Who cleans toilets? Who becomes a doctor?

[kelvin90701]

In a communist system, who?

Without monetary insentive, there will still be people who want to be doctors. How do you decide who gets to be a doctor without competition? Do you judge qualifications based on what? If everyone who wants to be a doctor, gets to be one, do you want a doctor who does not try too hard or studies too hard in medical school?

If someone is qualified to clean toilets and wants to be a doctor, then what?

[Chiak47]

As children they take tests.Then depending on the results the children get molded into what the "powers Above" seem fit.

It's a decent system.I would like to see it in effect here.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 4:24 am on April 10, 2003
As children they take tests.Then depending on the results the children get molded into what the "powers Above" seem fit.

It's a decent system.I would like to see it in effect here.

Oh you mean someone in a communist system with authority takes away your free will and decides for you what you are good for.

[American Kid]

the children get molded into what the "powers Above" seem fit.


To be perfectly honest I'd much prefer to "mold" myself, thank you.

-AK

[Som]

Ah, its easy to blend 2 different systems together in an effort to try and debunk them.

Doctors in all the socialist countries, have been paid more than most workers.

In socialism, everyone who wants to be a doctor has the same oppurtunity to attend college, they'll go to medschool and like in any country, they just have to meet the standards.

Theres no competition involved, you learn to be a doctor, you become a doctor, like in america, if they cant meet the qualifications, they wont.

[Chiak47]

I should have clarified it some.
Our educational system is in shambles.I do believe a system that helps children into post school careers is a system we need here.The system we have fills children's minds with garbage that will never be used in society.
Make class room sizes smaller-max 10 kids per class.Help children into careers they will excel at.


I did not mean "tell them" what they would be good at.

I hope that clears it up.

[kelvin90701]

If I were communist, I would say something like this:

"Good post. The use of neo-hyphanated theory would be more effective. Marx would be proud."

My observation:

1) The rest of the world does not send thier kids to study in our high schools.

2) The rest of the world does send thier kids to study at our universities.

Anyhow back to the communist-doctor-toilet question. (Like my use of hyphens?)

[canikickit]

"Good post. The use of neo-hyphanated theory would be more effective. Marx would be proud."


hahahahahhahaha.


You made me laugh but, you're being ridiculous.

Do you judge qualifications based on what?

Do we judge them based on what, I'm not sure. But, like most qualifications, I'm sure socialist ones will be based on their quality.

People who want to become doctors will try. People who fail will fail. People who want to become football coaches will try, people who want to become street cleaners will get the help the need.

But seriously, your question doesn't make much sense.

[Charred Phoenix]

Monetary incentive is NOT a good cause for becoming a doctor, it is frowned on even in captitalist societies.

[Iepilei]

CE Stubblefield made a name for himself in a Texas barbeque, no mean feat in a state where good brisket is worshipped with almost the same fervor as cowas are worshipped in India, a stat where every Billy Bob and Tammie Jo with a smoker and a jar of "Momma's secret sauce" claim to make the best BBQ in the known universe.

Stubb, who was taken to BBQ heaven a couple of years ago, served up his specialties at his joint located inside Austin's legendary blues house Antone's, and people came from miles around to enjoy a plate of whatever the man was dishing out that night. His reputation was not in his sauce or smoking technique, not in some marketing gimmick or franchising, but in him. Truth to tell, you could get better barbeque elsewhere, but you could not get a better expereince anywhere else. A tall man filled with tall tales, Stubb and Stubb's (he and his place were one and the same) were pure happiness, just plain fun, and full of good life. When Austin writer Don McLeese asked Stubb what made his food so special, he replied, "I would say it's the people I love to cook for. There's a deep seperation between cooking for money and fame, and cooking to make somebody happy. My secret is I care about it."

Imagine that. Cooking to produce happiness. Imagine this: Organising work to enhance happiness, governing to promote it, educating to achieve a higher level of it. when asked, nearly all of us say what we want from life is some kind of happiness, yet almost nothing in our entire social structure is set up with happiness as a consideration - not jobs, not schools, not careers, not the political system or the consumer economy; not our neighborhoods and our shopping centers; not even vacations, which we mostly spend gasping to catch our breath for a couple of weeks before plugging back into the chase... for what?

Politicians are practiced at promising a chicken (or tax cut) in every pot and are adept at asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (both Reagan and Clinton used that one), but when is the last time you heard anyone in politics ask either you or the country: "Are you happy?"

It is neither a frivolous nor a new question for American politics.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

So reads the second sentance of our county's most basic statement of purpose, the Declaration of Independance. The third sentance declares that when a government fails to secure these rights for the people, then the people have the right to toss that government and set up another one organised in such a way that is "most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This line was not merely a throwaway line by Jefferson, but a philosophical concept debated broadly at the time and deliberately chosen by the founders over "life, liberty, and the holding of property," which was favored by some of the more acquisitive founders. Nor was "happiness" a sly code for "money"-- rather it meant living a meaningful existence, enjoying participation in community life, and having opportunities to develop the whole person, including the mind, the heart, the spirit, and even the funny bone.

-Jim Hightower

[Moskitto]

This is what i'd like to do with the education system (in the UK)

- Get rid of religious education until age 16, leave it to parents if they choose.
- Replace religious education with personal and social education teaching things such as sex education, drug education and how to apply for loans and other useful things in life.
- Reform drugs education to change the education from "Drugs are bad, do not take" to This is what the drug does, this is what can go wrong, I have heard of people being put off taking drugs by the later approach.
- Place greater emphasis on information technology.
- Reduce compulsary full time education age to 14, allow children who clearly do not want to stay in school go into vocational training post 14.
- Stop giving 14-16 year olds unneccesary careers advice when they do not want it.
- Introduce general strength weight lifting and endurance training into schools between the ages of 9 and 15, this will develop athletes in all sports much better than than focusing on team games, this is also recomended by the BWLA.
-

[Charred Phoenix]

I agree with everything except points 5 and 7.

5. Because people need decent education to contribute to society

and

7. Because training such as that hinders you in some sports, for example, I am a fencer, when you increase muscle mass, you lose twitch muscle fibre and become too slow to be any good.

[Iepilei]

I disagree... not everyone is necissarily cut out for the more advanced educations, therefor it would be more beneficial for them to be in some sort of vocational or trade school where they could learn about what they want to be.

I can tell you right now, there are a large number of people in American highschools today who simply do not want to be and should not be there, period. Anyone who wishes to seek higher education should be promoted and given the opportunity, but anyone who disregards it should not have it forced.

[synthesis]

Democracies are generally worthless unless their inhabitants are equally educated.

Personally, I would make Critical Thinking a mandatory course in public schools.

[Chiak47]

DyerMaker,

Critical thinking?
In other words::::Common sence...

Thanks,
Eric

[Moskitto]

For 2 years I had most of my lessons disturbed with groups of people who were absolutly unwilling to learn, they were also willing to let everyone else know they had no intention of letting anyone else know anything, it was actually an offence against them to put goggles on in chemistry. If however these people were not in lessons like they are now, resources could be better used on people who actually want to learn things. If all students were given the choice, stay in school and learn, or go and train while earning money in a job, most people who are unwilling to learn anything in school would choose the job option, those who want to learn in school would choose school, everyone would be happy.


7. Because training such as that hinders you in some sports, for example, I am a fencer, when you increase muscle mass, you lose twitch muscle fibre and become too slow to be any good.


I do a dynamic sport so i do weights exercises quickly to get fast twitch muscle fibres, but I normally use them in the event i'm made to do and I hate the most >:(, I want more endurance muscles really, but that's a different point.

But I see your point, instead of weight training, athletes such as fencers could instead have the option to do exercises more relevent to such sports. But making children play certain team games is only going to make a generation of a few good footballers with no development of other sports and leaving lots of children out of games because they're not good enough for the good people to pass to them. I much prefered running because i was actually doing something, not standing at the back of defence freezing and being a very minor obstacle for the attackers.

[Invader Zim]

Moskitto only likes weights because he very good at canoeing, and has to do weights to stay good. He also ejoys doing weights as well for some obscure reason.

[Pete]

Chiak

Criticial thinking is completely different than commonsense.

[Iepilei]

Most Americans nowadays only read at a 5th grade level, and many do not have basic skills which exceed that - so what's the purpose of extending education past the 8th grade? To pay more taxes on a bunch of poeple who don't wish to be there, or will no attain anything from the experience?

I say, educate up to the 8th - then give the choice of continuing education or going to trade school. Either way, the people learn the education they desire - and become what they want to be.

[koffeekommie]

how did this turn into a debate about the educational system i though we where debating the greatest argument against communism: how do we deal with division of labor. Are we going to be fascist about it and force careers onto people or are we going to allow them to deside or are we going to find a new way? Please stay on topic.

[synthesis]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 5:29 am on April 11, 2003
DyerMaker,

Critical thinking?
In other words::::Common sence...

Thanks,
Eric

Not really. The great majority of people tend to be followers rather than leaders, never forming their own opinions. Education is the cornerstone of democracy, and therefore the ability of free-thought is crucial.

[GUTB]

In most of the world, the current system of division is based on class lines. Monetary wealth is really just a reflection of the class system as defined by the bourgeois.

Take for instance, John the Blacksmith. John might have had the idea of becoming a doctor or a lawyer back in his childhood, but the realities of the world denied him that option. His single parent working nights full-time spared little time for his formative years, John only paid passing attention to school and so completed only the eigth grade before dropping out for good. He lived with relatives and friends, doing part time work, and spending his meager earnings on drugs and fast food. However, in his mid-twenties, he hits a low-point and decides that he has to make some real money. This is when John discovers the class system -- no matter how bright he is, he has to complete high school before even being considered for higher education. But no one is there to support him for the years this will take. So find a trade in Blacksmithing, and works the iron fulltime leaving him exhausted and sore, but with some earnings that mostly go towards rent and food. The work is so long and exhausting that all he wants to do after work is just watch television and drink a beer and do nothing. This is all John can do, because he lacks the class ties needed to ascend to a higher level.

And now take Paul the Doctor. Paul's father owns a chain of resturants in town, and his mother is a pediatrician. Father spends several hours a day on average managing business affairs, and for the most part is left free to be home, and keep close tabs on his son. Paul, watched and guided, finishes grade school, and decides to go to med school. The tuition is very high, but not too high for Paul's well-off family. Pauls moves away for several years, and studies at a liesurely pace for his diploma. Paul is cloistered in his university community with his fellow affluent members of society, and while assaignment deadlines could be rough, university is a pleasent, fondly-remembered experience. When Paul graduates, his father finds an inexpesnive mall property and together with some equally well-off friends, Paul establishes a medical practice. Soon, his family helps Paul finance a big house in a good neighborhood. His hours are long, but leisurely, and he takes several vacations a year, sailing in his boat and visiting exotic islands.

So why is Paul well-off and happy while John is poor and unhappy? Because John is an idiot? No, John has an excellent memory and does well on tests. Because Paul is harder-working? Certainly not; even though he works full-time, it doesn't compare with the hard back-breaking labour and uncomfotable conditions John handles. Clearly, all of what made Paul into what he was, and John into what he was, is defined by the class division. Wealth is freedom, and so Paul had parents who were free to guide him through his formative years, and then wealthy enough to pave his way through school and ensure his establishment in life. John's parents lacked this freedom, and so had little time to guide him through school, and when he was old enough to realize how important a diploma was, he lacked the time and support of familial wealth to attain it.

Diplomas, like big homes in good neighbourhoods, is a status symbol of the class division. Only the high-class may enter school and live a life of increased freedom and comfort. This is division of labour based on the division of class.

In a socialist society, division of labour should be based simply on ability, and the desire to pursue it.

[Anarcho]

And this, in a nutshell, is where I run into problems with the generally accepted Dogma. There seems to be little concern for personal responsibility.

If John had paid more than passing attention at the beginning of this whole story, he would have done better. Hell, if he decided early on that he really and truly wanted to be a doctor, there are tons of scholarships and grants out there.... but only if John is capable of working hard at school.

And Paul... well, honestly I've seen Paul, I've met Paul. Paul is actually pretty likely to get into drugs and drinking, especially if he's in a Fraternity. Which is a given... all those Rich White Kids are part of a Frat, right?

Pauls grades plummet, and his father, eventually tired of paying off his spoiled sons mistakes, cuts him off.

John goes on to complete medical school, with scholarships and grants, and does well because of the hard work he puts into all his schooling.... a legacy of his earlier years.

Paul eventually flunks out of school, and spends most of his time moving from menial job to menial job, mostly because he can't pass a drug test.


Moral: There are no absolutes in life. Hard work will pay off, and the class system exists, at least in the US, as a marker, not a barrier.

[redstar2000]

The "official ideology" in American capitalism is that "hard work will make you rich...or at least upper-middle class."

Now and then, it does...and that's all the "proof" that's required to label America as the "land of opportunity".

The question that is not permitted to be asked is what are the odds?

What are the odds that a poor but hard-working kid will climb out of the shit-hole? Especially considering that his educational opportunities will be constrained by his neighborhood? Especially considering that his cultural background will be of little use and possibly even a hindrance "on the way up"? Especially considering that any credentials he may acquire will be "de-valued" because they don't originate in prestigious institutions?

The "stock response" of pro-capitalists to this argument is that "most people are lazy dummies". That is, the reason most people are at the bottom is that they are not willing to work hard and too stupid to work productively. They "need" bosses...otherwise they'd always be in the shit and nothing would get done.

And yet...there are times when this attitude is put into storage. When a ruling class finds itself severely threatened by an external enemy, it finds a sudden ability in the working class to work hard and smart...by appealing to nationalism and demonizing the enemy, it is suddenly "discovered" that more and better work can be generated by those who were once freely characterized as lazy and stupid.

What's going on here? Simply the fact that when a ruling class needs the working class desperately, the normal attacks on the working class are dropped "for the duration." Not only do wages rise in wartime but the respect publicly paid to the working class also rises. A lot of workers "move up" to middle-class incomes.

When the war is over, of course, it's back to "business as usual"...and the people at the bottom "deserve their fate".

It's quite a tribute to the propagandizing schools and media of America and other capitalist countries that this shallow con has been run so often without detection.

There was this rich capitalist in San Francisco once, who was asked what he would say if he opened the door of his mansion to see a crowd of revolutionaries. He said, "I would thank them for letting me get away with it for so long."

Mmmm, yes.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

RS2000 that has to the best post by you i have read.

(Edited by AK47 at 6:51 pm on April 12, 2003)

[Iepilei]

Well the division of labour still falls into the hands of those it should - the people themselves. Everyone does have ambitions, desires, and dreams of what they want to be. Not every person is born with the same goals in life, and want to do what truly makes them happy.

Personal greed, if you shall call it.

For instance a fellow comrade of mine who takes keen intrests in education, and would become a teacher. However the desipicable rates given to teachers (declared a "skill-less" job), has turned her away. Same instances fall for those in the lower-classes who see being a doctor or a lawyer too expensive a career to even consider.

People end up settling for careers they don't want in our capitalist system all the time. Division of labour should have no change, however, the system should be more accomidating and open towards people of certain vocations, or work to meet the needs of the people.

That is the basis of communism, afterall...

[synthesis]

I second AK47, that was a fantastic post.

[notyetacommie]

I will tell you how it was in the USSR, that has been attacked by both left-wing and right-wing comrades so many times.
8 grades in school were obligatory. Then students could choose between staying in school and going to a 3-4 year technical school, that gave profession to students that were not doing very well at school. In fact, class ladies were in charge of tracking the careers of their former students, i.e. they had to see to it that everyone is either in school, or in technical school, or is working somewhere after they finished their 8th grade. Sometimes students that weren't "bright" in school, became the brighter in the professional schools. Those who were working could attend the so-called "evening school" to continue their education. I have a friend from a single-parent family who was doing very bad in school, then he went to work in construction, went to an evening school and managed to graduate from the university as an architect!
The higher education was free for everyone, and one could continue it after the technical school as well as after the ordinary school. Everyone had to pass entrance exams, and there was competition for more prestigeous professions, based on the test results; orphans, workers, former military men as well as their children were given advantage over all others, i.e. their results weren't taking part in the competition, they simply had to achieve some entrance threshold. Both my parents graduated from the university, while they were from a working-class background. There also were lots of doctors from the working-class background. Yeah, all they had to do to practice was to be up to the professional standards.

To Anarcho: Are there enough grants and scholarships in USA for every promising low-income kid?

[Iepilei]

the sad tale about scholarships in the US is that the people who usually end up getting them are people who don't really need the scholarship in the first place. Either that or it's given for trivial things, such as sports accomplishments and not what the student learned in class.

[hazard]

I was very fortunate to be unable to fund my way through law school. otherwise, I 'd be almost through with my education and well on my way to a lifetime of precious servitude to a heartless greed mongering corporation. its not all bad to have an education system run for profit.

[Anarcho]

hazard- Or, conversly, you could have set up and run a cheap defense council business, working to defend those that can't afford the Johnny Cochrans of the legal world.

Or joined up with a grouo like the ACLU or some other Civil Rights group.

For every bad thing, a good alternative.