NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this as a response on another thread, but it is one of my foremost concerns with Communism, so I would like to see what the general consensus is:

How is it determined who will be artists and who will be factory workers? If wages are equal, it can be assumed that the labor supply for artists will be much greater than the labor demand for artists, while the labor supply for factory workers will be much smaller than the demand.

How does the society go about creating a labor supply/demand equilibrium?

wages are not equal. Wages depend on how skilled you need to be to do you work, how hard you work, how long you work, how long you study to do you work and so on.

Admittedly this is difficult to apply to artists as who can say how skilled one artist is?

Perhaps we will have to make art more of a leisurely pursuit instead of a career. With shortened workdays and better use of technology in the workplace it is likely that people will have more leisure time and so can indulge their right-brain at home

Delegation.

Communism isn't based on freedom of choice, it is based on the idea that people make sacrifices for the good of society. Therefore they are appointed a workplace, they don't select a workplace.

wages are not equal. Wages depend on how skilled you need to be to do you work, how hard you work, how long you work, how long you study to do you work and so on.

Admittedly this is difficult to apply to artists as who can say how skilled one artist is?

Perhaps we will have to make art more of a leisurely pursuit instead of a career. With shortened workdays and better use of technology in the workplace it is likely that people will have more leisure time and so can indulge their right-brain at home

Isn't that socialism?

Isn't that socialism?
Yes, but seeing as he was talking about wages he was, of course, referring to socialism as there are no wages in a communist society

wages are not equal. Wages depend on how skilled you need to be to do you work, how hard you work, how long you work, how long you study to do you work and so on.

Then how is decided who will recieve the education and training for more skilled and high paying positions?

Perhaps we will have to make art more of a leisurely pursuit instead of a career. With shortened workdays and better use of technology in the workplace it is likely that people will have more leisure time and so can indulge their right-brain at home

I would imagine that increased technology will lead to increased aggregate demand rather than less labor demand.

Yes, but seeing as he was talking about wages he was, of course, referring to socialism as there are no wages in a communist society

Well, if all wages equal zero, then they are still equal.

Delegation.

Communism isn't based on freedom of choice, it is based on the idea that people make sacrifices for the good of society. Therefore they are appointed a workplace, they don't select a workplace.

Tell me that you don't espouse that system.

Well, if all wages equal zero, then they are still equal.
but there are no wages, wages do not exist. Money is not relevant to a communist society

Then how is decided who will recieve the education and training for more skilled and high paying positions?

Good question. Perhaps a group of leading left-wing economists, perhaps direct democracy will decide, perhaps the representatives of different industries can work it between them

I would imagine that increased technology will lead to increased aggregate demand rather than less labor demand.
Why do you assume that?

Good question. Perhaps a group of leading left-wing economists, perhaps direct democracy will decide, perhaps the representatives of different industries can work it between them

Why do you assume that?

Because technology is utilized by people as well. Whenever a new technology is introduced, it is quite often utilized more within homes than within industry.

Because technology is utilized by people as well. Whenever a new technology is introduced, it is quite often utilized more within homes than within industry.
That's a pretty damn consumerist trait though isn't it? Technology that can be hugely beneficial is turned into little toys for those who can afford it. We need to end this sort of culture

but there are no wages, wages do not exist. Money is not relevant to a communist society

Exactly, if there are no wages, there are zero wages. If no one recieves wages, then wages are entirely equal.

Just imagine I had said "If there is no compensation for labor," as opposed to "If all wages are equal."

That's a pretty damn consumerist trait though isn't it? Technology that can be hugely beneficial is turned into little toys for those who can afford it. We need to end this sort of culture

Not at all. If people were purchasing goods that offered low utility as compared to their price, it would be consumerist.

It is perfectly natural for someone to want to obtain tools that provide utility and make their life easier.

Air conditioners, refridgerators, and microwaves for example.

How is it determined who will be artists and who will be factory workers? If wages are equal, it can be assumed that the labor supply for artists will be much greater than the labor demand for artists, while the labor supply for factory workers will be much smaller than the demand.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo those able to be artists are artists, those able to be factory workers are factory workers.

Geez, you guys really don't know what you're talking about do you? :) Let me get a few things straight with everybody first:

1. I am from China.
2. My parents lived there for 20+ years.
3. My maternal grandmother is a 70+ year member of the Communist Party.
4. I'm NOT a communist. More like a middle-of-the-road Democrat. (yes, I live in the U.S.)


That being said,
THERE ARE WAGES!!! Yes, you do get paid to do your job, and the wages are NOT equal.

Okay, now to acutally answer the question. You get tested during your late teens to see what you're good at. Then, you get sent to that school and that's your job. Since the government really can't care less about art, I don't think it matters.

1. I am from China.

But is China communist according to the actual definition of communism ?

Good question. Perhaps a group of leading left-wing economists, perhaps direct democracy will decide, perhaps the representatives of different industries can work it between them

I doub that any of those entities can make an accurate analysis of the wants, abilities, and motivations of the individual worker.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Ergo those able to be artists are artists, those able to be factory workers are factory workers.

That doesn't answer my question.

I doub that any of those entities can make an accurate analysis of the wants, abilities, and motivations of the individual worker.

Assuming you send everyone to school till they are 18, I daresay they can make a reasonably educated guess as to who can be a rocket scientist and who would be better placed elsewhere.

Read the title. :D

Read the title. :D

Heaven, possibly. There has been no true realisation of a communist state here on earth. I personally doubt it is possible.

That doesn't answer my question.

Everyone will do what they are best at. So everyone won't rush to be artists since not everyone is good at being an artist.

Of course in pure Communist Utopia everyone does a bit of everything. Work the fields in the morning, work in the factory in the afternoon so the work is shared between everyone. You wouldn't ahve the same 'careers' etc.

Admittedly it requires a leap of faith to believe in, but this is Utopian Communism.

Any better?

Heaven, possibly. There has been no true realisation of a communist state here on earth. I personally doubt it is possible.

Yeah, if anybody can do it (which is questionable), it's probably god...

Assuming you send everyone to school till they are 18, I daresay they can make a reasonably educated guess as to who can be a rocket scientist and who would be better placed elsewhere.

How do you decide who makes a good economist and a good rocket scientist?

And do you feel that it is ethical to have the government decide what career you pursue?

Geez, you guys really don't know what you're talking about do you? :) Let me get a few things straight with everybody first:

1. I am from China.
2. My parents lived there for 20+ years.
3. My maternal grandmother is a 70+ year member of the Communist Party.
4. I'm NOT a communist. More like a middle-of-the-road Democrat. (yes, I live in the U.S.)


That being said,
THERE ARE WAGES!!! Yes, you do get paid to do your job, and the wages are NOT equal.

Okay, now to acutally answer the question. You get tested during your late teens to see what you're good at. Then, you get sent to that school and that's your job. Since the government really can't care less about art, I don't think it matters.

CHINA IS NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. It, like all the other established governments aiming for communism, is a socialist government since an establsihed government like china's cannot, by defenition, be communist. The only real comunist societys that were set up (and worked very well [WITHOUT ANY FORM OF CURRNECY]) were the spanish communist communities which installed themselves in the north of spain during the spanish civil war untill they were wiped out by a soviet-led spanish republican army which should have been fighting the facist nationalist spaniards.

A communist country by definition has neither a government, nor currency, so there (the lack of a gonvernment to mint an official currency only helps) would be no wages in a communist country

Read the title. :D
Chinas more of an oligarchic state, that is floating on a massive influx of foreign capitalist investment. It proclaims to be communist, but it mainly uses that doctrine to justify the behaviors of the government.

How do you decide who makes a good economist and a good rocket scientist?

And do you feel that it is ethical to have the government decide what career you pursue?

i am not a communist, so don't take my answer as necessarily accurate.

Having said that;

You decide the same way you decide in any other society - people undertake education they find interesting, and then apply for the posts. They interview and you are accepted if you are the best candidate.

Everyone will do what they are best at. So everyone won't rush to be artists since not everyone is good at being an artist.

That still doesn't answer my question. The aggregate demand of an economy is the publics total demand for the product of the economy. To meet this aggregate demand, the economy must meet the labor demand. Simply having people do what they are best at will not fulfill this need for labor.

Of course in pure Communist Utopia everyone does a bit of everything. Work the fields in the morning, work in the factory in the afternoon so the work is shared between everyone. You wouldn't ahve the same 'careers' etc.

Admittedly it requires a leap of faith to believe in, but this is Utopian Communism.

Any better?

No, because efficient workers are specialised workers. For example, those that should be making chairs should be the workers that have the most expertise in making chairs.

How do you decide who makes a good economist and a good rocket scientist??

Test scores and the opinions of the teachers who have been trained specifically to figure out what feild these students would be most efficient in


And do you feel that it is ethical to have the government decide what career you pursue?

One of the central ideas of communism is that personal freedoms are not as important as the good of the state. therefore if the state decides that you would be doing the most good for your nation in a certain place, that decision overrides any whims you might have over what feild you would want to work in.

that being said, since people are likely to be better at things they are passionate about, the afformentioned teachers would obviously factor in what people want to do along with their abilities before recomending their placment in the work force

You decide the same way you decide in any other society - people undertake education they find interesting, and then apply for the posts. They interview and you are accepted if you are the best candidate.

That would not work in a communist society. Labor demand would not be filled because very, very few would apply for a post cleaning toilets or building skyscrapers.

That would not work in a communist society. Labor demand would not be filled because very, very few would apply for a post cleaning toilets or building skyscrapers.

why not?

They apply to do those jobs in a capitalist society.

why not?

They apply to do those jobs in a capitalist society.
Because there are obvious rewards for doing these things in a capitalist society. You get paid.

Because there are obvious rewards for doing these things in a capitalist society. You get paid.

you get paid very low wages. You'd be better paid as a receptionist or rocket scientist, why don't they apply for those jobs?

One of the central ideas of communism is that personal freedoms are not as important as the good of the state. therefore if the state decides that you would be doing the most good for your nation in a certain place, that decision overrides any whims you might have over what feild you would want to work in.

I don't understand the point of communism. It cuts down on personal freedoms, only to promote inefficient policies.

that being said, since people are likely to be better at things they are passionate about, the afformentioned teachers would obviously factor in what people want to do along with their abilities before recomending their placment in the work force

But deciding what individuals are best at alone will not fulfill labor needs.

you get paid very low wages. You'd be better paid as a receptionist or rocket scientist, why don't they apply for those jobs?

They don't apply because they would not recieve the jobs. The labor demand would have been filled by more able applicants.

They don't apply because they would not recieve the jobs. The labor demand would have been filled by more able applicants.

the same with a communist system then.

you get paid very low wages. You'd be better paid as a receptionist or rocket scientist, why don't they apply for those jobs?
Because they are not qualified to be a rocket scientist, and receptionists are in less demand than skyscraper construction workers and the like. And don't be so sure that receptionists get paid better than construction workers. I get 7.50 an hour, construction workers get far more than that.

the same with a communist system then.
What would induce people to take the shitty jobs though? I mean, if all their needs are supplied for, why bother with being a shit scooper?

the same with a communist system then.

Then why not use the system that doesn't eliminate personal freedoms?

What would induce people to take the shitty jobs though? I mean, if all their needs are supplied for, why bother with being a shit scooper?

because they are contributing to the good of society. Just look at the woman that took up farming in the UK in WW2

Then why not use the system that doesn't eliminate personal freedoms?

maybe because the freedoms of capitalism are a myth. You only have them if you have the money to defend them.

Take, for instance, the fact that Microsoft will win patent battles in court not because they are necessarily correct, but because they can afford better legal representation?

because they are contributing to the good of society. Just look at the woman that took up farming in the UK in WW2
So, the altruism arguement resurfaces. I have nothing to say but that the concept that people would do stuff for the good of society is complete and utter bullshit. People do stuff for themselves, not for others. That's human nature, that's a survival instinct in action. Ensure your survival, and all others be damned.

While there are people who are good at heart, most people are not, and will only band together when facing an overwhelming external threat.

So, the altruism arguement resurfaces. I have nothing to say but that the concept that people would do stuff for the good of society is complete and utter bullshit. People do stuff for themselves, not for others. That's human nature, that's a survival instinct in action. Ensure your survival, and all others be damned.

Kamikazee pilots?

Health workers that expose themselves to deadly diseases or radiation?

People that push children out of the way of buses and die?

maybe it's just YOU who ensures your own survival first?

maybe because the freedoms of capitalism are a myth. You only have them if you have the money to defend them.

I don't know how removing all freedom is a viable solution for limited freedoms.

Take, for instance, the fact that Microsoft will win patent battles in court not because they are necessarily correct, but because they can afford better legal representation?

That is a problem with our current system, and not an argument for communism.

It is also more of a problem with corporatism in the government, and inefficiencies in the judicial system than a problem with capitalism.

maybe because the freedoms of capitalism are a myth. You only have them if you have the money to defend them.

You mean you don't have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to vote in elections, freedom of association? Are those just myths?

Kamikazee pilots?

Health workers that expose themselves to deadly diseases or radiation?

People that push children out of the way of buses and die?

maybe it's just YOU who ensures your own survival first?

Those are extremely common occurances.

You mean you don't have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to vote in elections, freedom of association? Are those just myths?

I cannot say anything I want, I can be sued for libel / slander if the opposing side claim I am wrong and have a better legal team.

I am free to vote, but only for people who are put forward and supported financially by the Unions or Big business. No one wins the elections without money.

Those are extremely common occurances.

they prove altruims exists though, don't they?

Maybe it's just western society is too rotten to accept that people can be anything other than self serving?

Kamikazee pilots?
Believed in glorious reward in the afterlife for serving their emperor.

Health workers that expose themselves to deadly diseases or radiation?
I know of no health care workers who would do such without adequate protection, be it rubber gloves or radiation suits. If you can bring me instances where they went in without protective equipment, I'll gladly take note. And beyond that, it's their job. They are honor-bound to fulfill their position.

People that push children out of the way of buses and die?
In the movies maybe. I doubt that this happens in real life all that often, if at all.

maybe it's just YOU who ensures your own survival first?
Maybe that's what I've observed from humanity in general. I look at my floor in my dorm. We'd easily stab each other in the back if it would benefit ourselves. I see it all over, not just in me.

I cannot say anything I want, I can be sued for libel / slander if the opposing side claim I am wrong and have a better legal team.
Yeah, because you might just be harming the other side by your libel or slander. Like that Wendy's chili finger person. Because of her actions, Wendy's sales are down 20% in recent weeks. I'd have to say that that's certainly slander.

I am free to vote, but only for people who are put forward and supported financially by the Unions or Big business. No one wins the elections without money.
You have to earn the right to be elected, and if that means forwarding a lot of money, so be it. Political office is not somethat that is gifted to you, you have to work and appeal to people to gain their support. If you get their support, you get donations.

I posted this as a response on another thread, but it is one of my foremost concerns with Communism, so I would like to see what the general consensus is:

How is it determined who will be artists and who will be factory workers? If wages are equal, it can be assumed that the labor supply for artists will be much greater than the labor demand for artists, while the labor supply for factory workers will be much smaller than the demand.

How does the society go about creating a labor supply/demand equilibrium?Coming from a liberterian communist perspective:
Many great artists have been factory workers. Everyone in the Commune will be expected to do some of the essential maintnece and production labor. With the elimination of the cleptorcracy of the wage system, the implementation of labor-saving automation will not destroy anyone's livelyhood, but rather allow everyone to work ridicluosly short hours.

So the answer is this: 'Artist' and 'factory worker' will no longer be mutually exclusive.

they prove altruims exists though, don't they?

Maybe it's just western society is too rotten to accept that people can be anything other than self serving?
And my arguement is not that altruism doesn't exist, it's that altruism is not typically a strong motivator for human beings. There are things that are far more motivating and effective than altruism.

And my arguement is not that altruism doesn't exist, it's that altruism is not typically a strong motivator for human beings. There are things that are far more motivating and effective than altruism.

in a corrupt western society perhaps, but are you arrogant enough to claim total understanding of human nature? To assert that humans could NEVER live altruistically?

You have to earn the right to be elected, and if that means forwarding a lot of money, so be it. Political office is not somethat that is gifted to you, you have to work and appeal to people to gain their support. If you get their support, you get donations.That's twisted, man. It is because of the nature of political financing and the inbred Washington power elite scene that positions of power are gifted to the servants of capital. Pandering to fat cats is not the same as 'working hard and appealing to the people.'
If you havn't sold your soul to the capitalist elite, you have no means to even begin 'apealing to the people.'

That is the problem.

Yeah, because you might just be harming the other side by your libel or slander. Like that Wendy's chili finger person. Because of her actions, Wendy's sales are down 20% in recent weeks. I'd have to say that that's certainly slander.


You have to earn the right to be elected, and if that means forwarding a lot of money, so be it. Political office is not somethat that is gifted to you, you have to work and appeal to people to gain their support. If you get their support, you get donations.


But why should I lose a libel case just because I cannot afford better lawyers? Even if I am right?

Lord Sainsbury gave £1000 000 to the Labour party, and shortly after got a lordship and government post. He BOUGHT his way to government. This is a direct result of a capitalistic electoral system, where you need money to get votes to get power. Without money, you cannot reach anyone to tell them your plans, so you can't get funding to stand.

Coming from a liberterian communist perspective:
Many great artists have been factory workers. Everyone in the Commune will be expected to do some of the essential maintnece and production labor. With the elimination of the cleptorcracy of the wage system, the implementation of labor-saving automation will not destroy anyone's livelyhood, but rather allow everyone to work ridicluosly short hours.

So the answer is this: 'Artist' and 'factory worker' will no longer be mutually exclusive.
Or maybe as new machines are developed, new maintenance workers will be needed to keep the machines running, and people will still work the same hours they have always worked. Mechanization is not a silver bullet to reduce demand for labor, in fact, it often will increase the demand for labor.

An example is the growth of factories after the invention of the steam engine. More people were needed to run the machines because, while the machines reduced work time on each individual item, the machines themselves needed to be operated and maintained. More was being produced by having machines in less time, yet people still worked the same. Because there were more people demanding more. Unless you are planning on halting production and population right at it's current level, then working hours are not shortened.

they prove altruims exists though, don't they?

Maybe it's just western society is too rotten to accept that people can be anything other than self serving?

Altruism exists but it is certainly not pervasive. For every person that runs in front of a bus to save a child, there are probably ten people who look away.

in a corrupt western society perhaps, but are you arrogant enough to claim total understanding of human nature? To assert that humans could NEVER live altruistically?
If you want to call me arrogant, fuck yes. What are we? Please tell me? From what I can tell, we're just a bunch of smart, hairless monkeys. We still have behavior encoded into our genes, and that is survival behavior.

If you want to go toe-to-toe on the malleability of behavior, bring it, becaue science, not ideology, is on my side on this one.

If you want to call me arrogant, fuck yes. What are we? Please tell me? From what I can tell, we're just a bunch of smart, hairless monkeys. We still have behavior encoded into our genes, and that is survival behavior.

If you want to go toe-to-toe on the malleability of behavior, bring it, becaue science, not ideology, is on my side on this one.

so you're suggesting the best society for humans is one where we fuck each other over constantly, purely on the grounds that our instincts are for survival?

Do you not believe we can grow beyond such selfish greed?

But why should I lose a libel case just because I cannot afford better lawyers? Even if I am right?
You can win a libel case, you just have to show that you are irrefutably correct. Having an all star lawyer doesn't mean you'll win a case. If you are right you'll be safe, but if you are wrong, then you're screwed.

Lord Sainsbury gave £1000 000 to the Labour party, and shortly after got a lordship and government post. He BOUGHT his way to government. This is a direct result of a capitalistic electoral system, where you need money to get votes to get power. Without money, you cannot reach anyone to tell them your plans, so you can't get funding to stand.
What kind of government post?

Or maybe as new machines are developed, new maintenance workers will be needed to keep the machines running, and people will still work the same hours they have always worked. Mechanization is not a silver bullet to reduce demand for labor, in fact, it often will increase the demand for labor.

An example is the growth of factories after the invention of the steam engine. More people were needed to run the machines because, while the machines reduced work time on each individual item, the machines themselves needed to be operated and maintained. More was being produced by having machines in less time, yet people still worked the same. Because there were more people demanding more. Unless you are planning on halting production and population right at it's current level, then working hours are not shortened.There is no 'maybe' about it. I am speaking of currently existing technologies. Take a look at the Lexus plants in Japan. And industrealization actually allowed more to be produced with less labor.

Please note that working hours will already be cut by the elimination of the superflous production of military hardware and shoddy consumer goods. With the elimination of planned obscelecence and wars for profit and power, there will be less labor hours to go around.

so you're suggesting the best society for humans is one where we fuck each other over constantly, purely on the grounds that our instincts are for survival?
We constantly jockey for improvements in our own position, that doesn't always necessarily mean that someone else will suffer. A society where everyone works for their own interests will produce the best general good.

Do you not believe we can grow beyond such selfish greed?
No.

There is no 'maybe' about it. I am speaking of currently existing technologies. Take a look at the Lexus plants in Japan. And industrealization actually allowed more to be produced with less labor.

Please note that working hours will already be cut by the elimination of the superflous production of military hardware and shoddy consumer goods. With the elimination of planned obscelecence and wars for profit and power, there will be less labor hours to go around.
How about population and demand growth? Theoretically, won't both increase to the point where you will have to work longer hours? That's what I'm talking about.

Now I've got an appointment, I must attend.

If you want to call me arrogant, fuck yes. What are we? Please tell me? From what I can tell, we're just a bunch of smart, hairless monkeys. We still have behavior encoded into our genes, and that is survival behavior.

If you want to go toe-to-toe on the malleability of behavior, bring it, becaue science, not ideology, is on my side on this one.What about those kids that we find from time to time that have been raised by dogs and- for all intents and purposes- act like dogs and are upstanding members of their respective packs?
Psuedointelectual hacks like to elevate nature above nurture or vice versa. It is clear from a strictly scientific perspecive though that both are equally important in development.

How about population and demand growth? Theoretically, won't both increase to the point where you will have to work longer hours? That's what I'm talking about.That's quite irrelevant as this is true of all societies.

You can win a libel case, you just have to show that you are irrefutably correct. Having an all star lawyer doesn't mean you'll win a case. If you are right you'll be safe, but if you are wrong, then you're screwed.


What kind of government post?

if you believe that you'd win a court case on legal aid against someone with the cash to get a top lawyer team, you're more naive than I gave you credit for.

Lord Sainsbury became Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science.

As per demand in particular: if people want more crap, they will have to work more. It is my beleif that if industry is socialized, democratized, localized and federated the vast majority of workers will choose shorter hours for themselves and their fellows over three cars in every garage.

As per demand in particular: if people want more crap, they will have to work more. It is my beleif that if industry is socialized, democratized, localized and federated the vast majority of workers will choose shorter hours for themselves and their fellows over three cars in every garage.

In capitalism, if I want three cars, I work hard, and then I have three cars.

In communism, if I want three cars, I have to cause enough of a labor increase for there to be three cars for every person on the planet.

I find this slightly irritating.

In capitalism, if I want three cars, I work hard, and then I have three cars.

In communism, if I want three cars, I have to cause enough of a labor increase for there to be three cars for every person on the planet.

I find this slightly irritating.


precisely. It's not about what YOU want, it's about what EVERYONE wants.

Oh, and you don't just get money by working hard. There are many massively well paying ways to make money that involve very little work at all.

But is China communist according to the actual definition of communism ?

Are you asking about pure theoretical communism or communism as it exists in the real world? There is a huge difference.

Heaven, possibly. There has been no true realisation of a communist state here on earth. I personally doubt it is possible.

There were a few colinies that poped up in the US years ago but they didn't last.

Chinas more of an oligarchic state, that is floating on a massive influx of foreign capitalist investment. It proclaims to be communist, but it mainly uses that doctrine to justify the behaviors of the government.

If you are looking for a country that is closer to pure communism you need to look at Cuba and North Korea rather than China. Even then, they are a long way from pure communism.

precisely. It's not about what YOU want, it's about what EVERYONE wants.

Oh, and you don't just get money by working hard. There are many massively well paying ways to make money that involve very little work at all.

Yes. Communism's basic factor is that, if everyone around you is a lazy bastard, you're screwed, because they would get jealous.

Eh. Work smart vs. work hard.

My family just works hard. Our family fortune is based on building houses.

Why the hell would we not deserve three cars if we built more houses than other people did?

i am not a communist, so don't take my answer as necessarily accurate.

Having said that;

You decide the same way you decide in any other society - people undertake education they find interesting, and then apply for the posts. They interview and you are accepted if you are the best candidate.

No, people are told what they will career they will have which is dependent on the needs of the country or community. The individual does not have a choice.

Yes. Communism's basic factor is that, if everyone around you is a lazy bastard, you're screwed, because they would get jealous.

Eh. Work smart vs. work hard.

My family just works hard. Our family fortune is based on building houses.

Why the hell would we not deserve three cars if we built more houses than other people did?

because other people CAN'T build lots of houses, because they don't have the capital to invest?

No, people are told what they will career they will have which is dependent on the needs of the country or community. The individual does not have a choice.

is that a necessary part of communism or just part of your idea of communism?

you get paid very low wages. You'd be better paid as a receptionist or rocket scientist, why don't they apply for those jobs?

Because they don't have the education or training to apply for those jobs, but it doesn't take much education or training to clean toilets.

because other people CAN'T build lots of houses, because they don't have the capital to invest?

In a communist society, the only difference between you building a house and me building a house is that one of us will work harder, longer, faster, smarter.

My dad comes from a POOR background. You know, ten kids to a room. Hunting to get enough food to survive.

My dad is, simply, a working machine. Every job he does gets done faster and better than average. Even 'charity' jobs, where you're expected to lose money, he manages to MAKE money on.

Why, on earth, would his hard work not get rewarded because everyone else wasn't working as hard?

the same with a communist system then.

No. In the communist syetem the government decides what you will do and trains you for it. If they need toilet cleaners some people will be trained for that, if they need rocket scientists they will train people for that. If you are a toilet cleaner and want to become a rocket scientist, you can't. The government won't let you or train you.

If you want to call me arrogant, fuck yes. What are we? Please tell me? From what I can tell, we're just a bunch of smart, hairless monkeys. We still have behavior encoded into our genes, and that is survival behavior.

If you want to go toe-to-toe on the malleability of behavior, bring it, becaue science, not ideology, is on my side on this one.


so you're suggesting the best society for humans is one where we fuck each other over constantly, purely on the grounds that our instincts are for survival?

Do you not believe we can grow beyond such selfish greed?


you 2 might find this article interesting, it give the opinion that while cooperation does happen very often and even cooperation where there is no real tangeble benefit for one or both parties we will still cooperate (go off to war etc, and die for your country etc, although that could be seen to be protecting your direct relatives but you get the point)

its interesting esp the lovely graphs they have... lol

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524901.600

In a communist society, the only difference between you building a house and me building a house is that one of us will work harder, longer, faster, smarter.

My dad comes from a POOR background. You know, ten kids to a room. Hunting to get enough food to survive.

My dad is, simply, a working machine. Every job he does gets done faster and better than average. Even 'charity' jobs, where you're expected to lose money, he manages to MAKE money on.

Why, on earth, would his hard work not get rewarded because everyone else wasn't working as hard?

because in a communist society it's not suppose to be about personal gain.

He would work hard to provide houses for other people, because he is very good at that.

In exchange, other people would work hard at their jobs to provide him with food, healthcare etc.

but there are no wages, wages do not exist. Money is not relevant to a communist society

Yo, money exists in every country on the face of the planet, even in communist ones.
Even during the Cultural Revolution in China, there still was money

Yo, money exists in every country on the face of the planet, even in communist ones.
Even during the Cultural Revolution in China, there still was money

I suspect you will find most communists will claim those countries are not truely communist.

is that a necessary part of communism or just part of your idea of communism?

Communism as it existed in the former USSR, but I gess that isn't communism, it was Marxism. One gentleman from China who posted said they are tested and told what they will do for a living. but I guess that's Marxism again. How does it work in Cuba and North Korea. Hummm

because in a communist society it's not suppose to be about personal gain.

He would work hard to provide houses for other people, because he is very good at that.

In exchange, other people would work hard at their jobs to provide him with food, healthcare etc.

Right, right.

The final answer is brainwashing.. yeah.

Right, right.

The final answer is brainwashing.. yeah.

perhaps YOU have been brainwashed by a materialistic society?

ever consider that?

Many cultures have had greatly different views on property. You might fight some anthropology books interesting.

"true communism" (the utpoian fantasyland in which all people are equal and property dosent matter...ect...) will never exist on this world. It is because of one innate trait of the human being, greed. We evolved with the primal instict to put our own survival before the survival of others. Therefore all the actions we take are ,primarily. to benifit ourselves.
While a few people, (such as Gandhi) have put aside greed, most of us still possess it

If you want to call me arrogant, fuck yes. What are we? Please tell me? From what I can tell, we're just a bunch of smart, hairless monkeys. We still have behavior encoded into our genes, and that is survival behavior.

If you want to go toe-to-toe on the malleability of behavior, bring it, becaue science, not ideology, is on my side on this one.

so you're suggesting the best society for humans is one where we fuck each other over constantly, purely on the grounds that our instincts are for survival?

Do you not believe we can grow beyond such selfish greed?

this article might interest you two, it gives the opinion that while there are many instances of cooperation in situations where there are almost no tangeble benefits for the parties involved, that the cooperation itself is a survival technique, even when you die because of it.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524901.600

this article might interest you two, it gives the opinion that while there are many instances of cooperation in situations where there are almost no tangeble benefits for the parties involved, that the cooperation itself is a survival technique, even when you die because of it.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524901.600

cheers for that.


"true communism" (the utpoian fantasyland in which all people are equal and property dosent matter...ect...) will never exist on this world. It is because of one innate trait of the human being, greed. We evolved with the primal instict to put our own survival before the survival of others. Therefore all the actions we take are ,primarily. to benifit ourselves.
While a few people, (such as Gandhi) have put aside greed, most of us still possess it

If even one man can do it, why can't the rest of us?

perhaps YOU have been brainwashed by a materialistic society?

ever consider that?

Many cultures have had greatly different views on property. You might fight some anthropology books interesting.

1) Communism is as material as anything else, it just has much more scarcity. Otherwise you wouldn't CARE how much material someone else has.

2) My family background is rather socialist. So. You're sorta talking out of your ass.

3) I'm about to finish an anthro Human Evolution class. Looks like capitalism is much older than humanity. Gee, I'm so sorry I can use my instincts in a constructive manner.

1) Communism is as material as anything else, it just has much more scarcity. Otherwise you wouldn't CARE how much material someone else has.


On the contrary, "...to each according to his needs" relates directly to materialism, in that it states you only get what you NEED, you don't get what you want. You are not striving to gain possessions.


2) My family background is rather socialist. So. You're sorta talking out of your ass.


If you don't live in a non-materialistic culture, then I am not 'talkingout of my ass', I am merely indicating that perhaps it is your society that has made you believe you need 'things' to make you happy.


3) I'm about to finish an anthro Human Evolution class. Looks like capitalism is much older than humanity. Gee, I'm so sorry I can use my instincts in a constructive manner.

I still recommend you look into cultures where ownership is viewed very differently. You'll see materialism is not the only choice.

If even one man can do it, why can't the rest of us?

1) Someone has had several dozen personalities. Can you do it?

2) Ghandi was a fruitcake. A nice fruitcake, more or less, but a fruitcake.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040813.html

1) Someone has had several dozen personalities. Can you do it?

2) Ghandi was a fruitcake. A nice fruitcake, more or less, but a fruitcake.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040813.html

1) yes, given the right social conditions, I probably could.

2) look at the link kindly provided above for yet more examples of altruistic behaviour

[QUOTE=
If even one man can do it, why can't the rest of us?[/QUOTE]

Because, in order to put aside greed, people would have to put aside wants and personal aspirations, whicheveryone has.
it's not as simple as standing on a box and saying "okay people, everyone give up all their property and join together into one big happy society" you may be able to recruit a few downtrodden peasants to your cause. but have fun trying to get those who have material possesions, and thus a cofortable life, to give up all their comforts to the rest of society.
And secondly, people like Gandhi, who have put aside desires and wants, never come to power, (because after all power is a want) they lack the certain degree of conniving, backstabbing, "evilness" which is required to sucseed in any political system in the world today.

On the contrary, "...to each according to his needs" relates directly to materialism, in that it states you only get what you NEED, you don't get what you want. You are not striving to gain possessions.


If you give a damn about my having possessions, you are a materialist. You're just a po' ass one.


If you don't live in a non-materialistic culture, then I am not 'talkingout of my ass', I am merely indicating that perhaps it is your society that has made you believe you need 'things' to make you happy.


My family is rather auestere, thank you. Did you know the first CD player in my household was my computer, seven years ago, which I got for SCHOOL? I had an 8-track in my room, and there was a family turn table, prior.

The only reason we don't still use the old TV with the turn dial is because the damned thing doesn't work anymore, and we couldn't connect anything newer than an NES to it.

My family has stuff, yes. We don't gather it like pack rats like the average suburban family. Most of our money goes in to improving our land, or our annual 1k checks to the various poor houses.


I still recommend you look into cultures where ownership is viewed very differently. You'll see materialism is not the only choice.

I have fricking Native background, I'm well aware of alternative cultures.

I also know that their lifestyle leads to stories like, "How Coyote Had Sex with a Girl in a tent ACROSS A RIVER." How did he do it? His schlong turned in to a damned hentai tentacle. This is a REAL native american story.

I'm sorry you see it as strange that I don't want to return to those days.

Because, in order to put aside greed, people would have to put aside wants and personal aspirations, whicheveryone has.
it's not as simple as standing on a box and saying "okay people, everyone give up all their property and join together into one big happy society" you may be able to recruit a few downtrodden peasants to your cause. but have fun trying to get those who have material possesions, and thus a cofortable life, to give up all their comforts to the rest of society.
And secondly, people like Gandhi, who have put aside desires and wants, never come to power, (because after all power is a want) they lack the certain degree of conniving, backstabbing, "evilness" which is required to sucseed in any political system in the world today.

You can remove material greed without removing other kinds of greed (such as the desire for power or the desire for popularity)

If you give a damn about my having possessions, you are a materialist. You're just a po' ass one.



My family is rather auestere, thank you. Did you know the first CD player in my household was my computer, seven years ago, which I got for SCHOOL? I had an 8-track in my room, and there was a family turn table, prior.

The only reason we don't still use the old TV with the turn dial is because the damned thing doesn't work anymore, and we couldn't connect anything newer than an NES to it.

My family has stuff, yes. We don't gather it like pack rats like the average suburban family. Most of our money goes in to improving our land, or our annual 1k checks to the various poor houses.



I have fricking Native background, I'm well aware of alternative cultures.

I also know that their lifestyle leads to stories like, "How Coyote Had Sex with a Girl in a tent ACROSS A RIVER." How did he do it? His schlong turned in to a damned hentai tentacle. This is a REAL native american story.

I'm sorry you see it as strange that I don't want to return to those days.


Your family is not the limit of your society.

There are still other cultures you can look at for alternatives to materialism

A desire for power is what turned the Russian and Chinese revolutions into some of the darkest chapters of human history, read into it. :p

A desire for power is what turned the Russian and Chinese revolutions into some of the darkest chapters of human history, read into it. :p

I know, that's why I'm not communist ;)

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed, TTFN

1) yes, given the right social conditions, I probably could.

2) look at the link kindly provided above for yet more examples of altruistic behaviour

That's an easily refuted study.

1) The focus is on PUNISHMENT. Being vindictive is often overall negative.

2) It's a set up game, not a day to day situation. People behave differently when they know they're being observed.

3) There's no control sample that I can see.

4) There can be myriad other factors at play.

5) The "Fuck You" response is NOT guranteed evidence of altruism.

6) This is seen in animals. You run around being an obnoxious baboon, a bigger baboon is going to slap you upside the head eventually.

7) There is an obvious selfish motive behind trying to make members of a society behave in a more cooperative manner. Hello, enlightened self interest? Ethical egoism?

Was this a high school study or something?

Heck, look at the bottom of the article, it shows non-altruistic reasons for altruistic behavior.

Your family is not the limit of your society.

There are still other cultures you can look at for alternatives to materialism

My family provides a large net positive to the world, and to ourselves.

Why the bloody hell should we be screwed over by your own preference?

And communism IS materialist, so what form of social organization are you suggesting?

Honestly, this sounds like an argument for a tyranny by the incompotent...

I have fricking Native background, I'm well aware of alternative cultures.

I also know that their lifestyle leads to stories like, "How Coyote Had Sex with a Girl in a tent ACROSS A RIVER." How did he do it? His schlong turned in to a damned hentai tentacle. This is a REAL native american story.

I'm sorry you see it as strange that I don't want to return to those days.

You mean they invented tentacle sex before the Japanese? Why wouldn't you be proud of that? I'm just an ordinary pure-white American and my culture doesn't have stuff like that.

You mean they invented tentacle sex before the Japanese? Why wouldn't you be proud of that? I'm just an ordinary pure-white American and my culture doesn't have stuff like that.

I'm sure the Japanese already had the like.

There's also the tale of Vagina Dentata...

My family provides a large net positive to the world, and to ourselves.?

You feel that your family provides a large net positive because you give several tousand dollars a year to charity. Comendable. But so many people do noy do that. And so many able-bodied people sit on the street living off your charity for whatever reason. A communist system would make it so everyone provides a HUGE net positive and the otherwise idle people would also be contributing to society. Everyone wins.

Why the bloody hell should we be screwed over by your own preference??

Because it is for the betterment of people who have been arbitrarily given less ability to sucseed in a capitalist society than you.

And communism IS materialist, so what form of social organization are you suggesting?

No, communism is not materialist. Everything produced in communism is for the betterment of the state, and to raise the general standard of living for the people in the state, be it by producing shoes, farming food, or by making art.

You feel that your family provides a large net positive because you give several tousand dollars a year to charity. Comendable. But so many people do noy do that. And so many able-bodied people sit on the street living off your charity for whatever reason. A communist system would make it so everyone provides a HUGE net positive and the otherwise idle people would also be contributing to society. Everyone wins.



Because it is for the betterment of people who have been arbitrarily given less ability to sucseed in a capitalist society than you.

Your system is that, because OTHER PEOPLE are lazy bastards, MY family, who are NOT lazy bastards, have to reduce their standard of living, UNWILLINGLY, even though, in the present, we already HELP lazy bastards, of our own free will, BECAUSE we're prosperous?

How the hell do -we- win in this?

It sounds like lazy bastards win.

No, communism is not materialist. Everything produced in communism is for the betterment of the state, and to raise the general standard of living for the people in the state, be it by producing shoes, farming food, or by making art.

http://www.answers.com/materialism&r=67

Communism falls under #2.

"The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life."

All communism does is distribute it based on need instead of merit or luck.

Looks like capitalism is much older than humanity. Gee, I'm so sorry I can use my instincts in a constructive manner.

no it isn't. there are no instincts for setting up a society where a tiny minority owns nearly all of the means of production and distribution and where the rest are largely made to rent themselves out to those owners in order to survive. and you certainly don't see it in all human cultures, let alone the non-human world.

Can anyone answer the original economic question?

Human nature is not a very relevent topic when arguing for societal structures.

no it isn't. there are no instincts for setting up a society where a tiny minority owns nearly all of the means of production and distribution and where the rest are largely made to rent themselves out to those owners in order to survive. and you certainly don't see it in all human cultures, let alone the non-human world.

Wolves.
The alpha pair determine which members of the pack recieve what share of the kill, reserving the largest share for themselves.

Lions.
Females hunt, male does not, takes largest share. After that, the order of dominance within the pride determines which lioness recieves what share of the kill.

Ants: all work is done for the benefit of the Queen.

Bees: same thing, ditto for wasps, hornets...

virtually any social animal that has to work for its food has something analogous to what you are saying does not exist. Sheep don't, but then, their food grows on the ground, and they're universally good at mainly stripping grass and producing wool (and feces).

the herbivorous apes live in environments where food is neither scarce, no running away-human societies tend to mirror Wolf dynamics over Ape dynamics.

Pre-Capitalist societies (Feudalism, Theocracies) tend to have even more arbitrary distribution of wealth. Capitalist society generates a thing called "Upward Mobility"- you may not have been born into the ruling levels, but if you're smart enough and ambitious enough, you can force your way in-kind of like being a lower-rank pack member, and fighting your way to the Alpha position.
The difference being that under Capitalism (and thanks to humans valuing things beyond brute strength and viciousness) you can do this without killing anyone.

Actually, for apes, there's plenty of the wolf-pack socially-determined resource imbalance.

Gorillas: I get ten females, all you bachelors get none, because I can kick your ass. Hint: If there's sexual dimorphism, chances are a species competes over a limited resource of females.

Chimps: I'm the alpha. I get first dibs on the kill, no matter who got it. I get to decide who gets the pieces. If I don't like you, no meat for you.
The last person who rediscovered this got his scrotum, foot, and face eaten by offering a low-ranking chimp birthday cake, instead of letting the alpha decide he could have it. No different than a dictator shooting you in the leg and taking your chicken.

Really, with chimps, it's basically the old "Dad carves the roast" garbage.

There is fairly little in this world that humans can say they don't have in common with animals. It's generally all about degree. Abstract thought is the only thing I know of that we don't have proof of having that animals don't, and that's still purely conjecture.

Wolves.
The alpha pair determine which members of the pack recieve what share of the kill, reserving the largest share for themselves.

Lions.
Females hunt, male does not, takes largest share. After that, the order of dominance within the pride determines which lioness recieves what share of the kill.

that isn't private ownership of the means of production and wage labor. that's dividing things up within the group based on who can beat up who.

Ants: all work is done for the benefit of the Queen.

Bees: same thing, ditto for wasps, hornets...

does the queen own the food sources?

the herbivorous apes live in environments where food is neither scarce, no running away-human societies tend to mirror Wolf dynamics over Ape dynamics.

not in our wild state. from all indications, we're more of a militantly egalitarian type, with societies typically forming something that have been called 'reverse hierarchies' to make sure that any would-be alphas are knocked back into place. and the meat sharing practices of our ape cousins (and presumably shared by our ancestors) were greatly elaborated in a very egalitarian manner, which was replicated in nearly every aspect of human culture - not just meat was shared, but plants and even artifacts too.

Can anyone answer the original economic question?

i thought free outer eugenia did a fairly nice summary a few pages back

Coming from a liberterian communist perspective:
Many great artists have been factory workers. Everyone in the Commune will be expected to do some of the essential maintnece and production labor. With the elimination of the cleptorcracy of the wage system, the implementation of labor-saving automation will not destroy anyone's livelyhood, but rather allow everyone to work ridicluosly short hours.

So the answer is this: 'Artist' and 'factory worker' will no longer be mutually exclusive.

How does that insure that the labor demand of each type of labor will be met?

Also, remember that expertise composes a great deal of effective labor. If individuals are not highly skilled at their role, the labor they provide will be significantly lower.

How does that insure that the labor demand of each type of labor will be met?

It doesn't. The communist idea of division of labour is based on the assumtion that every thing has an objective value that is somehow decided by the properties of that thing. Also for every type of thing there is a specific amount needed.

For example if a specific type of chair is worth $10, then all chairs of that type is worth $10, and a chair of that type is worth $10 to all people. And if a person needs 2 chairs of the same type then that person needs two chairs regardless of if they cost $1 or $100, and having three chairs will not make him happier.

Thus, with sufficient knowledge, you can calculate what products should be produced. If this knowledge is dispersed to the whole population, then anyone can calculate what work they should be doing when they feel like producing something.

Obviously this clashes with modern economics, but Marxism separated from economics in the middle of the 19th century. In those days the concept of utility was not entirely accepted, so there were serious economists with ideas that were compatible with communism.

Communism is a dead and buried idea. It's based on a political theory that can't be disproved, or proved, and the selfish bit of human nature dictates the failure of communism from the very start. The world NEEDS wage differentials and class systems to function. Get over it.

that isn't private ownership of the means of production and wage labor. that's dividing things up within the group based on who can beat up who.

Which is, all window-dressings aside, the base definition of ownership. the ability to Keep what you have, or trade/give it to whom you wish, without interference. The Alpha pair "Own" the kill, even though the pack is what brought it down.



does the queen own the food sources?

Since the food resources will be devoted directly to the queen, and the queen's direct, developing offspring, even if the workers who gathered it starve?



not in our wild state. from all indications, we're more of a militantly egalitarian type, with societies typically forming something that have been called 'reverse hierarchies' to make sure that any would-be alphas are knocked back into place. and the meat sharing practices of our ape cousins (and presumably shared by our ancestors) were greatly elaborated in a very egalitarian manner, which was replicated in nearly every aspect of human culture - not just meat was shared, but plants and even artifacts too.

do demonstrate. This is like asserting that humans developed to eat plants and shifted to meat, when development design of the human body says otherwise.
Kids unsupervised form hierarchies based on physical power, cunning, or treachery. Even allegedly "Wild" tribes have divisions based on some criteria in which the dominant rules over the submissive. (The Tasaday don't count-they were a construction of the Marcos regime. their sunny-happy-collective was a show to increase the prestige of the Philipines by fraudulent means.)

Apes are far from the ideal model, as well-yes, they cooperate, but they also establish heirachies based on the threat of violence, the larger apes rule (Often ruthlessly) over smaller apes (and derive a larger portion of the benefits, including mating privelages), Male apes will kill the young of other male apes they have supplanted in that hierarchy, (Gotta love Animal Planet, Nature, and wotsername, the lady who lived with the chimps...) and shares of anything obtained by collective action go based not on who did the work or who needs it, but who's on top (The dominant male).

Human beings follow the same base principles of every other capital-predator on the planet, it's just that with our larger brain capacity, we are able to rationalize and limit that behaviour into productive avenues, and we are able to reason well enough to desire something 'better', since we are able to concieve of something called 'morality' that exceeds simple envy/aggression/fear operations.

Just a cool side note: One of the recent chimp films has an alpha that's actually fairly nice. He keeps his big, giant, mega-sized brutish brother in line by, get this, running through a shallow stream.

Which is -insane-, considering that most chimps are DEATHLY afraid of large amounts of water.

He's like, one of few chimps in history who willingly get their feet wet. And all the other chimps just STARE when he displays in the water.

Work smarter, not harder.

I posted this as a response on another thread, but it is one of my foremost concerns with Communism, so I would like to see what the general consensus is:

How is it determined who will be artists and who will be factory workers? If wages are equal, it can be assumed that the labor supply for artists will be much greater than the labor demand for artists, while the labor supply for factory workers will be much smaller than the demand.

How does the society go about creating a labor supply/demand equilibrium?

Easy: How do you define whether you are a good artist?

How do you define whether you rather like singing or work on a construction site?


Maybe something else - if your mom is sick, do you help her, even she does not pay you for it, or do you go with your dad to a football match because it pays just as much as nursing your mum?

OH, BTW, communism comes after capitalism and is basically on a higher evolutionary level. No need to worry about it now. People will find solutions to problems, when the time has come.

And do you feel that it is ethical to have the government decide what career you pursue?

If they judge me by ability and societies need instead of for instance wealth: why not ? Many people in a capitalist society cannot pursue the career of their choice either because of lack of funds, or because they must support their parents. Many cannot be what they want because there is no need for 5 million astronauts or f14 testpilots. And as someone else already pointed out: in a communist state my personal desires will be taken into account, since it is reasonable to assume I would work better in a job I like.

As to the "he works hard, so why not 3 cars" argument: *everybody* is supposed to be working hard. Some might be better at their job than others, but does that necessarily mean they are making a better effort ? Do not think in results - think in effort made. You are not competing with your coworkers, you are working together.

Easy: How do you define whether you are a good artist?

How do you define whether you rather like singing or work on a construction site?

That doesn't answer my question. My question was, given equal compensation for labor, what is the incentive that insures that labor demand will be filled. In general, people would prefer to perform some art as opposed to working in a sewer. That is evident as many people pay to make art as a hobby, while very few, if anyone would go work in a sewer for free.

Maybe something else - if your mom is sick, do you help her, even she does not pay you for it, or do you go with your dad to a football match because it pays just as much as nursing your mum?

That is hardly relevant.

OH, BTW, communism comes after capitalism and is basically on a higher evolutionary level. No need to worry about it now. People will find solutions to problems, when the time has come.

That is very debatable, I would like to think we are moving ever closer to more autonomy, not societal reliance. However, if the altruistic social reliance that communism entails is a natural societal evolution, then communism is unnecessary as the change in nature is easily handled within capitalism through charity.

If they judge me by ability and societies need instead of for instance wealth: why not ? Many people in a capitalist society cannot pursue the career of their choice either because of lack of funds, or because they must support their parents. Many cannot be what they want because there is no need for 5 million astronauts or f14 testpilots. And as someone else already pointed out: in a communist state my personal desires will be taken into account, since it is reasonable to assume I would work better in a job I like.

What makes government selection of careers a better process? It seems to me to afford less freedom, fill labor demand inefficiently at best, all the while not eliminating any of the problems of a capitalist system.

As to the "he works hard, so why not 3 cars" argument: *everybody* is supposed to be working hard. Some might be better at their job than others, but does that necessarily mean they are making a better effort ? Do not think in results - think in effort made. You are not competing with your coworkers, you are working together.

If someone provides more labor to society, but sees a limited return on it, he is being stolen from. It is not economic freedom to have your product stolen from you.

If they judge me by ability and societies need instead of for instance wealth: why not ? Many people in a capitalist society cannot pursue the career of their choice either because of lack of funds, or because they must support their parents. Many cannot be what they want because there is no need for 5 million astronauts or f14 testpilots. And as someone else already pointed out: in a communist state my personal desires will be taken into account, since it is reasonable to assume I would work better in a job I like.


You make it sound like communism will have room for 5 million astronauts and F14 test pilots.


As to the "he works hard, so why not 3 cars" argument: *everybody* is supposed to be working hard.


Hard, and SMART.

Working smart is sort of the whole point of not being a herd animal.


Some might be better at their job than others, but does that necessarily mean they are making a better effort ?


So you feel that the mentally retarded guy with withered arms is just as valuable to society as the supergenious body builder, and should get equal compensation? Mind you, I remain a socio-capitalist. But why the hell should the supergenious body builders who produce a hundred tons of product in good quality be held back by the withered dudes who only produce one ton of product and in poor quality?

You do realize that this leaves exactly ONE way to improve my lifestyle, right? CULLING.


Do not think in results - think in effort made. You are not competing with your coworkers, you are working together.

Right. So you think that a teacher should always give everyone a C for "Communistic Effort"?

A little basic math for you:

If 50% of the population produces 10X amount of goods, and 50% of the population produces 20X amount of goods, and 20X is the human maximum ability to produce goods, then everyone gets 15X amount of goods.

The only way for the 20x population to improve their share of the goods is by KILLING the rest.

You'll have to understand if I find that to be a really kind of gross result.

What makes government selection of careers a better process? It seems to me to afford less freedom, fill labor demand inefficiently at best, all the while not eliminating any of the problems of a capitalist system.

If someone provides more labor to society, but sees a limited return on it, he is being stolen from. It is not economic freedom to have your product stolen from you.

Ironically, this is exactly what communism was poorly-envisioned to get away from.

All communism does is turn the able people in to the subjugated proliteriate who don't get a full return for their effort.

Ironically, this is exactly what communism was poorly-envisioned to get away from.

All communism does is turn the able people in to the subjugated proliteriate who don't get a full return for their effort.

Replacing an imaginary form of exploitation with a real form of exploitation.

I dont think wages are the same in a communist society. That would be totally absurd.

They are just more evenly set. A doctor will still make more than a factory worker, just not nearly as much more.

I.e. a doctor would make 50% more than a factory worker in the USSR as opposed to 1000% more in the USA.

This is what happenes when an academic tries to envision a perfect world.

One where his useless profession is as valued as a doctor's or a hard laborer's, and as rewarded.

Communism, Tenure Gone MAD.

I dont think wages are the same in a communist society. That would be totally absurd.

They are just more evenly set. A doctor will still make more than a factory worker, just not nearly as much more.

I.e. a doctor would make 50% more than a factory worker in the USSR as opposed to 1000% more in the USA.

Sorry, communism is "Each According to their Need"

SOCIALISM is where you just avoid making things nuts in either direction.

while very few, if anyone would go work in a sewer for free.




Oh, you will when your bathroom fills with sewage.

I dont think wages are the same in a communist society. That would be totally absurd.

They are just more evenly set. A doctor will still make more than a factory worker, just not nearly as much more.

I.e. a doctor would make 50% more than a factory worker in the USSR as opposed to 1000% more in the USA.

That is socialism.

However, if individuals are not given capital equal in value to the labor utility they provide to the society, they are being stolen from. The free market is the only way to ensure that they receive these proportioned wages, and so far capitalism is the only established way to protect the free market.

Oh, you will when your bathroom fills with sewage.

And I will not be able to fix anything. Maybe we could all just shit in the woods, that way we can all be equal.

in a communist state my personal desires will be taken into account


Not exactly. in communism there won't be states, as nobody needs such things anymore. People will be able to think by themselves and act without being told. Such is the theory.


You do things because they need to be done and because you are able to do them.

I second the motion to shit in the woods for the sake of communism.

Heil Marx! *pppbbbt* Anyone got a leaf?

And I will not be able to fix anything.


Then you know the time has come to learn something.

Then you know the time has come to learn something.

Or, in the capitalist world, we can hire SPECIALIZED sewer workers, with nice big pieces of equipment, rather than having to turn every single human being in to a one-person society.

Then you know the time has come to learn something.

Do you realize the cost of educating every citizen on how to maintain their sewer system?

Little Billy's potty training will have to involve how to work a vacuum pump, how to wear his sewer protective gear, how to work a miniature waste water seperation plant...

do demonstrate. This is like asserting that humans developed to eat plants and shifted to meat, when development design of the human body says otherwise.
Kids unsupervised form hierarchies based on physical power, cunning, or treachery. Even allegedly "Wild" tribes have divisions based on some criteria in which the dominant rules over the submissive. (The Tasaday don't count-they were a construction of the Marcos regime. their sunny-happy-collective was a show to increase the prestige of the Philipines by fraudulent means.)

what, you want quotes from the cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers? or are we talking peer-reviewed journal articles? i'm merely asserting the dominant anthropological view here.

from the introduction to the cambridge encyclopedia (page 13 of this pdf file (http://assets.cambridge.org/052157/109X/sample/052157109Xws.pdf):

"First, they are relatively egalitarian. Leadership is less formal and more subject to constraints of popular opinion than in village societies governed by headmen and chiefs. Leadership in band societies tends to be by example, not by fiat. The leader can persuade, not command. This important aspect of their way of life allowed for a degree of freedom unheard of in more hierarchical societies..."
[note from fs - the leader that is leading by example does not refer to a specific individual. there are as many positions of leadership available in egalitarian societies as their are people to fill them.]

"Sharing is the central rule of social interaction among hunters and gatherers. There are strong injunctions on the importance of reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity, the giving of something without an immediate expectation of return, is the dominant form within face-to-face groups. Its presence within hunting and gathering societies is almost universal. This, combined with an absence of private ownership of land, has led many observers from Lewis Henry Morgan forward to attribute to hunter-gatherers a way of life based on 'primitive communism'..."
[note from fs - this sharing comes out roughly balanced, because anyone can ask for anything from anyone else and there are strong social injunctions against individual accumulation]

i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you for examples of these dominance hierarchies. how about some from the ju/'hoansi or the hadza or the mbuti?


oh, and human evolutionary history does say that we evolved eating food was almost exclusively plant-based, with occassional hunted or scavenged meat. over the course of human evolution we did in fact shift to a diet with more meat in it. and while the % of meat in our diets has gone up since the days of australopithicines, for most human cultures it is still a relatively small percentage of total calorie intake - the major exception being those cultures that live in the arctic.

What makes government selection of careers a better process? It seems to me to afford less freedom, fill labor demand inefficiently at best, all the while not eliminating any of the problems of a capitalist system.

Ideally it would be planned better and fill labour demand more effiently in fact. Instead of the splintered needs of many, many different companies you would have a huge centralised schematic of who and what is needed where. It would also be much easier to give people jobs they trained for/actually like.
However, in practice I fear it would be extremely similar to the capitalist principle; only with "the needs of the market" under government observation. Which probably would work just as fragmented as businesses do. I doubt there would be a change freedom; as I said: most people in a capitalist society cannot do their dreamjob either.

If someone provides more labor to society, but sees a limited return on it, he is being stolen from.

Only if you see society as something in which people compete instead of cooperate.

You make it sound like communism will have room for 5 million astronauts and F14 test pilots.

No, this was meant to illustrate that a free market has the same restrictions on what you can do as a communist system has. There is more need for some things then there is for others. Supply and demand rules both systems; just in very different ways.

So you feel that the mentally retarded guy with withered arms is just as valuable to society as the supergenious body builder, and should get equal compensation?

Well.. they are both human beings...

From an economic perspective: possibly. Sympathy can be a powerful motivator after all. Most likely not though. But again: you are viewing society as something of which the different parts compete, instead of it being a whole.
Me personally: no, I am way too selfish. But ashamed of that.

Mind you, I remain a socio-capitalist. But why the hell should the supergenious body builders who produce a hundred tons of product in good quality be held back by the withered dudes who only produce one ton of product and in poor quality?

Held back how ? Would the presence of someone that produces less magically cripple their own abilities to be all they can be ?

You do realize that this leaves exactly ONE way to improve my lifestyle, right? CULLING.

Or motivating others to work harder. Or acknowledge that the wish to improve your lifestyle instead of everybodies lifestyle is selfish. Now go help the little kids in Africa ;)

The only way for the 20x population to improve their share of the goods is by KILLING the rest.

But that is capitalist thinking ;) A true capitalist would indeed execute the aforementioned "mentally retarded guy with withered arms" and use his remains as dog food since that is a more efficient use of resources. Fortunately those people are rare.

Ideally it would be planned better and fill labour demand more effiently in fact. Instead of the splintered needs of many, many different companies you would have a huge centralised schematic of who and what is needed where. It would also be much easier to give people jobs they trained for/actually like.
However, in practice I fear it would be extremely similar to the capitalist principle; only with "the needs of the market" under government observation. Which probably would work just as fragmented as businesses do. I doubt there would be a change freedom; as I said: most people in a capitalist society cannot do their dreamjob either.

It seems very unlikely that the government can accurately judge demand on a centralized level without completely controlling the consumption of the people, not only level of consumption but the goods they are given. If that is the case people become really nothing more than cattle.

Only if you see society as something in which people compete instead of cooperate.

It is ridiculous to assume that everyone in society will see society in that way.

Just in case you didn't notice, but there is a high level of cooperation in Capitalism, as well. Competition is not what drives capitalism, it is what keeps it regulated and efficient.