Work Ethic in Communism

[FuckYoCouch]

can someone explain how work ethic fits in with communism?

[ckaihatsu]

can someone explain how work ethic fits in with communism?


---



I like to think that most people -- regardless of age or any other demographic feature -- will find ways to contribute to the larger society in their own ways, irrespective of the political economy. At the same time I think that there would be a need for career-oriented labor in a planned economy, which should be compensated with material rewards that are greater than a baseline, free-welfare type of guaranteed livelihood.

[butterfly]

What is 'work ethic'?

[FuckYoCouch]

What is 'work ethic'?


Work ethic is a set of values based on the moral virtues of hard work and diligence. It is also a belief in the moral benefit of work and its ability to enhance character. A work ethic may include being reliable, having initiative or maintaining social skills.

[ZeroNowhere]

Work ethic is a set of values based on the moral virtues of hard work and diligence.
Would 'hard work should be abolished' count as a work ethic? :)

[butterfly]

"Though the study of ethics may not progress in the dramatic fashion of physics or genetics, much has been learned in the past century.

Progress not only in philosophy, but also in sciences has contributed to our understanding of ethics.
Evolutionary theory helps us to answer the ancient questions about the limits of altruism.

Rational choice theory- that is the theory of what it is to choose rationally in complex situations involving uncertainties- has highlighted a problem not discussed by ancient thinkers, called the Prisoner Dilemma.
The modern dicussion of this problem suggests that when each of two or more people pursue their own interests, they may have both ended up worse off than they would have been had they acted in a less rationally, self-interested manner.

Exploring this problem reveal how human nature may have evolved to be capable more than narrorw self-interest.

Here ethics returns to complete the picture. An ethical life is one in which we identify ourselves with other, larger goals, thereby giving meaning to our lives."

- Peter Singer; Ethics in an age of self-interest.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm missing something; probably whatever is behind this:


Evolutionary theory helps us to answer the ancient questions about the limits of altruism.

Explain?

Edit: I guess I don't get why evolutionary theory would have confined us to narrow self-interest in the first place. . . groups do better. . .

[ckaihatsu]

All of the following are abstract terms which, when used on their own, out of any context, are bourgeois terms by default since we live in a bourgeois-dominated culture.

And since abstract terms like these are poisoned with default, bourgeois meanings, these meanings are *always* pathological (disease / fault-oriented, pessimistic, fatalistic, or glass-half-empty) and condescending -- think "original sin for everyone".



ethics


ethics...progress


progress...in philosophy


ancient questions


the limits of altruism


rational choice


Prisoner Dilemma


self-interest


human nature


values


moral virtues


moral benefit


character


The overwhelming problem with using any or all of these terms is that the whole bourgeois culture they're based in is Cartesian, or dualistic -- it looks at the individual * on their own * and does *not* consider the individual in the context of society as a whole.

Therefore we're all thrust into the binary role outcomes of hero or flop, as if life is necessarily so individuated or black-and-white. (Granted, bourgeois culture, again, leans us in that direction but it isn't *necessarily* that way.)



Would 'hard work should be abolished' count as a work ethic? :)


Why *not* turn the focus around, back onto the larger societal setup that defines what work is in the first place? Perhaps this *macro* interpretation of the term 'work ethic' is just as valid as applying it to the individual, which is what we're used to doing. What kind of 'work ethic' does *society* have, and is it > healthy < for individuals to adopt it as their own?


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Dean]

I know when I frist came here I made a very good post on this topic. But I simply can't find it now.

In short, a free human existence allows for productive and ration labor, which will of course encourage responsibility - for people who live or work here or there to clean up after themselves, etc.. By making the workplace a social environment where all people matter, the building, cleanup and maintainance all become intimatley relevant to those involved. Most people should be able to clean up after themselves, and for those who cannot or do not, the open, productive culture of the workplace should foster such attitudes: if the people at production plant X want a clean floor, then they will have it.

What many people forget is that communist labor starts with the recognition of economic deficiencies or human desires. It simply wouldn't make sense for a rational society to sit down together and say "well, we all love eggs, but not a single one of us wants to feed the chickens, collect the eggs or fry them." If that is the case, then the people simply do not want them that much.

Likewise, in a rational economic system, laziness should never be a problem today. Only with high unemployment, misappropriated labor and excessive workloads does laziness become an issue. The excessive consumption of throwaway and superfluous commodities of myself alone should be plenty of consumed labor value for three people who go out and get whatever they want (and believe me, I am pretty frugal and I don't have a lot at all).