Results 1 to 20 of 22
Some questions on how it's all supposed to work...
I've been reading a lot of stuff here lately and trying to read up ideological literature written by "leftist" thinkers, and a LOT of questions have come to mind...many which leave me doubtful that there's any reason for even a Marxist to believe it's possible. So in order to understand you ideology, I need to know what your responses are to some of the obvious (and not so obvious) questions it brings up.
I tried to kinda organize my questions here, and I hope you can sort of structure your answers to the questions so we know what you're addressing (you also won't have to quote the entire question). So if you would follow the question format, I think it will be neater and easier to read!
Anyway, here goes...
__________________________________________________ __________
I.) Some questions about work and society once the system you want is established...
In today's world, professionals like doctors are quite few in numbers, and going to school to become one is very expensive. So doctors are quite "valuable", and make a lot of money. Without a big scholarship, it will cost you a pretty penny to go to school for something like this. In your type of (communist or otherwise) system, everyone would have access to that sort of education and/or training. So there can be lots and lots of doctors, lawyers, whatever. So you'll have high amounts of such people, and everyone is just compensated for their work according to need, and society is a "level playing field". And as I understand, there would be no "money", and possibly just some sort of "voucher" or rationing system. Now everyone can suddenly get their dream job, provided they're smart enough and have the ability needed (and lots of people do). If you're somewhat intelligent, or just "average", then you may not have what it takes for say, being a doctor, but then you may be perfect for another profession (maybe a lawyer). So a whole myriad of job opportunities are now open to everyone. Someone who may have had to work at McDonald's in today's world can become some sort of office administrator, a doctor, a lawyer, a pilot, etc. But this seems to have some huge implications.
1.) Do you not now still have a huge inequality in society with people's jobs/professions? Some jobs are just horrible and crappy; very uncomfortable, dirty and menial tasks -- but they're necessary. But something like an office job is comfortable; you're in the air condition/warmth of a building and out of the weather, you aren't breaking your back and sit at a desk all day. I remember when I had to do some really, really hard manual labor (I was once helped rebuild/repair/construct houses and worked in a food warehouse). The other guys like me and I used to despise the office workers -- they were all comfortable while we're out there killing ourselves. Does this mean equality is impossible? And now that things like an excellent, comfortable job are the only types of "prestige" a person really has, it's going to be a huge fixation. How can this problem be mitigated?
2.) Stemming from the problem in #1, I see more issues. Remember, now anyone can become trained/educated to get their "dream job" -- no cost for college or special training! So now WHO is going to be the berry picker, the janitor, the assembly line worker, the construction worker, the sewage worker, the garbage man? Does society have enough "dumb" people to do these jobs, who were unable to be educated for an actual skilled profession? It doesn't seem likely to me. Naturally, I would assume, just about everyone is going to want to become trained to get nice, comfortable jobs that they would enjoy. Who will stock the shelves in a "goods warehouse" (as I assume there will be no "stores" in the capitalist sense) when nearly everyone can now be the manager? Who's going to clean up the hospital when nearly everyone wants to be a nurse or doctor? It seems that the workforce for jobs involving manual labor is going to shrivel up and almost disappear. So what can you do? How is this stopped? Do you just assign people jobs, whether they like it or not?
3.) What about artists, muscians and authors? Do they even have a place in your society? These are pretty leisurely "jobs" which TONS of people are going to want. Why load lumber or build shipping palletes when I can go paint stuff or write books? So how do you deal with this?
4.) It seems like a powerful, authoritarian state would be needed to own and manage all "businesses" (I know, that's a "capitalist term", but couldn't think of another which would make sense to everyone). If there's no state and people can open their own "community businesses" (which of course, aren't for profit), then people are going to make up businesses which do very little so they don't have to really work. I might make up some sort of "consulting company" so I can just sit on my a** and talk all day, just to BS the system. I might say, "I'll be a comic book rater", so I can read and rate comic books all day. Maybe I'll want to be a food/wine taster, or make up some kind of nonsense cultural magazine or tabloid. Ohhh, could I exploit the entertainment "industry" ideas! There would be so many ways to cheat, and who wouldn't try to take advantage of it? I will!So how do you stop it? Autocracy?
__________________________________________________ __________
II.) What would MY life be like in your world?
I'm 22 years old, and I've already become a quite successful software developer (often called a "computer programmer" in layman terms). I have a nice house, which sits on about 45-acres of land that I own. I have a pretty expensive car; a Mercedes-Benz SLK (MSRP $55 - 80k, depending on package). I'm not a millionaire (though I think that will change soon enough), but I'm definitely very fortunate and in good standing. I run my own fledgeling small business (soon to be incorporated) and I work part-time for a large corporation on a very big software project. Most of my work is focused on 3D simulations and video games, but also desktop applications, business tools, etc. They're mostly for Windows, but some applications of mine will run on Linux, Mac, BSD, cell phone systems, mobile devices, Nintendo Wii, X-Box and PS3 (maybe PSP too, if I got a license or the right SDK). I work my freakin butt off, practically everyday. I love my work, but what really drives me onward is the incentive of greater success. I want to accumulate enough wealth to have things, of course, but I also want to secure the financial future of my family and generations to come. I'm also driven to make lots of money which I can give to charities (like St.Jude's) and even go directly into poverty-stricken regions to make a direct impact (been my dream since I was a child -- ironically, after seeing Robin Hood!). I feel giving a big portion of what I get is my duty as a Christian which I should expect nothing in return for except the joy of seeing others uplifted. These are some of the things which make me work really hard and try to stay on the cutting-edge of development.
1.) So how would things immediately change for me? Would my house/land be seized and become communal property? What about my Mercedes-Benz? Will it be taken away? There aren't enough for everyone, so if it will be taken away, who gets it? or will it just be destroyed? What about all of my other "luxuries"? Are they taken away and given to others? Scrapped or destroyed? It doesn't seem like I can keep any of this stuff, since it would be very disproportional and other people would be angry and want it...and it would just be a source of conflict. So what would happen here?
2.) Whether you want to admit it or not, you will effectively kill off much of my motivation to work hard. Sure, I'll work, but I'm going to kick back and relax. No need to push very hard, since I'm gonna get what I'm gonna get; more or less. This is exactly what I did the whole time during school, LOL! You might say offer some rewards to workers who work harder and make advancements, but they will be small and/or short term and infrequent, so I wouldn't really care unless the incentive you give is proportional to something like $10M or instant retirement with extra goodies for life. Otherwise, I'll be happy just working at a hobbyist pace, and only because I enjoy it -- but I won't be compelled to seriously pursue advances in technology or do something big and world-beating. This is going to be a wide-spread phenomena in the entire labor force, but especially for people like me who have very advanced technical skills. We're sort of "lazy", "thinking" people. We like what we do, but our big advances and achievements happen because we're driven to profit and payoff.
So what do you do to mitigate this problem, because otherwise scienctific and technological advances are going to slow to a snails pace. Much of the big leaps in technology we've seen since the dawn of the "digital age" have been the results of private businesses who did it to make a big profit. The military is also largely responsible, and their achievements have often been through sponsoring corporations and businesses (Lockeed-Martin, IBM, Intel, Grummin, etc). How would you bring about the next Google, Yahoo or Bing? Who would make the next Windows or Mac? People made these things because they wanted to get rich -- it's extremely laborious and time-consuming work, and people who do it want major compensation for giving up 3-10 years of their life to work on it. So explain this to me... I don't think much is going to happen when the incentive is to named "Good Comrade of the Month".
3.) Recently I've made the shift into developing simulations and games, almost exclusively. But is there even a place for video games in your society? What kid WON'T want to be a video game developer, if so? And as I said in the beginning, they'll have unhindered access to the education or training to become a developer (which can create a big hole in the work force here and in countless other situations). So would I still be a game/sim developer? Or would I have to stop and develop only software which is more necessary and essential to mankind (like medical monitoring software, satellite/GPS navigation systems, etc)?
So... Looking at the big picture here... Is the answer forced assignment of jobs? Do you punish me if I don't work hard enough (and usually, only other experts in science/software/etc can really know how hard you're working)? Might I be told, "We have too many programmers. You're needed to raise chickens."?
__________________________________________________ __________
I guess that's plenty questions for now (I've got a LOT more for the future). I just honestly want to know what the answers to them are. Not to be a smart ass or attack you, but to better understand your POV and what makes you believe in communism (or something else). I know you'll possibly be speculating a bit on some questions, but you must have some concrete ideas for most of this stuff. Without a plan for how society and life will work, you've got nothing but a few nice ideas. So I think you all MUST have some answers to this which make you believe this is the right thing for humanity.
I thank you for your time taken to read and explain things, and hope to get some heartfelt and honest answers!
Regards, Comrades,
This leads me to believe you have no objective in reaching an understanding. But either way, I, as merely the chaff, will try to give a response
__________________________________________________ __________
There's a slight misnomer here. Yes, anyone who desired the education would (thoeretically) have access to it. But you still wouldn't be able to doctor if you didn't have the talent for it.
You could probably have said that better, but I get what you're saying. You also probably could have left this all out, as we are all well aware of it, and proceeded to your questions. To much backstory easily leads to biased questions.
Without the need for artificial scarcity (the profit motive) we can automate large swaths of the workforce, for one. This leaves the possiblity open for more to pursue their passions, rather than their necessities.
Second, office work is not as easy as you, and many others, suggest. True, I personally would prefer the office job. But the mental stress involved is far more than for manual labor. It's really a value judgement; do you prefer physical or mental stress.
Third, why is manual labor less valuable in your eyes, than office labor? There is no office for one to work in without a manual laborer out there laying the foundation.
Each person would be gauranteed a base living standard. When he/she goes out into the workforce, they can decide to work hard, or not. And they will be rewarded accordingly (to each according to his contribution). Work will be judged truly on value.
The next question should be broken down into a couple different ones...
Maybe someone wants to pick berries. Maybe he finds it enjoyable. Plenty of people have it as a hobby, so it's safe to assume there are a few out there that do.
But most likely, many of the unskilled jobs would be conducted by youth, who are still studying, and have limited experience in the workforce.
Who says unskilled laborers are "dumb?" Some of the smartest people I have met merely don't want the responsiblity of a skilled laborer's job, or have not found a field that interests them in that way. Also, on that note, I have met some pretty "dumb" skilled laborers as well. I remember a "jaywalking" type sketch (like the quiz thing Jay Leno used to do) where they asked wealthy people a bunch of questions any common person could answer immediately, and the wealthy people were absolutely clueless. I think it was on Michael Moore's old TV show, but I'm not sure.
For some people, being a mechanic is the ideal. But a mechanic's wages (in the current system) is not. That's the point of socialism. Modern industrial society could no more exist without the mechanic, as it could without the machine.
^ That's a argumentative fallacy, just to let you know. You can no more predict the future than Nostradamus could.
But that's not the problem. The problem is you thinking everyone wants to be a doctor or lawyer, and that couldn't be further from the truth. What they want is a doctor's standard of living (or at least something comparable). Some people like to drive trucks.
Do you write books that anyone wants, or needs? Are your songs productive to and wanted by society? Just as not everyone could be a surgeon (doctoring is a lot easier), not everyone can be an artist.
Would the community (rather than just a rich patron [either private individual, or publishing company]) commision your art?
Once again, if their work isn't producing any value for the community, why would the community commision such work?
Socialism isn't just "do what you want." That's nihilism. You still have to create value to get rewarded (tho if you want to just sit on your ass all day, the least we can do is provide you with a domicile and adequate food)
And you will find it hard for the community to commision your consultations.
That's a valid job that society needs, if that's what you want to do. But you still have to create value. If people think your ratings are shit, or biased, or incoherent/lazy, you will lose your commision.
Well, now you're just trollinMaybe I'll want to be a food/wine taster, or make up some kind of nonsense cultural magazine or tabloid. Ohhh, could I exploit the entertainment "industry" ideas! There would be so many ways to cheat, and who wouldn't try to take advantage of it? I will!
WHatever you make of it
We're proud of you, honestly. But we could do without the masturbatory platitudes and self-gratification
That's exactly what we want. You can take the "greater success" out of it really. You want that success because it is a means of "secur(ing) the financial future of (your) family..." That's what the mechanic, and cherry picker want as well. That's what socialism is all about comrade
We all want things. And, if you create value, you should be entitled to such things (as long as you having access to such things does not entail the political nor economic repression of others.
Come to the light side, brother. You're not saying anything we would disagree with here (except that, if it were set up right, you really wouldn't need to donate to charity). We have no problem with self-interest. It is what fuels us (it is in the worker's interest to be socialist, etc). Where we have the problem is when people start thinking their pursuit of self-interest trumps others' pursuits.
Good question. But this is dealing more with the revolution, than with the post-revolutionary society. Your house would probably stay yours, tho you would have to show you use all your land to keep control over it. You may have not noticed it, but we make a distinction between economic and personal property.
But this is not really a question I feel at all qualified to answer (if I'm qualified to answer any of them
Why? I think you just misunderstand the nature of socialism. There will still be success, and the sucessful. It just won't translate into control (neither politically, nor economically) over other people.
Well, then idk what to say. You're just an asshole? You only have incentive if it gives you $10m? Ok.. can I pay you in Zimbabwe dollars? The soviet scientists had no incentive problem when they advanced science into the space age. THe inventor of the Polio vaccine gave it away for free. It is spurious at best to suggest monetary compensation is the only driver of technological advancement (especially consedering I have yet to see you mention how you actually have revolutionized technology or science).
Einstein was a socialist. Just thought I'd throw that out there...
Your just rehashng the same questions here. It's redundant.
Prove it? I can give you gobbles and gobbles of evidence to disprove what you say. Most scientists are not motivated by monetary gain, merely by gain of knowledge.
That's absolutely false (well, depending on how you define "private." Anyone who knows anything about the R&D field knows the government provides most of it. C'mon now.) Space exploration was not private. The computer was not private. The internet was not private. Advanced mcro processors were not private.
So.. what are you talking about? Cars? Rubber? Idk...
/facepalm
Did you not think about the sentence you wrote right before this as you were writing this one? (On a side note; that's one of my biggest problems with capitalists, intellectually. They very easily fool themselves)
These companies only exist on a publicly developed, publicly funded, and public entity called the INTERNET. Once again... /facepalm
Redundant. I'm not going to answer the same question for the fifth time.
Don't ask questions and then try to provide the answer yourself. It only further contributes to any bias' you may have. Wait for us to answer it.
As a noob, I hope I have been helpful in clearing up any confusion you may have. I may not tow the party line (or I may, idk, I'm a noob). But that's just how I see it
Oh ya. And how do you explain the development of complex tools like the bow and arrow, or the atl atl, given the lack of monetary gain, and general social egaliatarianism amongst neolitihic and earlier cultures?
I wouldn't be here if that was the case...
Being a doctor is just one (common) example. Think about the bigger picture; all possible jobs/occupations. Most jobs don't take any real "talent" like being a doctor, and can be performed by any person of slight intelligence.
I think what's ultimately going to happen is that technology will eventually eliminate the need for people to do meanial, disgusting and/or overly-strenuous jobs which civilization still depends on. The need for hard, manual labor for wage will diminish and we will need more people working with computers, robots, etc. One day machines/computers can do everything we don't want to, and there will be enough food and goods for everyone to be quite comfortable. And better technology means we don't need people working on assembly lines or stacking bricks. People can get on their computers and produce their own goods to sell/trade (just like me and many others do now). We're still somewhat "primitive" today because we don't know how to produce enough food and goods for everyone (all 6-billion of us). I'm somewhat of a "futurist", and I still am unconvinced that the problems of poverty, suffering, starvation, etc are caused by the "evils" of "capitalism" and not our own inabilities and limited technological capacity. There aren't enough computers for everyone...there's not enough food...there's not enough cars... We depend on primitive technology like oil/internal combustion engines and simply don't have technology to alleviate so many problems in life. I don't think the ideas offered by a guy with a big beard in the 1800s is going to fix the 21st century, but I think technology will.
I didn't say office work is "easy", but that it doesn't break your back. I also didn't say manual labor is less "valuable", but that today it's generally payed much less (wage vs salary). The "mental stress" thing doesn't compare to how crappy you'll feel after unloading three trucks full of bricks. I don't think anyone does jobs like that because they like it, and almost everyone would rather have a job which is not physically stressful.
You think people pick berries for a hobby?! I'm not talking about going out to pick some blackberries with granny to make a cobbler. I'm talking about the guys who have to bend over all day long and pick acres and acres of berries. Down in the south where berries are being grown, these jobs are pretty much all taken by immigrants (often illegal aliens), and no Americans want them.
And you think kids are going to do these hard and dirty jobs? Ha!No, I don't think so. Most kids who get jobs do it because mom and dad won't pay for their "luxuries" anymore (fancy iPhones, Playstation, partying, gas, etc). And they go get jobs at McDonalds or a music shop...not picking berries and digging ditches.
Never said anyone was actually dumb/not. I'm saying now that anyone can go after what they want to do, who's left to do the jobs no one wants but must be done? And my question was, are there enough people who are just too "dumb" and will fill the undesirable jobs?
You obviously don't realize how much mechanics make... It's a hard job, but the pay is not inadequate.
Ever heard before that "most great artists aren't appreciated until after their deaths"? So society might not like the next Picasso's art and tell him he can't be an artist. It has happened all throughout history that people were ahead of their own time and no one appreciated them. What about people like Galileo? So your society might not "want" or appreciate someone's art, music, writing, theories, etc and exclude them from pursuing it. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and society can be wrong.
No...
I explained what my life is like now and how I feel about it. I enjoy it and take pride in myself and my work, and I have a high sense of self worth. I'm not "better" than you or anyone else. It just is what it is, and happens how it happens. It's "masturbatory platitudes and self-gratification" to just explain my material/financial situations and my job, when my question is about what would happen to my stuff and someone like me? C'mon man... I'm under an anonymous identity on these forums, and have nothing to gain for you thinking highly of whoever "minarchist" is. I could very well be lying, and actually a 14-year-old, couldn't I? We don't have to degrade the conversation into insults...
Exactly, and the biggest factors in why I work no longer apply/exist. How do I "oppress" people politically and economically?
How do I currently control you or anyone else? How does Bill Gates control you and I? Other people being richer than we are doesn't amount to anything. But it's "...from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.", right? So no one can be rich anymore. Everyone must bear the situation equally, no matter how good or bad it may be. So maybe it's possible for Henry to get some extra rewards for his work. But can I just keep writing software, sell it, and buy a mansion and an Aston-Martin? No, right? So my capacity to work for the wealth/luxuries I want is limited.
Ummm, no... The point is, people push themselves to the limit for profit. Sure, people do great things for free. I often contribute to open-source projects and give away algorithms and code I've written. But that doesn't address the point. Sure, egalitarian motives will result in more advances. But you're going to lose a whole, whole lot.
"especially consedering I have yet to see you mention how you actually have revolutionized technology or science"
I think that was another attempt at an insult. But all serious software developers are revolutionizing technology (and sometimes science). My friend, just browse the internet and look at all the software available. This stuff isn't being written by the government, it's moving along because of business. There are open-source projects (which I contribute to sometimes) like Linux, which I'm using now, but commercial software is what's keeping us going. If you want to know what particular things I have done, you may as well ask for my real name, address and phone number. But go tell any developer he/she isn't causing advancement in technology, and you will get a long lecture, maybe even slapped. If we aren't pushing the envelope, we aren't really doing our jobs (and won't make money).
FYI, Soviet technology did have some big achievements but is viewed by experts in technological fields as being rather stagnant compared to the "capitalist" west.
Again, sure... Lots of scientists work for just knowledge and contribution to humanity. But all of the advancements which are made in the name of profit (a LOT of them) will be gone. People won't do it anymore, and won't have those big ambitions to chase. And it seems unreasonable to believe this won't significantly slow down advancement unless you can counter the problem with a real policy. You can't just expect it's going to magically all work and everyone will sing "cumbayah, my comrades".
DuPont didn't make kevlar? The Wright bros didn't invent the airplane and then sell their own, and aviation companies haven't been responsible for the vast majority of advancement since? The development of internet and computer technology isn't (and hasn't been) moving because of corporations, small companies and individual developers who are working for profit? Big advancements in computer technology in our age isn't because of Intel, AMD, nVidia, ATI, Microsoft, Apple and tons of others? Space exploration IS going private now, and private companies will probably bring it into the next era. Sure, governments have started some things like this, but they only went somewhere because ambitious people and companies worked for profit. Technology isn't booming off of egalitarianism and Marxism...it's booming from the incentive of profit.
Well, I don't like Marxists because they all insult people.I'm joking, of course. Don't try to make sweeping generalizations of people. No one is fooling themselves, we just believe in different things.
Anyway, thanks for your time and answering. But I really wish you wouldn't try to be so condescending and rude. I explained quite clearly I wasn't trying to be a smart ass, but that I wanted to hear your responses to the basic and elementary questions most people are going to want to know your answers/ideas to. It seems like you just tried to turn it into going after me and name calling too much, and avoided getting to the issue. There were some good answers/opinions in there... but they're much more likely to be lost on people (and me) when you approach it with a hostile attitude. Not angry with you, but hopefully it can be more civil, honest and open. Forgive me if anything I said came off as condesceding or rude too! Peace and love, comrades!
Regards,
So people could kill each other and animals?
The "general social egalitarianism" amongst neolithic peoples was generally within families and clans. It takes team work to kill or out-compete the others. Creating weapons and tools increases your chances of survival, helps you kill other people, kill animals/farm, and sometimes they were necessary to live period. Neolithic peoples didn't give a crap about "the greater good of humanity", they were looking out for themselves and their clan. Really, selfish interests are why you look out for your clan -- because you're probably dead alone. They wanted to be as well-fed and comfortable as possible, and they didn't give a damn about other clans or the rest of humanity. There was no money back then, and what was valuable was food, water, land, resources, tools, etc. People working in teams to out-compete other groups for these valuables is how "capitalism", in its simplest form, works. Instead of a business working for money, it was a clan of several families working to control the water supply and animal herds, and keep outsiders out (or just kill em).
I don't think you understand. People actually gravitate towards what they like to do. My brother is a machinist. Not because it pays good. But he actually LOVES what he does. Hes good at it and likes it. I like landscaping. I get to be outside, I get exercise, and it's fun. You assume the working class has no pride in what they do and hate their jobs. I am not saying everyone in the working class loves their jobs, but many do. You have been fed the idea that the working class is an not acceptable strata in society to belong to. To quote Yoda: "You must unlearn what you have learned."
Secondly, people in society will not be competing for a decent paying job because ALL jobs will pay decently. Not everyone is gonna strive to be doctor because it pays well, since every job's "pay" is equalized.
You said "Who will stock the shelves in a "goods warehouse" (as I assume there will be no "stores" in the capitalist sense) when nearly everyone can now be the manager?" Managers don't work (now this my opinion, others on here feel differently). Communism is about the working class taking control over the means of production. If/when that happens, the managers are not needed, because they work with the business owning class, which would be destroyed. Follow me? So the workers in the store would run it democratically. So who would stock the shelves? Someone may volunteer, of not, the workers as a whole vote. It's called workers democratic control over the means of production for a reason.
One more point. You asked "Who would work at McDonald's?" Well no one. It's a cheaply run company who produces very unhealthy food and do not provide adequate compensation. McDonald's would burn.
Didn't care to respond to anymore of your questions, cuz the first part needs to be answered to move on.
"[People] act like its some kind of rock solid homogeneous body of masculine oiled men with big hammers and flat caps standing outside factory gates chewing tobacco and muttering 'those damn petit-bourgeois students and their alienating camera-smashing, I sure love me some CCTV! Don't you, comrade stakhnov?'." - Ravachol
You mean the kind of jobs that robots are ideally suited for?
Actually we can provide at least the basics, it just wouldn't be profitable to do so.
We produce enough food already, and the really important components of computers are common as dirt, literally (silicon), or can be substituted with more common materials (aluminium for gold, for example). Recycling can reclaim other materials such as rare earth metals.
Further, the proper computerisation of society would enable us to make huge savings in materials and energy. It costs next to nothing to distribute an electronic copy of a book over the internet, but physical books require paper, ink, storage space, distribution, etc etc. Same goes for computer games and music and all manner of other intangible goods.
If you think lack of technology is a cause for material inequality, then you have not been paying attention.
There aren't enough resources for everyone to have their own car, but their are certainly enough resources to provide reliable travel for everyone on the planet. Cars are a rich man's toy that became a popular form of transport because of the machinations of oil companies, who had a direct interest in promoting it over more efficient forms of transport.
With widespread adoption of nuclear and renewable energy, we would have more than enough energy for everyone.We depend on primitive technology like oil/internal combustion engines and simply don't have technology to alleviate so many problems in life. I don't think the ideas offered by a guy with a big beard in the 1800s is going to fix the 21st century, but I think technology will.
Actually, it's not that no Americans want them, it's the fact that employers prefer illegal labour because it's cheaper - the workers have nobody to turn to in order to get a decent wage.
Needless to say, it's also cheaper for companies to sub-contract work overseas in countries with laxer labour laws than to establish more sophisticated manufactories in the richer nations.
Young workers are more likely to get service sector jobs because customer-facing roles require a good command of English, which immigrants may not have.And you think kids are going to do these hard and dirty jobs? Ha!
If you want to play a decent range of games on the PC, then you are forced to use Windows. Microsoft (and Apple!) often try to "lock in" their users with proprietary protocols.
The "luxuries" you want are tacky baubles promoted by the ruling class in order to cement their privilege - if workers are too busy stepping on each other's heads in their pursuit of wealth, they'll have less time to think about silly stuff like "self-rule".
Because success under capitalism is measured by how much shit you have when you die. Other societies are, and will be, different.
Haha, good joke. Most servers run a version of Linux. Open standards are universally recognised as superior by those who aren't shills.
Since when is money-grubbing a "big ambition"? For every invention motivated by profit, there are about a dozen hack companies that actually hold back progress in the name of making money. The only reason to make cheap, crappy toasters is to turn a profit. If companies regularly made decent products that lasted, they would go bust.
Advancements are made, but they are only made in the service of profit - if an invention isn't profitable, it won't enter mass production, no matter how beneficial to humanity it may be.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
I personally hate office job. Amazingly some people like to do manual labor, and in a communist society is not necessarily have to be a routine work. You can switch shifts and / or types of work with other workers.
I believe in a non-hierarchical society, then there will be no more managers and other types of bosses.
Many manual labor can be replaced by machines, what can give rise to other types of work such as maintenance and engineering of these machines.
In communism there is no employer and employee, so the workers divide among themselves the different kinds of works. There is no way to predict exactly how it will be.
Most of us think that technology will help maintain a socialist economy as well. Technology progressed at a rapid rate under capitalism because the profitable tools were used but unprofitable ones were abandoned even if they improved on what was already there or only benefited mankind instead of made someone rich. I'll give an example over 20 years ago someone invented "breathable tyres" which let air in and out and almost completely nullified the risk of punctures, but if tyres don't need to be replaced as often some rich guys lose out on a hell of a lot of cash. Space travel and exploration is another great example it's not profitable so we don't do it any more, until we found a way to make it profitable and now we have commercial space flights for a million $ a go. Technology has begun to be suppressed by an out dated system to the detriment of mankind. How will capitalism adjust to the surplus labour that machines replacing humans in menial tasks would create?I think what's ultimately going to happen is that technology will eventually eliminate the need for people to do meanial, disgusting and/or overly-strenuous jobs which civilization still depends on. The need for hard, manual labor for wage will diminish and we will need more people working with computers, robots, etc. One day machines/computers can do everything we don't want to, and there will be enough food and goods for everyone to be quite comfortable. And better technology means we don't need people working on assembly lines or stacking bricks. People can get on their computers and produce their own goods to sell/trade (just like me and many others do now). We're still somewhat "primitive" today because we don't know how to produce enough food and goods for everyone (all 6-billion of us). I'm somewhat of a "futurist", and I still am unconvinced that the problems of poverty, suffering, starvation, etc are caused by the "evils" of "capitalism" and not our own inabilities and limited technological capacity. There aren't enough computers for everyone...there's not enough food...there's not enough cars... We depend on primitive technology like oil/internal combustion engines and simply don't have technology to alleviate so many problems in life. I don't think the ideas offered by a guy with a big beard in the 1800s is going to fix the 21st century, but I think technology will.
Actually I'd definitely prefer to be out in the fresh air in a different location every once in a while. Sitting in the same place staring at the same four walls all day long is really painful for some people. The main point you seem to be missing is that we would make menial tasks much easier, when I worked on a building site it wasn't the labour that hurt it was the 14 hour days 16 if you include travel time. If you remove the profit incentive then we do not have to work as long or as hard as no one is skimming the surplus value of our labour.
We aim to remove the social stigma attached to what society deems menial tasks. Society has changed because of capitalism it can change again. You are talking about a post revolutionary society which will take a long time to build and put in effect the societal changes needed. Most of your questions revolve around these "terrible" jobs but if you make the jobs easier and view them as important then they become far less terrible than you make out. We also aim to give people greater amounts of spare time so they can enjoy luxuries although we also want to change the definition of luxury as well. Free time to use for study or art or to spend with loved ones or for recreation will be a big priority. I'm also a big proponant of education being applied through apprenticeships so by starting as a berry picker and studying agriculture you could one day become the farm manager. Same with any job you want to become a doctor then you spend time in a hospital cleaning it then you move up to dealing with patients then later you become a doctor.You think people pick berries for a hobby?! I'm not talking about going out to pick some blackberries with granny to make a cobbler. I'm talking about the guys who have to bend over all day long and pick acres and acres of berries. Down in the south where berries are being grown, these jobs are pretty much all taken by immigrants (often illegal aliens), and no Americans want them.
And you think kids are going to do these hard and dirty jobs? Ha!
Never said anyone was actually dumb/not. I'm saying now that anyone can go after what they want to do, who's left to do the jobs no one wants but must be done? And my question was, are there enough people who are just too "dumb" and will fill the undesirable jobs?
This is the thing it may be harder for you to see the benefits as it really isn't in your class interests
I would disagree with RSWU and say that we don't need specially commissioned artists. Imagine your working week consists of 4 days working 6 hour shifts this leaves you a lot of time to pursue other interests. Ask yourself what is the primary purpose of art when a profit incentive is removed? It is to create enjoyment for the person looking at it. So why would many more people who have the free time and the resources readily available not want to create works of art after a nice relaxing day of berry picking
I also find it kinda funny that you talk about people who created great art without the incentive of great wealth when you said that without that incentive no one would be bothered to push themselves to innovate or create new and wonderful things.
Wealth creates poverty
Do you accumulate capital from someone else's labour? Bill Gates certainly does.
I think you already contradicted yourself a few questions ago. Yes having not existed since '91 will have that stagnating effect. But during the cold war at the height of the FSU there is no denying that soviet technology was rivalling and in some cases beating US technology.
I didn't answer a few of your posts as I feel I've responded to all of them in one way or another. I would suggest you get a better understanding of economics and read Capital by Marx but as it's a huge book and I wouldn't expect you to have the time or motivation to read it so watch this little series of videos they're an easy introduction to Marxist economics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM
(follow the links)
Questions like this show the confusion that has been created by socialists who place their emphasis on "abolishing money" and similar terms. For a refreshing alternative, I recommend the pamphlet "Fifteen Questions About Socialism" by Daniel De Leon (1914):
http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf
particularly the first three sections.
The gist of it is this: It's perfectly consistent with Marxian socialism to pay workers different incomes if they sign up to perform different kinds of work. For example, if too many people choose occupation X, that's probably an indicator that activity X is much less strenuous than the average work, and it is less of a personal sacrifice to perform it. In socialist principles, it is acceptable to readjust the workload by paying lower incomes in that occupation, and conversely to pay higher hourly rates for occupations that are more uncomfortable or strenuous.
I blame my fellow socialists for the confusion. Instead of focusing on designing a practical administrative system, they usually get bogged down in denying the basis of these problems, which is to say, they usually deny that there is such a thing as human nature.
We reject the notion of human nature as defined by the bourgeois which is constantly contradicted by most people on the planet everyday. Of course humans have a "nature" as does everything, but this human nature is confined to the need to fulfil our basic human instincts the need for nourishment, shelter, rest, procreation and social interaction. The denial of these basic needs is the cause of detrimental behaviour.
Best answer thus far!
I'll read the information at that link. I've actually done some reading of "Das Kapital" and the "The Communist Manifesto"...though it was years ago and not in entirety. Which is I've been kinda sitting here amused at some of these lofty, idealistic answers in which I'm personally attacked as being "stupid" and "uneducated", lol. Your answer is great, however. I can admire socialists like you who don't deny realistic issues/concerns and try to think of solutions to them.
What I had in mind was the aspect of our nature that induces us to seek the path of least resistance.
That's one of the main reasons why we are a tool-making species. Instead of carrying buckets of rocks, we invent the wheel barrow. Instead of carrying water, we invent the aqueduct. It is because it is our nature to seek the path of least resistance.
But that same tendency carries a warning about the practicality of socialism. If we set up a system where everyone can get away with declaring themselves to be poets, and no one has any reason to dig the dirt, then labor would be unavailable in many essential areas.
There is a utopian tendency among socialists to believe that classnessness itself will cause work to become fun. There is the tendency to envision, in the words of Marx, "after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want...." I specifically deny that this is possible. Individual material motivations are required. Nothing about transcending class rule changes that fact.
Nobody has said it better than a particular critic whom I once saw pop into a socialist forum. Many writers in that forum had been advocating a hypothetical system in which all labor will be voluntary and unpaid. The critic remarked, "If you think I'm going to climb up on your roof and pound nails, so that you can sit inside and strum your guitar, you're crazy."
But we can do this right now. Not fully, but something like 40-60% of the "menial" economy can be automated, right now. But it is not profitable to do so. Capitalists NEED scarcity to prosper.
We actually can produce enough food to feed everyone, and that doesn't include GE food (genetically engineerred). But once again, the capitalist NEEDS scarcity to prosper. You have countries in S AMerica right now producing enough food to feed themselves, but yet they starve because it all gets sent to us for McDonald's cheeseburgersWe're still somewhat "primitive" today because we don't know how to produce enough food and goods for everyone (all 6-billion of us). I'm somewhat of a "futurist", and I still am unconvinced that the problems of poverty, suffering, starvation, etc are caused by the "evils" of "capitalism" and not our own inabilities and limited technological capacity. There aren't enough computers for everyone...there's not enough food...there's not enough cars... We depend on primitive technology like oil/internal combustion engines and simply don't have technology to alleviate so many problems in life. I don't think the ideas offered by a guy with a big beard in the 1800s is going to fix the 21st century, but I think technology will.
First, it IS less valuable in capitalist society, and that IS why it IS paid less. That's how the system works.
Second, you're wrong. Many people prefer manual labor. I can direct you to 3 members of my family who refuse to do desk jobs. They just can't stand it. For more anectdotal evidence, see the movie Office Space. In the end he found he was much happier doing manual labor.
Desk jobs can be very boring, and many people don't care for that.
Americans don't want the PAY for these jobs. They would gladly take them. Why should one guy live phat just because he owns the land, while the people who do all the work starve?
Are you saying the workers are to dumb to conduct trade on their own.
Actually, I had to work because it "builds character." It had nothing to do with my parents "not paying for my luxuries."And you think kids are going to do these hard and dirty jobs? Ha!
And actually, many of them DO GET JOBS DIGGING DITCHES. What are you going on about?
They may not pick berries, but once again, that has far more to do with the pay, rather tha the nature of hte job. Or do you think McD's is an easier job then picking berries? I tried it, I'll never work food again.
I answered this once. I will not dignify it with another response. Being an unskilled laborer is not just for "dumb" people.
I mean, if you consider $13/hr "adequate."
He can still make the art. I think you misunderstood my point. He can make the art to his heart's consent. If society doesn't find it valuable, he'll probably not compensated for it.
Of course there would be no "starving" artists, because the guy/girl would be garaunteed a domicile and food.
You could be, that was my point. It was unnecessary to the topic at hand. I didnt mean to insult you when I called it "masturbatory self-congratulation." If I did, I apologize.
There's nothing you LIKE to do? You dont like doing what you're doing now? If you didnt have to worry about rent and food (you say you own a house, and one of that size would not be just provided to you, but this is not true for most people) what would you do then?Idk about the nature of your business. But let's take Wal Mart for one example. When they decided to bring one into my city, the city had to make all kinds of concessions or else the business would go somewhere else. Thats one way.
Buying votes, that's another.
Owning all the jobs, is another.
Getting out of minor crimes, is another.
I mean, if you can't see that wealth gives one political power, you are just blinding yourself.
I'm not going to say whether you could or couldnt still have luxury houses and cars in a socialist society. But what I can say, is that if you do, it will be because you actually produced value for the community. Not merely because you happened to own something.
Like what? You didnt answer anything here. You just merely sidestepped the issue. The fact of the matter is, technological advancement is not only, nor usually, motivated by monetary gain.
"especially consedering I have yet to see you mention how you actually have revolutionized technology or science"
And it is written on the internet and the computer. Where did those come from?
I wasn't isulting you. I was pointing out that your argument would hold more weight (tho it still wouldnt matter) if you were actually an advancer.
Only much later, like in the 80s. Who got to the space first? Who put a man in space first? Either way, it doesnt matter. The USSR sucked. But the fact still stands that they achieved great advancements, and according to your theory, that shouldn't have happened. Innovation should have been stifled.
You just keep rehasing the same thing no matter how many times it gets answeredAgain, sure... Lots of scientists work for just knowledge and contribution to humanity. But all of the advancements which are made in the name of profit (a LOT of them) will be gone. People won't do it anymore, and won't have those big ambitions to chase. And it seems unreasonable to believe this won't significantly slow down advancement unless you can counter the problem with a real policy. You can't just expect it's going to magically all work and everyone will sing "cumbayah, my comrades".. This is why I said in the beginning I am skeptical of your desire to actually learn anythig.
Same arguments again and again
How many times can I point out that those things ARE NOT PROFITABLE without socializing some aspects. The airline industry requires the FAA, and also the massive subsidies they have recieved from the military industrial complex. The computer and internet both started in governemnt, and the internet still requires it.
Well, I don't like Marxists because they all insult people.
Yes, they did it for stability and comfort. Not GAIN. Gain had nothing to do with it.
Also, socialism is only about "better for humanity as a whole" because it is about "better for the individual worker." We don't start with "help everyone." We start with "the progressive and stable way to help yourself is to help everyone."
We are not starry eyed idealists, like many capitalist theoreticians.
This ^^^^ is why I am suspicous that you have absolutly no desire to learn anything. You have shown this repeatedly. Im not trying to attack you. I am asking you to question your motives.Best answer thus far!
I'll read the information at that link. I've actually done some reading of "Das Kapital" and the "The Communist Manifesto"...though it was years ago and not in entirety. Which is I've been kinda sitting here amused at some of these lofty, idealistic answers in which I'm personally attacked as being "stupid" and "uneducated", lol. Your answer is great, however. I can admire socialists like you who don't deny realistic issues/concerns and try to think of solutions to them.
Can I light the first torch??? Please???
Dear god I hate that place. It serves shit, pure and simple. It markets 'Happy Meals' to kids who don't know any better, it even includes a cheap Chinese toy to make them beg for the rotten shit. The begging gets the parents to cave and our children get fat without even the slightest clue what they're doing to themselves. McD's lobbies the government to keep its polices in the free and clear. Government lobby by big business is little better than cash bribery.
'Hey senator so and so remember all that money we put into your campaign fund? Well now we'd like you to repay us by making sure our sketchy practices continue so we can get rich as all fuck, while we pay our workers minimum wage, charge a 1,200% mark up on soda and 500% mark up on fries.'
If I had other options I would be the first to torch our local McD's....
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Economic Left/Right: -9.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56
[/FONT] [FONT=Century Gothic][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]
"Death to fascism, freedom to the people!" -Stjepan Filipović
[/FONT][/FONT]
"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party - though they are quite numerous - is no freedom at all." - Rosa Luxemburg
"Yes, but in your elaboration we might as well ride magic pink unicorns that shit rainbows" -Psycho
The truth is that all revlefters on this forum are united only by their opposition to capitalism as it is now practiced and share no agreement on the type of society they would like to bring about. Indeed, many of their ideas re how to implement socialism are mutually exclusive and in practice led to the extirpation of some (i.e. anarchists in Soviet Russia). Marx and Engels wrote very little on what socialism would precisely look like; their whole point is for the majority of workers to remake society as it sees fit.
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
[FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]
^ that's the way it is. And that is the way it should be.
Truth is you cannot predict human societies and social behavior. All you can do is advocate power to the people.
We are united in our opposition to capitalism, and in our desire for worker self-management.
Great points minarchist. It's hilarious to read the responses.
The root cause of socialist thought is envy of others who are more successful than themselves. This is blatantly displayed by Revolution's response.
Another hilarious part. They speak of classless society, but still explain that those who contribute more to society will be rewarded for it. Isn't that example what free market capitalism achieves? Free market capitalism is the only system where you get rich by providing services that others deem valuable.
The truth of the matter is, communism utopia does not exist because it requires every human being exactly the same in ideology, drive and intelligence. The world is not a fair place as some people are taller, stronger and smarter. These people would have a politically connected class of priviledged people who rise to the top not because of merit but because of their adherence to ideology that would effectively handicap people who were better than others. Read Kurt Vonnegut's story Harrison Bergeron to get an idea.
I believe very much in the power of the individual to do amazing things for society. I personally am proud to hear you are a young man who has done so well for yourself. The reason why you've had such success is because you've provided goods and services that have made life better for your customers. This is how wealth is created.
These hard core leftists would be good to learn a little "Bourgeois" science, namely economics. Ever hear about the law of comparative advantage? Ever hear about public choice theory? Tragedy of the commons? The effects of incentives? Most utopian leftists have no understanding of any of these concepts and their ignorance shows with every idea they express.
Be happy that these people have ideas that nobody in their right mind respect.
Keep working hard, it will pay off. They will be standing by the sidelines envying you and wishing they had the ability to take your things by force...basically common criminal thieves. Communism has caused the deaths of millions of people. Pol Pot was all about creating an egalitarian primitive society that's eco friendly and green. Nevermind the fact he killed anyone who had a history of thinking for themselves.
Free market capitalism fosters world peace and lifts millions of people out of poverty year after year. The data speaks for itself. The world is getting richer, not poorer.
-Freedom Fighter
Pretty bad form to dismiss things like this. Bad logic, too.
No, because it isn't the boss at the top who is providing the goods and services. The guy might own the company but without the hands and minds of the workers, no one's got any goods or services.
.
This simply isn't true.
Yes, but power shouldn't be based on whether or not someone is taller, stronger, or smarter.
I agree, but, er, that's not what we advocate.
Vonnegut was a socialist, FYI.
I don't think I do, so much. Folks like Bill Gates, Sam Walton, etc. etc. wouldn't be anywhere if they weren't lucky enough to be born in a first world country, and without the cheap labor of workers across the world.
Yeah we're familiar with economics, actually, seeing as our entire ideology is based off of criticism of it.
Also tragedy of the commons is sort of a shaky thing.
Mhm, doesn't seem like you're here for a constructive debate or discussion.
Man, you might want to read a quick history of the 20th century. For starters, google "United Fruit" and "Latin America".
Do we get to count every death related to poverty against Capitalism? Cause I don't think you want to start playing a numbers game if that's the case.
1) Er, no.
2) I don't really understand why you're bringing up Pol Pot with us here.
Nevermind the fact he killed anyone who had a history of thinking for themselves.
As a student of history I'd be inclined to disagree strongly here. The 20th century is marked by wars and conflicts which were carried out to protect business interests, to make land grabs, to get resources, etc. etc. See: Latin America, The Congo.
And this is still the best we can do with capitalism? Yeesh, talk about aiming low.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
