lol a communist state cant be productive, it fails.
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Work, Work, Work
I have asked about this a lot. I haven't gotten a straight answer or a consistent one. But why do I have to work when Communism finally happens? Why can't I just play golf or write or watch movies all day? Tiger Woods gets to. Cormac McCarthy gets to. Movie critics get to. I might be able to (in this terrible, terrible Capitalist state that I am so unhappily forced to live in) if people value my golfing prowess (which I have very little of), my writing ability (which is just ok), or my critical eye (which is not finely tuned). But alas, if there is no market for my labor in these fields, I will have to find some other occupation to satisfy my wants and needs. I will probably end up in a job I am good at, yet I will always envy the life of a pro athlete or other sort of celebrity or artist.
So after the "revolution"why can't I, your unwilling comrade, do whatever I want to and say it is my occupation (even if I am no good and noone else enjoys it)? And if I can, why can't everyone else? And if they can, then how will anything productive ever get done?
lol a communist state cant be productive, it fails.
There are many different answers, depending on the type of leftist that responds. This forum centres on discussion and debate within the leftist community, and the topic you describe is one of the issues that many differ on.
I am more of a "socialist" in actuality then a full-fledged "communist", for example. I also subscribe to many Trotskyist ideas.
That said, I do not believe that every worker should be paid an equal amount; just a fair amount. I also believe that each individual should have an equal opportunity to work any particular job.
I give you this example:
1. A patient is seriously injured in an auto collision
2. The local fire service arrives and extricates the patient; the police arrive and divert traffic
3. EMTs and paramedics transport the patient to the hospital
4. Nurses, radiologists, lab techs, ER techs, OR techs, and others make sure that patient care is run smoothly
5. Janitors, secretaries, security, cooks, and others make sure that the hospital runs smoothly.
Without each position I listed, a doctor would not be able to do their job. However a doctor make significantly more then any I listed; many doctors make more then all of these positions added together.
And who becomes doctors? The wealthy. Even if you add scholarships, grants, and loans it is nearly impossible to become a doctor without money; one doctor I know told be about how one semester cost him over $100,000USD.
If a doctor was paid more then a nurse, I could accept it. A doctor is being paid for their additional training, experience, expertise, and skill. However, the nurse should make enough to live off of, while the doctor should be paid a reasonable amount (but not enough so the doctor's quality of living is significantly superior to the nurse.)
The important issue, in my opinion, however, is that each person should have an equal opportunity to each job. In essence this means free education. When some cannot afford college, or can only afford mediocre training, while the wealthy become lawyers and doctors, there is something wrong.
-KRS-
Would you really want to do that? When no one really cares about what your writing about? And they need people to help out? You'd just refuse to help out society? Thats being quite a jackass, you'd willingly just spend your time doing something that people don't value or need, juts because you don't want to work? If thats the case then sure. But I don't think many people think like you at all, people arn't that much of assholes, that don't care about being unproductive and looked apon as a bum.
First of all, please do not call me a jackass just because I disagree with you.
Second, I thought under communism I could take any occupation I choose. Why can't I be a professional golfer or writer or talk show host or comedian? I believe I can be of some value this way (even if I am no good and noone is amused by what I do).
Perhaps to "help society" I must take an occupation that is not what I want to do. Or else, as some have suggested, I suffer the consequence of not having my needs met by society or by being compesated less than my fellow comrads until I work the way they want me to.
Isn't this manipulation? Isn't this *gasp* wage slavery?
You're starting from an assumption that people would do nothing if they had the choice to help themselves and others or dick off. That is false in my opinion.
It is important to understand what you are assuming in these situations. Here, you assume that people are lazy, or that work is inherently a burden. However, I have found that the more control I have over my work, the more I enjoy it, and subsequently show up more, do better, and actually want to work.
If you really want to screw around and it turns out the community is willing to subsidize your silly lifestyle, you will be fine. It is all about your social standing. If you are willing to work when you absoultely have to, or can entertain people in some way (intentional or not) I and others would probably have no problem helping you out.
After the revolution there will be no golf comrade!
Golf is an elitist sport, that takes up too much room!
Crazy golf on the other hand.....
same reason as under capitalism, if you don't you will starve.
I was'nt refering to you, I was refering to what people would think of a guy that flatly refused to help out in the nessesary things for a community that was providing him what he needed, that would be like a 30 year old man living with his parents, them feeding him yet he refuses to do any housework, I don't think many people are like that.
Its not a matter of occupation, its a matter of being productive, you can take any occupation you want, but that does'nt mean its being productive, and if you flatly refuse to be productive, well, thats your issue, and the community will probably shun you as they should, because you flatly refuse to take any responsibility even though they are helping you out.
That is simply for things that are neccessary for society, if you want to be a comedian or golfer thats fine too, why not, I'm going to say that for the absolute nessecary things of society people won't have to work nearly as much as they do now, so there would be a lot of time to do other things.
Or maybe you live in a society where a talk show host is needed, and the community needs you to do it :P.
you might have to do some 'unpleasant' work for a while, that does'nt make it your occupation, that work would probably be rotated.
If you consider expecting someone to help out in his own community slavery, the same way I'd expect a guy living with his parents to help around the house, then I guess, but thats a vast vast vast definition of slavery that almost no one would agree with (considering your definition includes slavery with no heiarchy). Its also miles better than the horrible wage slavery we see now.
So even if it was a form of slavery, its still better than what we have now.
Also the whole argument is based on something that I don't think would even be an issue, except perhaps in a few isolated cases with some spoiled children. So whats the point here?
i feel like the image of a group of people unifying under the common cause of humanity is just as idealistic as MadMoney's idea. Ideally, no one would be lazy, Ideally, we'd all happily join in. Its human nature to have some people who will try and take advantage of a system you set before them.
I think the working classes that have endured the last fifty years of capitalism have acquired an attitude toward work that is conditioned by particular aspects of the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism, specifically, requires mass amounts of production in order to function. The working classes have become conditioned to expect that a forty-hour work week, for instance, is necessary. The monotony of this disillusions the working classes about the value of work. They hate to work....and who can blame them?
The fact is, there is no "normal" mode of production. Imagine what the world would be like right now if communism was successful in China and Russia, eventually spreading throughout the globe. What if people only worked thirty hours a week, or twenty-five? It is quite possible to organize a system wherein such little work is sufficient. Capitalism only has an interest in producing as much as possible as fast as possible for a little as possible. Communism only has an interest in producing what is necessary, as fast as possible with as little effort as possible. If, say, something like thirty percent of commodities produced for the consumer market is unnecessary crap, all the time spent by the workers to produce such crap can be counted as unnecessary labor time. How much time off would subtracting that thirty percent allow workers to have? No fucking wonder communists don't want to work. Your job is to produce superfluous shit. I suspect that you don't feel important being paid so little to make such crap. If I stood by a conveyor belt all day packaging wacky-wall walkers....I'd go nuts too.
Listen people, and I will tell you the future. In the near future (if the bad aliens don't win), the world will become a socialist empire. The first priority of this system, concerning long term goals, is going to be to colonize space and so forth. There will be much work required to do this....and in this new socialist system, the world will labor harmoniously to accomplish this feat.
The future will have an entirely different attitude about work, because the conditions pertaining to the work atmosphere will be radically different.
I wish science fiction stirred my heart so strongly. much impressed by your faith in the indomitable nature of man.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]
Writing movies is work, nummy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]
writing good movies maybe. this guy is talking about turning out movies with the dialogue of a porno and with the acting of an high school instructional film. i could bang out movies like that all day.
