Results 81 to 91 of 91
I'm sorry, but I can't follow you here. I don't understand how this responds to my previous post, or is related to your first post.Only for short term - people are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of better future. However, if this future never come, people lose their motivation - I saw this effect twice in my country.
Statement to improve life of workers while trying to make better conditions of they work and reduce amount of their work is false as well?
It seems, that work is needed to survive in any system, either in communistic.
Yes, I guess it's like building a `tree-house` in childhood/teenage. However, it seems never worked in bigger scales, for example, while building a road in length on tens of kilometers or building a hydropower plant.
History of USSR shows that in long terms it didn't work
Ok, I'm following you here.
In the example, my claim is that the workers don't work as hard as they could because there is no reason to. Capitalism does not provide them with any interest in their labor because they have a weak relationship to their actual activities.
And I don't know whether they should receive equal pay, or access to resources, I would say that this decision would be up to their community - be it a town, an industry, or an organization.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Capitalists usually say that amount of salary is motivation for workers to work better - larger amount or better quality of work results in higher salary. If there is no opportunity to recieve higher reward, why should worker try better?
However, if community decides in democratic way to live a capitalistic way of life (and distribute goods according to capitalistic rules), would be Communistic revolution driven by minority still justified? Sorry for offytopic, if I made one.
The community will come to a consensus? What if this community is racist and makes all the people of a race work to pick tomatoes? Tyranny is tyranny even if is imposed by consensus/majority/the community.I'm sure you do want an awesome force policing you, they probably wouldn't like you much however, a real community patrolling force in a communist society.
Then the community will come to a consensus as to who'll pick the tomatoes.
What a weird scenario. I've never heard of survival on just tomatoes in many places, you do know food would be kind of fairly distributed in a communist society right?
You're a funny guy, 'the public' tell you what to do at work? No your boss does. Do bosses get even half of everything right in terms of enforcing what the public wants from workers? No, we know that workers hate bosses because they talk and do shit. Do the bourgeois above the petit-bourgeois ask the workers' bosses to enforce what the public wants?
Nope.
Is that the key question and answer? Yes.
And it isn't just tomatoes, its anything that requires uncomfortable manual labor. So you can apply it to most agriculture and most everyone wants to avoid it, they would much rather push pencils or throw buckets of paint at walls and call it art.
And the selected workers would hate "the public"... why shouldn't they? Did not the African slaves hate the whites, even those these whites were "the public" and chose their jobs (mainly in agriculture, because these jobs are almost universally considered undesirable).
And wants are unlimited, if a boss tried to fulfill all or even most of these desires he would become bankrupt or his business wouldn't become profitable. If work conditions suck or you hate your boss, leave. You can't do that in a socialist/communist society or you'll get shot. Simple as that.
A very big what if which is unrealistic in a revolutionary society, to say the least.
You know this how?
What whites were "the public"? The slave owners were not workers.. what a joke.
White worker solidarity with African slaves was expressed in various forms many, many times.
Yet none of that helps the worker, even if the boss goes bankrupt the worker still suffers, if the boss profits then the worker still suffers. In a real socialist/communist society, things are decided on horizontal levels and delegators who hold the positions managers used to, would not be given free reign to use and abuse workers. Workers would be able to hold them to democratic account for their actions, moreover, in such a society it's significantly more likely that workers who won't abuse others, will be elected to these positions.
As for the "you'll get shot" bit, yeah if you're a boss and you treated workers like absolute shit previously (like the bosses who were recently found holding blacklists of militant, unionised workers in the building industry in the UK) then you probably will be shot and good riddance too.
In other words, capitalists are fucking geniuses for figuring out that people need food.
Yes, capitalism runs on the profit motive, and in search of this it has to take concern of the working people, but the question is how it does this.
"America is ready for another revolution" - Sarah Palin
no person is satisfied sitting on their ass. people get satisfaction and feel better if they are doing something with their lives and contributing to society. if they aren't then they are no use, off to the kulaks and off with their heads !
of course the less glamorous jobs may be hard to fill. how would that be remedied ?
also a good educational working ethic would be introduced in a communist society. people would would learn that working helps make them the person they are from a young age. not that this is brainwashing or anything, but that it's a fact.
Good answers
Good answers
Do I need to bring up examples of past revolutionary societies where racism/murder/lynchings was rampant?
How do I know that people would prefer to be comfortable to uncomfortable? Is that really a question?
Yes, because this is the way it has worked in the past right? While past events cannot be used to, without a doubt, forecast future events it does show that there would be delinquency from inevitability is the perfect Marxist utopia you see in your head.
I'm glad in your utopia outright murder of those you don't agree with/don't agree with you is condoned. Really, it says volumes.
Between production for profit and production for needs there is no contrast.
Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
I suppose i can put this here too:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=144
Yes, and keep in mind revolutionary society means run by the people.
Actually it has ... if your refering to democracy.
I'm with you there, its akin to humiliating women who slept with nazi soldiers after world war 2, its pointless and inhumane.
