of some concern.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to work "for" you, giving you the opportunity to profit from their labor. I know of no instance in recorded history where freed slaves petitioned their former masters to chain them up again.

The expression "profit from your own labor" is a mis-use of the word "profit". The surplus that you acquire from your own labor is not "profit" in the capitalist sense of the word.

You might suffer some social stigma if it became widely known that you were a greedy sod.

That's all that I can think of.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Urban75 on September 25, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
If I were running an enterprise on my own and making more money than it took to cover operating costs (and lets for the sake of argument throw my own living costs into this since it would be my enterprise) I would be producing surplus income - profit under any definition of the word.

There is a misunderstanding here, and I'm afraid it's my fault. So let me try to rectify the matter.

In a capitalist society, if you run your own one-man business and generate a surplus, that is indeed "profit" by the dictionary definition as well as customary usage.

Within the Marxist paradigm, however, what you really are is a worker who has received the full value of his labor power.

This is, of course, quite rare...but it does happen. I actually know one such person myself.

But these considerations are irrelevant to communist society, where there is no market, no money, no wage-labor.

You would certainly be free to work on your own or in association with others to produce some good or service that people found useful. Indeed, you would be encouraged to do so and the more useful your product or service, the higher your social prestige would be and the more people would want to work with you.

But whatever you produced would be freely available to those that needed your product...just as whatever you needed would be freely available to you.

It might well be that what you worked on is a product of great skill and expertise, requiring hundreds of hours of labor, etc. Well, you're not going to hand it over to some yobbo that walks in off the street, are you? You will be very choosy about who you give it to...someone who will be appreciative of your work, use it carefully, take care of it, etc.

If it is a more ordinary product, one considered a "basic necessity", then chances are you'll make it and shove it out the door...keeping in mind, of course, that if it's "too shoddy", your door will soon be blocked by unwanted products. Many collectives and communes will be making "ordinary stuff" and people will have lots of choices.

It's possible your remarks referred to a "socialist" society--that so-called "transition stage" between capitalism and communism...where there are still markets, money, wage-slavery, etc. I can't offer you much encouragement in that context; it's you (small businessman) vs. Socialism, Inc. (bloated state apparatus that owns nearly everything...including the police!).

Should that unhappy option be resurrected from its well-earned grave, I think you're probably doomed.

Let's hope we don't have to go through that crap again.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Urban75 on September 26, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
How do anarchists intend to deliver value, a challenge.

quote:
Value is not defined by the cost of producing something but by how much someone wants it.

Pretty fuzzy.

What does it mean in this context to say that someone "wants" something, let alone "how much" they want it?

In a moneyless economy, the question "how much do you want it?" is semantically meaningless...there is no quantitative measure of individual desire.

Does there "need" to be one? Is not the simple statement "I want X" sufficient?

quote:
Now it's a tenet of Marxism that value should be delivered at cost (as far as possible the more realistic would say, but let's not quibble).

Cost is, of course, something that could be quantified and perhaps will be...specificially in terms of the human-hours of work it takes to produce X (including, of course, a proportionate share of the human-hours of work it took to produce the raw materials, transport them, build the necessary machinery, etc. to produce X).

The statistical complexities would be formidable, no doubt (especially the problem of infinite regress)...but that's what we have super-computers for. If 10 people put in 100 hours to make X, the true cost is not likely to be much above 150 hours. Accumulated experience will provide reasonably accurate algorithms for solving the equations in most cases. All that's required is that people keep track of their hours and that someone keeps track of what is actually produced.

Knowing the true cost of possible "mixes" of production, people can decide what is "affordable" and what "costs too much". They may do this individually, collectively, or as an entire society-wide decision. Allowances can be made for those who choose to "opt-out" of a big project.

When producing things for use, you'd like to know if the stuff is actually useful. As I've noted before, modern card-swipe technology can easily furnish real-time or very close to real-time data on what people are actually requesting and using and what is piling up in a warehouse somewhere.

In the latter case, the collective might be informed (by that central data base) that what they are making is of no use to anyone. The collectives that furnish the "bad collective" with raw materials may cease to do so...or demand improvements. Spare parts may become unavailable. And so on.

How "quick" or "efficient" this process will be is hard to predict; we know that under capitalism, producers of shoddy commodities can limp on for a decade or more before the banks finally cut off their credit and force them into bankruptcy.

In the scenario that I propose, the "bad collective" would find themselves in an empty workshop unable to produce anything. They'd have no choice but to move on to other, more useful collectives...unless boredom was really appealing to them. One thing they might be able to do is invite a collective well-known for its competence to "take them in" as apprentices...to learn how to get it right.

And if their incompetence was truly legendary, they might be incorporated into the routines of stand-up comedians.

quote:
It seems to have no mechanism at all to correct an oversupply of goods which are wanted, but not as badly as others, because after all, their output will still be taken up, because it is wanted.

As always, the simplest solution is to ask people what they want. Capitalists do consumer surveys all the time; there's no reason that communist society couldn't do them...and do them better and more thoroughly. Is it unreasonable to assume that if a serious want was going unfulfilled, that some collectives wouldn't step up to "meet the demand"?

Again, efficiency is difficult to predict, but over time it "ought" to work...at least for "serious" wants.

And, of course, there's vocal public opinion...always a key factor in communist society. People who have a want that is chronically in short supply will organize to demand it...and may even start a collective to start producing it themselves.

quote:
An anarchist economy does not seem to have any regulatory mechanism to balance need and production across the whole economy.

No, it doesn't, at least not explicitly. After the revolution, people will first be concerned with getting their own cities back in some kind of functioning order, then they will look at regional possibilities, then at the economy as a whole.

It's certainly not "out of the question" that "federations of federations" could eventually engage in some "loose" form of economic planning that would take in the whole economy. As I noted in an earlier post, they would be making some very well-informed suggestions...not giving orders or commands.

Finally, I hope it's understood that the baroque extravagance of "consumer wants" that we know under capitalism will almost certainly be a thing of the past under communism. In the last decade or so prior to proletarian revolution, with the capitalist system collapsing, people will be struggling to survive as well as against their fading masters...the idea that "you are what you buy" is one that will come to be regarded with disgust and contempt.

In some ways, communism will be simpler than capitalism.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on October 2, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------

Green Dragon

25th July 2008, 00:59

You're going to have to provide something a bit more substantial than mere assertion to convince anyone with half a brain and/or access to a dictionary.

How about the fact that "communism" has a specific political meaning and that any communist society must be conform to that meaning in order to actually, you know, be communist?

Yeah. But that is not enough. Just because you "kbnow" what he communist society will look like, doesn't mean such a socierty is possible or even feasable.

Is clicking the mouse and/or using the Copy+Paste function too difficult for you?

The former, no, the latter, yes. My interest in computers extend about as far as surfing the net takes me.

Robert

25th July 2008, 01:15

well-made, durable shoes and boots.I actually like well made shoes. I admit they are harder and harder to find. But ....

This is especially important for women--who are ripped-off enormously more than men with shoddy, uncomfortable, and over-priced footware in the present system.Footware? Interesting. Tomorrow's woman will prefer a sturdy work boot -- sensible, timeless, in brown or gray, round-toed, built to last, don't you see, than a sexy, sassy stiletto that will be tossed next season.

Why would a woman settle for this:

http://www.zappos.com/images/744/7440555/8521-694265-5.jpg

when she can have this?

http://tiptopshoes.com/images/04sp/sm/91013sm.jpg

Every lady's dream.

Bud Struggle

25th July 2008, 01:33

Call me a counter-revolutionary Robert, but I prefer the former to the latter on women. Even Communist women. :)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th July 2008, 18:22

Call me a counter-revolutionary Robert, but I prefer the former to the latter on women. Even Communist women. :)

Yeah, because there are only two styles of footwear in existance - steel toe-capped boots or knee-length stillettos.

:rolleyes:

Robert

26th July 2008, 18:51

Deleted.

Joe Hill's Ghost

26th July 2008, 19:02

Noxion, it was just a joke. And you know it was funny.

But seriously, go up above and read that person's diatribe on foot"ware" as he calls it. You don't think that guy, if allowed to take charge, would ban fashionable shoes and start telling women to wear clunky work boots come the revolution?

"Women comrades will not need decadent shoes on the collective beet farm. Nor will they want them. We don't even need to ask them."

Something like that?

I'll bet he's got a long list of consumer goods he'd ban. So do I. I hate cell phones. No one needs one. Except me.

No. People would be able to have "fashionable" shoes. Though without gender norms, which enforce insanity like high heels, shoes would focus on comfort and utility more than fashion. I don't know too many women who actually like permanently harming their feet. But, as you have the mental capacities of a small child, you don't understand this.

Jazzratt

26th July 2008, 19:13

Noxion, it was just a joke. And you know it was funny.

I don't know where it is you got this deluded notion that you have a functioning sense of humour but it's really tragic the way you cling to it.

But seriously, go up above and read that person's diatribe on foot"ware" as he calls it. You don't think that guy, if allowed to take charge, would ban fashionable shoes and start telling women to wear clunky work boots come the revolution?

You know that not all fashionable shoes are as limiting or poorly thought out as high-heels right? Some shoes (skate shoes, for example) can be built to last without being "clunky". Durable and lightweight are not antonyms.

"Women comrades will not need decadent shoes on the collective beet farm. Nor will they want them. We don't even need to ask them."

Something like that?

Presuming this woman worked on a farm it's not a big leep to guess that, yes, spending all day in a field would make the prospect of tottering about in a pair of uncomfortable shoes look very unappealing. Even if they didn't work on a farm though you'll have to consider that a lot of culture would be undergoing radical changes - one of the first concepts to go would be that beauty comes from debilitating clothing. Hell this view is catching on already.

I'll bet he's got a long list of consumer goods he'd ban. So do I. I hate cell phones. No one needs one. Except me.

It's not a de jure ban but a de facto one, it may be that an individual man or woman wishes to have a pair of high-heels and there is nothing to stop them getting a pair, but they certainly wouldn't be mass produced and anyone wishing to have one would, more than likely, have to wait. So no one is banning anything.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th July 2008, 19:23

Noxion, it was just a joke. And you know it was funny.In case you haven't noticed, this isn't Chit-Chat or the Reactionary Chatter thread. And it wasn't funny, to boot.

But seriously, go up above and read that person's diatribe on foot"ware" as he calls it.I have. I think he has some very interesting things to say, regardless of minor typographical errors. Seriously, how many times are you going to harp on about that?

You don't think that guy, if allowed to take charge, would ban fashionable shoes and start telling women to wear clunky work boots come the revolution?Of course not, because he doesn't want to "take charge" in the first place.

He's saying that people should be allowed to truly decide for themselves what to wear, not to be influenced by the fashion "industry" or the size of their paycheque.

"Women comrades will not need decadent shoes on the collective beet farm. Nor will they want them. We don't even need to ask them."

Something like that?
Well if you worked on a farm, what would you choose to wear on your feet? I know what I'd want - a good sturdy pair of boots at least, preferable rubber wellies if it's pissing it down.

I'll bet he's got a long list of consumer goods he'd ban. So do I. I hate cell phones. No one needs one. Except me.It's not that anything will be banned, but instead people will be free to produce the sort of things they want, not what the corporations and advertising executives think they want.

Bud Struggle

26th July 2008, 19:41

I don't know where it is you got this deluded notion that you have a functioning sense of humour but it's really tragic the way you cling to it.

Not every joke has to be a good old fashoned knee slapper.

You know that not all fashionable shoes are as limiting or poorly thought out as high-heels right?

That's just a matter of opinion. High Heels are on of the most brilliantly thought our invention of all time.

Even if they didn't work on a farm though you'll have to consider that a lot of culture would be undergoing radical changes - one of the first concepts to go would be that beauty comes from debilitating clothing. Hell this view is catching on already.

It's a well known fact that Capitalists are much better looking than Communists--so I can understand the Communists need for less fashion concious clothing.

It's not a de jure ban but a de facto one, it may be that an individual man or woman wishes to have a pair of high-heels and there is nothing to stop them getting a pair, but they certainly wouldn't be mass produced and anyone wishing to have one would, more than likely, have to wait. So no one is banning anything.

So you could wear them--they just wouldn't be made. Fine. :)

Jazzratt

26th July 2008, 19:50

Not every joke has to be a good old fashoned knee slapper.

I was under the imperssion though that, at least a small amount of, humour was required.

That's just a matter of opinion. High Heels are on of the most brilliantly thought our invention of all time.

They limit the degree of movement, are uncomfortable to walk in, can cause damage to the feet after prolonged use and increase the wearer's chance of injuring his/her self. What, exactly, is well thought out about them?

It's a well known fact that Capitalists are much better looking than Communists--so I can understand the Communists need for less fashion concious clothing.

The view that high-heels are stupid isn't limited to communists.

So you could wear them--they just wouldn't be made. Fine. :)

I didn't say they wouldn't be made, I just said that it would take time for any Cobbler's Collective to make them because they simply wouldn't be in high enough demand to warrant wasting endless kilowatt/hours on them.

Bud Struggle

26th July 2008, 19:55

They limit the degree of movement, are uncomfortable to walk in, can cause damage to the feet after prolonged use and increase the wearer's chance of injuring his/her self. What, exactly, is well thought out about them?

They simulate the look of a woman's legs when she's haviing an orgasm. :)

Joe Hill's Ghost

26th July 2008, 20:16

They simulate the look of a woman's legs when she's haviing an orgasm. :)

Something your wife has been faking for ages I assume.

High heels are the modern re imagination of Chinese foot binding. They sacrifice utility, and the woman's health, for a male defined notion of beauty.

Robert

26th July 2008, 20:28

Deleted.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th July 2008, 20:37

As Robert the Great proves, anti-flaming rules do nothing but encourage thin-skinned butthurt whining cry-babies and other emotional cripples to BAAAAAW their eyes out because they know some persnickety mod or admin (or perhaps a mod or admin who's a mate of the emotional cripple) will take up their case.

In fact, I expect chimx will be in here soon enough.

All of which distracts from the actual subject of the thread much more than if the flamed person had responded in kind and got on with it.

Style over substance: It's not just a fallacy anymore.

About the "footware," I don't care that he can't spell.

Then why bring it up, you simpleton?

Something your wife has been faking for ages I assume.

OUCH! :ohmy:

Jazzratt

26th July 2008, 20:56

This is a flame. I protest.

Flaming is universally not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionaly charged, all members are required to maintain civil decorum. This means that personal insults, name-calling, threats, derogatory slurs, and/or any other vareity of ad hominem attack are not permitted.

Those rules need re-writing. In the mean time I suggest you refrain from this bullshit.

Robert

26th July 2008, 21:00

anti-flaming rules do nothing but encourage thin-skinned butthurt whining cry-babies and other emotional cripplesIncorrect. They do more: they help show up the utter duplicity and hypocrisy of socialist elitists in charge of the board. Anyway, I've been the object of at least one violent thug's fantasy here, so juvenile insults on a bulletin board are small potatoes.

I call for elimination of the anti-flaming rule. Down with discourse. Let the flaming begin!!!

Robert

26th July 2008, 21:12

Those rules need re-writing. In the mean time I suggest you refrain from this bullshit.

:laugh:

Re-writing??? You suggest??? Oh man, is this rich!

But okay, Global Forum Moderator Jazzratt. I will "refrain from this bullshit" and I will delete my above "protest," which was also a joke. (I guess you had to be there.)

:laugh:

Joe Hill's Ghost

26th July 2008, 21:36

*shrugs* I try to be nice and amiable to everyone outside of OI. Jazzrat and Nox can attest that I'm not much of a flamer.

But Tomk admits that he owns a business and employs people. He also believes in Catholic dogma, and is patriarchal. I see no reason to treat him with respect or kindness. He is not a fellow worker with some bad ideas. He is a capitalist who actively seeks to harm and exploit working people. Insulting him is a very minor means of raising the social cost of capitalism.

Bud Struggle

26th July 2008, 21:43

:laugh:

Re-writing??? You suggest??? Oh man, is this rich!

But okay, Global Forum Moderator Jazzratt. I will "refrain from this bullshit" and I will delete my above "protest," which was also a joke. (I guess you had to be there.)

:laugh:

Brother Robert,

The rules only apply for the OI--not for the CCers--they can do whatever they like whenever they like on this board, which is fine.

Don't forget, the best revenge is ALWAYS living well, and unlike those guys--we live well.

I suggest you go out and buy a bottle of Perrier-Jouet, the 1999 Fleur de Champagne Blanc de Blank's my favorite, and join me in a toast to our friends at RevLeft.

After a couple of glasses you'll see what sweethearts they all are. :thumbup1:

*shrugs* I try to be nice and amiable to everyone outside of OI. Jazzrat and Nox can attest that I'm not much of a flamer.

But Tomk admits that he owns a business and employs people. He also believes in Catholic dogma, and is patriarchal. I see no reason to treat him with respect or kindness. He is not a fellow worker with some bad ideas. He is a capitalist who actively seeks to harm and exploit working people. Insulting him is a very minor means of raising the social cost of capitalism.

You can do whatever you like--I certainly find you amusing. You are such a little knot of purposeful Communism, quite delightful in your earnestness. :)

Killfacer

26th July 2008, 23:01

that was funny and aimless.

Bud Struggle

26th July 2008, 23:22

that was funny and aimless.

Actually, if I had one "issue" with Non-Oiers--is they don't seem to be having fun. Either in "real life" or here on RevLeft. Way to many clenched teeth and much to much meanspiritedness.

Life should be an enjoyment sprinkled with laughter and smiles.

Killfacer

26th July 2008, 23:34

thats what devote dedication to an impossible cause does to you :lol:

(that was a joke, dont bite my head off people)

Joe Hill's Ghost

27th July 2008, 00:25

Actually, if I had one "issue" with Non-Oiers--is they don't seem to be having fun. Either in "real life" or here on RevLeft. Way to many clenched teeth and much to much meanspiritedness.

Life should be an enjoyment sprinkled with laughter and smiles.

I enjoy myself, but I wouldn't talk about my social activities on public forum for all the world to see. That's well, very dumb.

My issue is with you finding happiness. You make your money from the misery of others. Your life should match up with that. Find that inner unhappiness Tom. Go have an affair that gets revealed in a brutal scandal!

Die Neue Zeit

27th July 2008, 00:40

^^^ False petit-bourgeois pride (shared between the two of them), actually, Joe. :)

professorchaos

27th July 2008, 01:32

Killfacer

27th July 2008, 01:38

dont you have to be rich to be petit-bourgeois?

Socialist18

27th July 2008, 05:56

Regarding the original Post: I don't see why anything would change post capitalism as people care about people today enough to help out the elderly so they will continue to care about them later as well.

shorelinetrance

27th July 2008, 06:41

elderly people are reactionary.

they will be systematically destroyed when they are no longer useful to society.

/edit i hope someone sees the satire in this.

pusher robot

27th July 2008, 09:49

elderly people are reactionary.

they will be systematically destroyed when they are no longer useful to society.

On a completely unrelated note, remember that Tueday is Soylent Green Day.

Killfacer

27th July 2008, 13:17

soylant green is people

Bud Struggle

27th July 2008, 13:25

I enjoy myself, but I wouldn't talk about my social activities on public forum for all the world to see. That's well, very dumb.

Of course, but there really no reason to be so --grim.

My issue is with you finding happiness. You make your money from the misery of others. Your life should match up with that. Find that inner unhappiness Tom. Go have an affair that gets revealed in a brutal scandal!

Yea, but all that making my money from the misery of others--is your "belief." It's how YOU look at the world, not necessarily how I or most of the world, including my workers wouldlook at the situation. In fact, I doubt that any of them would ever say those words on their own--and if you gave them a multiple choice question--less then 10% would take that option.

For you to tell them how they should react or behave to the situation they are in, of for you to think you know more about their lives than they do is condescension and elitism.

I can understand if YOU feel the system is unjust to you--that's your personal opinion, and I can espect that, but for you to presume you can judge and feel for other people--I just don't see it.

From what I can see and what has been telaed to me--my workers are pretty happy, as a matter of fact some are "too happy". Since I've instituted my soviet style council system--without managing supervisors, the labeling department of my business has turned into one giant party--holding back the profits of the rest of the business. Without labels, nothing get shipped--and they are behind almost 15%.

The councils want me and my management team to step in and take control of the department, I think it's up to the workers and their representatives to do that--so we are at loggerheads. A lot of these people in the other departments were happier when I an the show.

So Communism has it's issues. But I can't say there's a whole lot of misery being caused by me.