"If they work harder, shouldnt they get more?'' - Looking fo

[Nick Yves]

I'm not quite sure why I am making this topic. While at a different messageboard I ran into a rather general question while discussing communism with other people, non communists. One of them said,

"Communist decry capitalist who through their hard work and ability rise to the top, but then they expect everyone to work hard... Complaining about the people who work the hardest and then saying that everyone should work as hard as possible for the good of everyone, don't those two ideas contradict?"

A common misconception. We all know the answer, well, most of us. Yadda ya, the capitalist, or the rich, who so called 'work harder' are only proffiting off of our labor and in turn giving us the lowest they can legally for our time. We work, they profit, and the cycle continues with the rich getting richer and so on..

But this answer does not sound very convincing...if someone asked you this, what would you say?

[Unrelenting Steve]

Its false to think that the hardest working in a capitalist system rise to the top, this may be the case in some people, but that in itself is not a true statement, also some people that have the inability to work, in a capitalist country this means that person will simply not survive or have an extremely degraded life, through no fault of his/her own, this problem can only be sovled throught really rich capitalist countries being able to aford a little socialism to the greater expense of other poor victimized capitalist countries who's poor and people who cant sustain themselves go through hell. While in communism people give to their ability and take according to their need.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 11:50 am on June 8, 2003)

[Unrelenting Steve]

To more diresctly answer your question, If you work more dont you deserve more. It seems that this could be tolerable if there was enough to go around that substancialy met peoples needs, I dont see this happening any time soon. So while the fact that there are people starving capitalism will always be ammoral and immoral.

[redstar2000]

"Communist decry capitalist who through their hard work and ability rise to the top, but then they expect everyone to work hard... Complaining about the people who work the hardest and then saying that everyone should work as hard as possible for the good of everyone, don't those two ideas contradict?"

Actually, there are at least three erroneous assumptions built into this statement.

1. The people who rise to the "top" do so because of ability.

2. The people who rise to the "top" do so because they work the hardest.

3. Under communism, everyone will work "as hard as possible."

So let's take them in order. The people at the very top of capitalist society are, with rare exceptions, the grandchildren or even great grandchildren of wealth.

Their "ability", such as it is, mostly consists of being able to win the respect of people [/b]like themselves[/b], to move skillfully, like a shark among other sharks; to maneuver and cajole those who are also heirs and controllers of great wealth...to serve an apprenticeship and demonstrate one's right to be placed in control of great wealth...in the eyes of the wealthy themselves.

But what of "professional management"? This is the way the ruling class renews itself. Of the large numbers of people who go "into management", a tiny number prove so "skillful" (or, more likely, lucky) that they are "promoted" into the ruling class itself.

2. Occasionally, sheer hard work does pay off big...rather as there is always at least one really valuable lottery ticket. Bill Gates and Sam Walton did indeed work very hard and very cleverly to advance to their lofty positions (Walton is dead now, but his fortune was so large that even split up amongst his heirs, they are still among the wealthiest people in America).

But most lottery tickets are worthless scraps of cardboard and most people who work hard will have little to show for it in the end...often not significantly more than a "lazy bum" like me. When I die, there will be hardly $2,000 to bury me; a really hard-working skilled worker might leave behind $500,000 (in the form of a house, most likely)...both amounts are "chump change" compared to the true personal and family fortunes in the United States.

3. The idea that communism means that you "bust your ass" for the benefit of everyone is wrong. In spite of much lip-service to the "noble ideal of toil", the practical experience of proto-communism in the 20th century was that people worked less...shorter hours and less intensely.

This makes sense when you stop and think about it; it's in the class interests of the workers not to spend their lives "busting their asses". Why should humans be driven like mules?

There is, after all, a reasonable ground between total fuckoff and relentless robot; most humans appear to desire interesting, productive, and purposeful work...but that doesn't mean that they wish to be driven to an early grave as human sacrifices to the idol of corporate profits.

It seems quite likely to me that communism will be "less productive" on average than capitalism at its optimum, at least for its first century or two. That simply reflects our conviction that the purpose of life is something more than the frenzied effort to accumulate profits for a class of vampires that no longer exist.

Does that mean that some of the more baroque extravagances presently available to consumers will no longer exist? Yes.

Will they be missed? Probably not.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:34 am on June 8, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'll answer with a quote from the Communist Manifesto:

...for those of its members [of bourgeois society] who work, aquire nothing, and those who aquire anything, do not work.

What they are saying is that the wealthy owners of capital make money by simply by using their capital to employ workers and having ownership of the product of their labor. The working class, in the otehr hand, work for little money that is just enough to get by, if that even. This money never amounts into anything of their own.

capital, by the way, is money used to generate more money. The only way in which to create capital is to first have capital.

[Xvall]

I hope you are aware that even this is not how thing work in a capitalist society. I live in a capitalist society; I know. You are not paid on account of how hard you work. You are paid on account of how long you work. If I work at McDonalds and I work SUPER HARD making those fries, the guy next to me cooking them at a steady pace is going to make just as much as me, assuming we put in the same amount of hours. The only way I can see you 'not working hard' is if you completely slack off, and don't do the work.

[Nick Yves]

Awesome responces guys. Thanks. Keep in mind I wasnt asking for MY benefit, I already knew the logical answer, buy I was looking for it in a longer form and more informative way....fucking awesome...redstar, your post is so appreciated. Its like you took what I said to the guy in 1 paragraph, and made it 5. :)

[Nobody]

I too wanted to say great reply Redstar. I have a theory, ableit a way out there one, about Bill Gates and Sma Whorton. They are "bribes" to the working class. They are allowed to succed becasue the ruling class knows if there are no made-it themselves people no one would bother trying. So, Gates and Whalton are the carrot on the stick for the working class.