NationStates Jolt Archive

...if you could do something that contributed to the benefit of society and you enjoyed doing, would you do it for free?

You can roughly choose your housing given job type and location - type simply meaning if you work on a farm, you live on a farm, if you're in administration, you live in closer quarters, whether apartments or etc. - you can choose food, essentially for free, only cost being that you're contributing to society so don't overeat - essentially, be responsible - and have access to free education, at any age - you can join any class at anytime. Housing, food and educational are pretty much interchangeable.

You can work on a boat, you can study science, you can lecture, you can farm, you could do accounting, drive a tractor, learn history, make gadgets, monitor nuclear power etc.,

Health is also covered.

Does capitalism work simply because, although we could technically live life as above, we can't trust others not to abuse the system and if everyone works off this assumption, this is the result?

Does communism not work because, Lord knows, someone will abuse the system?

We trust ourselves but not others, hence capitalism by default?

You do something you enjoy, you're housed, fed and cared for, do you still need payment?

...if you could do something that contributed to the benefit of society and you enjoyed doing, would you do it for free?

You can roughly choose your housing given job type and location - type simply meaning if you work on a farm, you live on a farm, if you're in administration, you live in closer quarters, whether apartments or etc. - you can choose food, essentially for free, only cost being that you're contributing to society so don't overeat - essentially, be responsible - and have access to free education, at any age - you can join any class at anytime. Housing, food and educational are pretty much interchangeable.

You can work on a boat, you can study science, you can lecture, you can farm, you could do accounting, drive a tractor, learn history, make gadgets, monitor nuclear power etc.,

Health is also covered.

Does capitalism work simply because, although we could technically live life as above, we can't trust others not to abuse the system and if everyone works off this assumption, this is the result?

Does communism not work because, Lord knows, someone will abuse the system?

We trust ourselves but not others, hence capitalism by default?

You do something you enjoy, you're housed, fed and cared for, do you still need payment?

I think communism does not work because it assumes that everybody would be willing to follow the same ethical system.

If we could come up with a viable replacment to capitalism that meant one does not neet money to live then yes I would do stuff for free. However i need money to purchase food, pay the bills, pay the rent, buy clothes and so I ned to charge for my services.

There's more to life than housing, food and education. Such a system would give a pretty safe, stable life, but a slightly boring one too.

You do something you enjoy, you're housed, fed and cared for, do you still need payment?

Depends. How do I pay for my holidays and other hobbies ?
In principle I would be willing though, yes.

i think it doesnt work more because of "conflict of interest" where i naturally think my job and my situation is more important than yours and requires a better class of accomodations/food/clothing etc.

that and that there are some jobs that would not be popular enough (sewer workers) that anyone would choose it because they enjoy that shoveling-shit kind of work.

and yes, gaming the system will always be a problem. so will nonsensical competition to show who is the more important person.

...if you could do something that contributed to the benefit of society and you enjoyed doing, would you do it for free?

You can roughly choose your housing given job type and location - type simply meaning if you work on a farm, you live on a farm, if you're in administration, you live in closer quarters, whether apartments or etc. - you can choose food, essentially for free, only cost being that you're contributing to society so don't overeat - essentially, be responsible - and have access to free education, at any age - you can join any class at anytime. Housing, food and educational are pretty much interchangeable.

You can work on a boat, you can study science, you can lecture, you can farm, you could do accounting, drive a tractor, learn history, make gadgets, monitor nuclear power etc.,

Health is also covered.

Does capitalism work simply because, although we could technically live life as above, we can't trust others not to abuse the system and if everyone works off this assumption, this is the result?

Does communism not work because, Lord knows, someone will abuse the system?

We trust ourselves but not others, hence capitalism by default?

You do something you enjoy, you're housed, fed and cared for, do you still need payment?

I have done. The job I do now is one that contributes to the benefit of society, and that I like okay - and I have done it (at various times) as a volunteer.

Especially in this day and age, where we have theoretically no limits to how much information we can share remotely, our dependence on a monetary 'for-profit' mentality more by tradition than anything else.

Education could be free, there's no reason why we couldn't all 'volunteer' our work in exchange for the basic keys of our survival plus a little incentive something. (Hell, for the lowest earning 25%, just being able to cover that 'basics' would be an improvement, in real terms.)

The biggest obstacle to a scheme like that, is that we live in a culture conditioned towards conspicuous consumerism.

There's more to life than housing, food and education. Such a system would give a pretty safe, stable life, but a slightly boring one too.

Why?

There's nothing to say you can't follow other pursuits as well. In an age of practically limitless technology, being 'bored' is just another way of saying 'lazy'.

Not for profit, yes, at least for a bit. For cheap as free? Eh perhaps for a little time.

that and that there are some jobs that would not be popular enough (sewer workers) that anyone would choose it because they enjoy that shoveling-shit kind of work.


There's practically no 'shovelling shit' in 20th century waste-water work. Been there, done that. It's more like a lab job than anything else.

Not for profit, yes, at least for a bit. For cheap as free? Eh perhaps for a little time.

In which scenario? The world as-is, or in the concept that everyone else is doing it too? Does that change the answer?

There's practically no 'shovelling shit' in 20th century waste-water work. Been there, done that. It's more like a lab job than anything else.

thanks for the info

lets change that to plumbers then. there is plenty of dealing with shit in plumbing.

Why?
There's nothing to say you can't follow other pursuits as well.

Sure there is. You are supposed to do the job you like, without payment. Where to get the time and money for those other pursuits ? A second money making job ? Even less time..

If the OP includes a hobby and holiday budget I am happy though.

In which scenario? The world as-is, or in the concept that everyone else is doing it too?
I'd probably do it in the world as-is for the periods I first gave. If everyone else was doing it too, I guess I'd probably be more into it, so long as it didn't look to me like everyone else was slacking off and benefitting from my hard work.
Does that change the answer?
Of course it does. Context is everything.

Yes, if I could do something I loved, i.e. academic research, I personally consider job satisfaction over riches any day.

But such a system would probably only work where they is enough resources available so that people's needs could be effectively provided for. Furthermore, you will always have the issue of certain necessary jobs will often be unattractive, whilst others will be highly attractive, so you will probably have a labour imbalance.

This said, I'm pretty sure what you describe is what the Federation is meant to be like in later series of Star Trek, a utopian ideal which was apparently achieved through sufficient technological advancement so that competition for resources was apparently no longer an issue.

The biggest obstacle to a scheme like that, is that we live in a culture conditioned towards conspicuous consumerism.

now more than ever. when i was young conspicuous consumption was considered tacky. now its considered necessary.

and those who get on the "exceeding the joneses" train do not understand those of us who stay off it.

who WOULDNT want a 5000 sq ft/5 bedroom/3.5 bath/3 car garage home no matter what you have to do to get it?

Sure there is. You are supposed to do the job you like, without payment. Where to get the time and money for those other pursuits ? A second money making job ? Even less time..

If the OP includes a hobby and holiday budget I am happy though.

Where do you get the time and money?

Why would you be 'charged' for your other pursuits, in the above situation? Wouldn't someone else be volunteering that service, too?

Now that I have kids, any shift above above maybe 12 hours is a bit of a pain, but a regular working week still seems to leave me time for family, some fun, and time for furthering my education. I thin it's mainly about what your priorities are, how you manage your time... and how much of your time needs to be allocated to 'fun'.

But then, I guess, I've 'vacationed' once in five years - maybe other people have different demands for 'holiday'.

...if you could do something that contributed to the benefit of society and you enjoyed doing, would you do it for free?

I already do things that contribute to the benefit of society without being paid for it.

Ever heard of volunteering?

now more than ever. when i was young conspicuous consumption was considered tacky. now its considered necessary.

and those who get on the "exceeding the joneses" train do not understand those of us who stay off it.

who WOULDNT want a 5000 sq ft/5 bedroom/3.5 bath/3 car garage home no matter what you have to do to get it?

Me. :)

My goals are actually more about a house that fits my needs, rather than me trying to expand to fit space. I will eventually build my own house, because this market doesn't satisfy my desire for an efficient (in terms of many factors... not least being truly energy efficient) living space. For similar reasons, I will probably never buy a new car, although I may well pay new-car costs to retrofit an old car into something I can drive for the next 50 years.

But then, conspicuous consumption doesn't interest me at all. I'm more the Tyler Durden type.

sounds like the military oddly:confused:

I would jump at the opportunity...so long as there was luxuries such as alcohol (the limit on food might get on my tits but I suppose happy food will still exist)

lets change that to plumbers then. there is plenty of dealing with shit in plumbing.

and yet when we look at how many plumbers there are in the world...

Where do you get the time and money?
Currently I get paid for my work - get paid more than I need to buy the necessities like food, clothing and so on. I do not get paid for time I do not work, but since I have received more money than I need for necessities I can spend that extra money on hobbies and other expensive things. It even allows me to volunteer for stuff from time to time.

Why would you be 'charged' for your other pursuits, in the above situation? Wouldn't someone else be volunteering that service, too?

The services maybe. The resources are somewhat hard to volunteer.

Furthermore, you will always have the issue of certain necessary jobs will often be unattractive, whilst others will be highly attractive, so you will probably have a labour imbalance.


While this is true - for undesirable jobs, you could do some kind of jobshare. Balance your labour-imbalance by balancing four 8-hour days of the 'good' job with one day on the mushroom farm... or whatever.

I do something I enjoy but not as a job. I do it because though I enjoy it I feel it will help my employment prospects in the future. Now if I was guaranteed housing and food along with some goodies then yes I would do it for free.

who WOULDNT want a 5000 sq ft/5 bedroom/3.5 bath/3 car garage home no matter what you have to do to get it?

I don't suppose that "shooting Jews by the hundreds into lime-filled pits in the ground" would be an OK thing to do in exchange?

Please.

The services maybe. The resources are somewhat hard to volunteer.

Well - if for example, your fun is tourism... the 'tour' is always there... no new resources. Rock-climbing? Again, minimal outlay overall.

What sort of leisure are we talking about that is so consumptive?

Me. :)

My goals are actually more about a house that fits my needs, rather than me trying to expand to fit space. I will eventually build my own house, because this market doesn't satisfy my desire for an efficient (in terms of many factors... not least being truly energy efficient) living space. For similar reasons, I will probably never buy a new car, although I may well pay new-car costs to retrofit an old car into something I can drive for the next 50 years.

But then, conspicuous consumption doesn't interest me at all. I'm more the Tyler Durden type.

thats what (the husband and) i did. we built a nice small block house out in the woods. we built it ourselves and carry no debt on it. it has the few features that i wanted--2 bathrooms, tile floors, front porch, and no big showy features that cost money and add little to liveability.

we live as we choose and have no one to impress.

its so "unamerican"

I don't suppose that "shooting Jews by the hundreds into lime-filled pits in the ground" would be an OK thing to do in exchange?

Please.
is that what you thought i meant?

please

is that what you thought i meant?

please

You said who wouldn't do anything...

now more than ever. when i was young conspicuous consumption was considered tacky. now its considered necessary.
Quite. Pretty much the entire western world is essentially nouveau-riche. And it shows.

Well - if for example, your fun is tourism... the 'tour' is always there... no new resources. Rock-climbing? Again, minimal outlay overall.

What sort of leisure are we talking about that is so consumptive?

Taking part in F1 races. Flying light jets. Parachuting. Juggling gold bars. Be creative.

Capitalism is just a fancy word for greed, or as a behaviorist will put it, a reward based learning system. Since it is human nature to consume to some extend, the accumulation of wealth has been around ever since the oldest recorded civilization. This doesn't mean that modern Capitalism is sustainable if left unchecked. We just have to look not very long ago, such as US before Theodore Roosevelt, the kind of oppressive system that monopolizing and trust creates.

Between the common people, the government, and the wealthy, it forms a kind of triangle of checks and balances. The problem is that all 3 are dependent on each other so at any moment when power becomes too one sided, the society as a whole begins to collapse.

So a certain level of counter balance, often supported by the government, are necessary to maintain a sustainable society. Most western countries realize that and thus add many socialist features into their government. Take the US for example, our farming industries are as socialist as you can get, as our government literally pays for most of the production cost.

The problem with communism as a governing system is the need for class struggle. By eliminating capitalist entirely, you end up destroying the purpose of communism as a whole. Rather that workers becoming conscious and struggle for equality, leading to a shift of power, you just have a totalitarian government who tries to dominate every aspect of their citizen's life. A constant class struggle makes more sense in the form of labor union, than it is an omnipresent government.

So to answer the question of OP, sure I will do a job for "free" if they provide me with all living expenses. Providing that I can choose the job that I am interested in. However I have yet to see a communist government where the individual gets to choose what they wanted to do.

Communism doesn't work because Marx did not take human selfishness into consideration.

Communism doesn't work because Marx did not take human selfishness into consideration.

As pure capitalism doesn't work because it too did not take human selfishness into consideration.

Taking part in F1 races. Flying light jets. Parachuting. Juggling gold bars. Be creative.

Heh. Wouldn't those pursuits mainly be about the conspicuous consumer again?

Communism doesn't work because Marx did not take human selfishness into consideration.

D'oh.

Once again:

Repeat after me -

Communism =/= Marx

D'oh.

Once again:

Repeat after me -

Communism =/= Marx

It's arguable that he started it.

Heh. Wouldn't those pursuits mainly be about the conspicuous consumer again?

So, by your logic, some pursuits are legitimate and therefore allowed in this happy cash-less utopia and some are illegatmite and therefore must be banned.

Who decideds which are which? And how?

I dunno, what about my aviation hobby? Will I have to give up flying my single engine aircraft for pleasure?

If so, then no thanks.

...if you could do something that contributed to the benefit of society and you enjoyed doing, would you do it for free?
[...]
You do something you enjoy, you're housed, fed and cared for, do you still need payment?I think I'd like that. Certainly if my job is something I enjoy anyway; being free to do so only makes it better.

who WOULDNT want a 5000 sq ft/5 bedroom/3.5 bath/3 car garage home no matter what you have to do to get it?I wouldn't. What would I need that for, and who'll keep it clean?
Give me a house with one bedroom, one bathroom, one kitchen, and one living/computer/TV-room. And maybe a garage/shed to put a bike and garden implements. Ooh, and a garden, with some fruit trees, and maybe a vegetable patch.

It's arguable that he started it.Marx contributed greatly to communism, but the movement already existed before him, I think.

It's arguable that he started it.

I once started to paint a picture. I painted the entire canvas green and stopped. Later on, someone else painted a forest on a hill on the canvas, keeping my green for the grass, but using a blue pigment to paint the sky.

Is the picture still mine, as I envisioned it initially? Of course not. To imply otherwise is ludricious.

I once started to paint a picture. I painted the entire canvas green and stopped. Later on, someone else painted a forest on a hill on the canvas, keeping my green for the grass, but using a blue pigment to paint the sky.

Is the picture still mine, as I envisioned it initially? Of course not. To imply otherwise is ludricious.

A failed analogy.

It's more like everyone had a few ideas about pictures, tried painting in oils (and failed a few times), and you painted the first whole picture using oils.

Others came afterwards, making oil paintings, but yours was the first successful piece of art done in oil.

I once started to paint a picture. I painted the entire canvas green and stopped. Later on, someone else painted a forest on a hill on the canvas, keeping my green for the grass, but using a blue pigment to paint the sky.

Is the picture still mine, as I envisioned it initially? Of course not. To imply otherwise is ludricious.Uh huh.. Marx did a little more than just determine the base color. He gave a pretty good sketch of what the picture should become.

If all that was missing from a painting was the signature, would the picture be whomever's put his signature on? Of course not, that's ridiculous. As ridiculous as false analogies.

*snip OP*

Some people - probably even most - need incentive to try and excel - they need to have something better than their colleagues to show for it.

So yes, the fact that people would essentially abuse the system is the reason that pure communism wouldn't work in the large scale.

Of course, it is also the reason that pure capitalism doesn't work either.

When you discuss pure forms of either system, they rely on people to be "better than they've ever been".

It's arguable that he started it.

It's arguable that Jesus started it.

What's important, however, isn't who started it - but what it is, or could be. Formula One racing is probably not what Ford had in mind, moonlandings probably didn't figure in the plans of the Wright Brothers, Babbage wasn't likely to have been weighing up the pro's and con's of Spore or e-Harmony.

If we assume that Marx collected together the zeitgeist, and committed it to paper - that still doesn't make any impact on what the whole collective of 'communism' will mean, a century or more later.

It's arguable that Jesus started it.

What's important, however, isn't who started it - but what it is, or could be. Formula One racing is probably not what Ford had in mind, moonlandings probably didn't figure in the plans of the Wright Brothers, Babbage wasn't likely to have been weighing up the pro's and con's of Spore or e-Harmony.

If we assume that Marx collected together the zeitgeist, and committed it to paper - that still doesn't make any impact on what the whole collective of 'communism' will mean, a century or more later.

One might argue that the modern state communism, especially that where one man becomes the de facto embodiment of the Party, was Lenin's idea, and taken further by Stalin, done over by Mao, taken as lesson by Castro, Chavez, Mugabe...

A failed analogy.

It's more like everyone had a few ideas about pictures, tried painting in oils (and failed a few times), and you painted the first whole picture using oils.

Others came afterwards, making oil paintings, but yours was the first successful piece of art done in oil.

And so... what? There has been no other oil painting since?

The fact that the first painting was a picture of some sunflowers means that art can only be still life? That painting a person makes it 'not art'?

If Marx was the first recognised authority on oil painting - well, art didn't stop. Even oil painting continues to evolve.

One might argue that the modern state communism, especially that where one man becomes the de facto embodiment of the Party, was Lenin's idea, and taken further by Stalin, done over by Mao, taken as lesson by Castro, Chavez, Mugabe...

And?

What's the point you're trying to make?

State communism =/= Stalinism.

Communism =/= Marxism

So, by your logic, some pursuits are legitimate and therefore allowed in this happy cash-less utopia and some are illegatmite and therefore must be banned.

Who decideds which are which? And how?

Not at all, pretty sure I didn't say any of that.

The argument for juggling gold (just for example) is about pure conspicuous consumerism, though - isn't it? Why not juggle iron or lead? Or - hey - why not just juggle balls? It's the 'gold' that matters.

And the motivation is that conspicuous consumerism we were talking about. And - if conspicuous consumerism was no longer a la mode...

Some people - probably even most - need incentive to try and excel - they need to have something better than their colleagues to show for it.


Here, have a medal.

And?

What's the point you're trying to make?

State communism =/= Stalinism.

Communism =/= Marxism

The =/= is meaningless.

All state communism is a descendant of Marxism. They even put that in their own textbooks.

Most state communism devolves into Stalinism. So many times that it seems inevitable.

If my own needs were already taken care of, I'd love to. Unfortunately, the things I'm good at and enjoy are not in high demand. I'd probably do something off the wall, like shoot poachers at a wildlife refuge, or teach self defense using convicted rapists as dummies.

The =/= is meaningless.


I'll see whether I can find you a math site later, if I have time.

For the sake of this debate, let's just assume that it means 'is not equal to', k?


All state communism is a descendant of Marxism.


"Descendant of" =/= "is the same as".

Example: My daughter "is a descendant of" me.

See how that works?


They even put that in their own textbooks.


They? Their?


Most state communism devolves into Stalinism. So many times that it seems inevitable.

Most =/= all.

I'm not sure this is fun, anymore.

(Is it even worth pointing out that 'state communism' =/= 'the communist states of recent history'? Probably not, eh?)

"Descendant of" =/= "is the same as".

Example: My daughter "is a descendant of" me.

See how that works?


You're being deliberately obtuse because you know you'll lose if you admit that Marx is the progenitor of every Communist state (most of them failed) on the planet.

It's rather unavoidable, as nearly every textbook in every Communist state refers to "Marxist-Leninism" at some point.

You're being deliberately obtuse because you know you'll lose if you admit that Marx is the progenitor of every Communist state (most of them failed) on the planet.

It's rather unavoidable, as nearly every textbook in every Communist state refers to "Marxist-Leninism" at some point.

Not having read every textbook in every communist state, I can't really offer a stern defence on it. Although, I can point out that it is irrelevent.

What is it you think I'll 'lose' in this debate? I'm not denying that communism since Marx has been at the very least influenced by Marx, am I? I'm not denying that Marx is often considered the 'father of communism' (although it's entirely possible to track his influences back a lot further).

I wonder what you think I am arguing? You keep toting out strawmen.

My entire argument with you can be shortened down into a little logic puzzle - an equation.

Communism =/= Marx.

You've not come close to showing communism and Marx are identities of one another. You've not even come close to showing that modern trends in communism MUST bear any real relation to Marxism.

Not having read every textbook in every communist state, I can't really offer a stern defence on it. Although, I can point out that it is irrelevent.

What is it you think I'll 'lose' in this debate? I'm not denying that communism since Marx has been at the very least influenced by Marx, am I? I'm not denying that Marx is often considered the 'father of communism' (although it's entirely possible to track his influences back a lot further).

I wonder what you think I am arguing? You keep toting out strawmen.

My entire argument with you can be shortened down into a little logic puzzle - an equation.

Communism =/= Marx.

You've not come close to showing communism and Marx are identities of one another. You've not even come close to showing that modern trends in communism MUST bear any real relation to Marxism.

I haven't said they are identities. Please read back in the thread.

I've said that EVERY Communist state in modern times is a descendant of Marx's ideas.

I haven't said they are identities. Please read back in the thread.

I've said that EVERY Communist state in modern times is a descendant of Marx's ideas.

Which - even if true - doesn't contradict (in the slightest):

communism =/= Marx

Communism =/= Marxism.

However, every so-called Communist state in the 20th century has been Marxist. By the 21st, they either collapsed (all the ones in Europe), shifted to capitalism (China, Vietnam) or devolved into theocracies (North Korea).

Well, scratch that - Cuba is still Marxist (though it may shift to capitalism soon).

As an overall reply, if you want something, be it a holiday, alcohol, a nice car, there's probably people who will provide this for you.

One difference would be that there would be no companies 'creating' desires for 'stuff'.

There's also no government under this system, more an administration system but even that is fairly transitory. Some people love organising, you can contribute as well if you want, or do something else.

To alleviate the idea of 'not wanting to do crappy jobs', a target for life should be gaining as much experience of life as possible, society would be geared towards doing things both for responsibility to community and the opportunity to experience something.

Not wishing to add personal experience but while a student I worked as a garbage collector for a while, totally loved the experience - learned to hate cats though, who have little better to do than urinate on bags and then claw them open from underneath - but it was utterly worthwhile.

Pitch in, learn something new, teach your learnings to others, be interested in life rather than feel forced to step onto the hamster wheel of 'working for the man'.

We'd all seem to theoretically like the idea, Hotwife even volunteers anyway.

Other than saying whether you could accept this, any thoughts on how such a society might successfully operate would also be welcome.

Communism =/= Marxism.

However, every so-called Communist state in the 20th century has been Marxist. By the 21st, they either collapsed (all the ones in Europe), shifted to capitalism (China, Vietnam) or devolved into theocracies (North Korea).

Well, scratch that - Cuba is still Marxist (though it may shift to capitalism soon).

I believe the two Indian communist states consider themselves Maoists, rther than Marxists, per se.

You do raise an interesting point though.

A great philosopher once said: “If a white man falls off a chair drunk, it's just a drunk. If a Negro does, it's the whole damn Negro race.”

You notice the same thing here?

When the government is overthrown, and a communist state replaces it - it's a revolution. When a communist system is overturned, it's a searing indictment of the economic model...

Communism might work if investors invested into business (thus making it grow, enabling it to produce a much larger number of goods at cheaper costs as well as creating jobs) for any other reason than profit or to look good by supporting charities. Unfortunately they don't.

Where is my incentive to go "above and beyond?" If I come up with something remarkable, is there a reward system? My job is more important, I deserve a better house, better food, better car, better retirement. My invention changed the world, I should receive monetary rewards for that. The book I wrote was a best seller, shouldn't I get a cut of the money the publisher is getting when he sells the book? I made a discovery of a natural substance that will cure cancer, why don't I get any credit for it?

The problem w/ communism is that is assumes that people will give up their own self-interest for the benefit of the interests of the many - Its a nice fantasy, but a practical impossibility. You will never convince the bulk of humanity that they should place the majority of their personal needs and wants in a position that is subserviant to the needs and wants of society as a whole.

Communism might work if investors invested into business (thus making it grow, enabling it to produce a much larger number of goods at cheaper costs as well as creating jobs) for any other reason than profit or to look good by supporting charities. Unfortunately they don't.

SUrely, under those communist models that eschew monetarism, investors investing in businesses... would be irrelevent?

...if you could do something that contributed to the benefit of society and you enjoyed doing, would you do it for free?

You can roughly choose your housing given job type and location - type simply meaning if you work on a farm, you live on a farm, if you're in administration, you live in closer quarters, whether apartments or etc. - you can choose food, essentially for free, only cost being that you're contributing to society so don't overeat - essentially, be responsible - and have access to free education, at any age - you can join any class at anytime. Housing, food and educational are pretty much interchangeable.

You can work on a boat, you can study science, you can lecture, you can farm, you could do accounting, drive a tractor, learn history, make gadgets, monitor nuclear power etc.,

Health is also covered.

Does capitalism work simply because, although we could technically live life as above, we can't trust others not to abuse the system and if everyone works off this assumption, this is the result?

Does communism not work because, Lord knows, someone will abuse the system?

We trust ourselves but not others, hence capitalism by default?

You do something you enjoy, you're housed, fed and cared for, do you still need payment?

when you put it like that, all the free stuff IS the payment. so as long as i know im getting what i would if i had to buy it, then yes i would work for free

I don't disagree that this is the current incentive system, cash.

Where is my incentive to go "above and beyond?" If I come up with something remarkable, is there a reward system?

You enjoyed doing it though, why do you need more?

My job is more important, I deserve a better house, better food, better car, better retirement. My invention changed the world, I should receive monetary rewards for that. The book I wrote was a best seller, shouldn't I get a cut of the money the publisher is getting when he sells the book?

Everyone performing each task that goes into publishing your book enjoys doing it, no one wants reward, why do you?

I made a discovery of a natural substance that will cure cancer, why don't I get any credit for it?

You do, everyone's like: woah, that was cool!

The problem w/ communism is that is assumes that people will give up their own self-interest for the benefit of the interests of the many - Its a nice fantasy, but a practical impossibility. You will never convince the bulk of humanity that they should place the majority of their personal needs and wants in a position that is subserviant to the needs and wants of society as a whole.

Everyone but you, you could theoretically live this way?

Where is my incentive to go "above and beyond?" If I come up with something remarkable, is there a reward system?


How about 'excellence'? Just being the best in your field? Being all that you can be? OR - do you need a little medal or something?


My job is more important, I deserve a better house, better food, better car, better retirement.


Okay. Building houses is much more important than, say, being a mere accountant, right?

Providing drinking water is probably the most important job in a (especially first-world, especially an urbanised, industrialised) nation, right?


My invention changed the world,


That's not necessarily a good thing...


I should receive monetary rewards for that.


What good would 'monetary rewards' do you in a money-less society? And why 'should' you?

\
The book I wrote was a best seller,


Selling? Moneyless society?


shouldn't I get a cut of the money the publisher is getting when he sells the book?


What money? And - what is wrong with just writing because you like to write? For posterity? To share your art?


I made a discovery of a natural substance that will cure cancer, why don't I get any credit for it?


Why should you? Especially if it's naturally occuring, actually.

But, who says you don't receive any credit. You just might not receive a credit card.


The problem w/ communism is that is assumes that people will give up their own self-interest for the benefit of the interests of the many - Its a nice fantasy, but a practical impossibility. You will never convince the bulk of humanity that they should place the majority of their personal needs and wants in a position that is subserviant to the needs and wants of society as a whole.

The needs wouldn't be subservient.

You might convince people to trade in their 'wants', though - for the greater good - ESPECIALLY if you can come up with a model where people still get to satisfy some, if not all, of their wants... but never have to worry about their needs.

SUrely, under those communist models that eschew monetarism, investors investing in businesses... would be irrelevent?

Theoretically. However since communism doesn't necessarily abolish money, and often when it does it usually ends up getting replaced with 'tokens' which have exactly the same effect (see Spain during the civil war) - you've essentially got voluntary association's that use money, it's not really any different from businesses. Businesses need resources AND trade if you want them to produce the same surplus goods that they produce in the west today, which is extremely difficult without to do if there's nothing in it for the traders and for those who ascertain the huge amounts of resources for you (which a large portion will come from overseas, and overseas investors will not invest if they don't get a return).

Theoretically. However since communism doesn't necessarily abolish money, and often when it does it usually ends up getting replaced with 'tokens' which have exactly the same effect (see Spain during the civil war) - you've essentially got voluntary association's that use money, it's not really any different from businesses. Businesses need resources AND trade if you want them to produce the same surplus goods that they produce in the west today, which is extremely difficult without to do if there's nothing in it for the traders and for those who ascertain the huge amounts of resources for you (which a large portion will come from overseas, and overseas investors will not invest if they don't get a return).

Why are we needing surplus? Surely, 'enough' is enough?

And, why couldn't they 'trade'? If business A needs chemical A, and business B needs chemical B - and shipper X can transfer those goods between them... where is the problem?

Why are we needing surplus? Surely, 'enough' is enough?


You wouldn't be living very comfortably, lets put it that way.


And, why couldn't they 'trade'? If business A needs chemical A, and business B needs chemical B

Because that's very unlikely to ever happen in reality, the vast majority of the time, the only thing the business can offer the other company that's giving them the resources is money.

I don't disagree that this is the current incentive system, cash.ok

You enjoyed doing it though, why do you need more? Because I'm a selfish human being.

Everyone performing each task that goes into publishing your book enjoys doing it, no one wants reward, why do you?See the foregoing re: Selfish Human being.

You do, everyone's like: woah, that was cool!Thank you, now what do I get for it? Remember, I'm selfish.

Everyone but you, you could theoretically live this way?What? Sorry, I'm having some difficulty understanding your point here.

How about 'excellence'? Just being the best in your field? Being all that you can be? OR - do you need a little medal or something?I need the medal, I'm a typical, selfish human being.

Okay. Building houses is much more important than, say, being a mere accountant, right?

Providing drinking water is probably the most important job in a (especially first-world, especially an urbanised, industrialised) nation, right?Ok, so what, rank the jobs anyway you want, I still deserve better than someone else because I'm more important that someone else.

That's not necessarily a good thing...true, but so what?

What good would 'monetary rewards' do you in a money-less society? And why 'should' you?See the above re: selfish human and if the society is cashless then I deserve something other form of tangible items such as a new and better car and house and TV and . . .

Selling? Moneyless society?see the foregoing, I should get something tangible for my work that recogizes the excellence of it and that goes above and beyond the mere neccessities of life - reward systems act as an incentive.

What money? And - what is wrong with just writing because you like to write? For posterity? To share your art?There is nothing wrong with doing it because I like to and if I want to share it for free, that is my choice. What is wrong, however, with demanding some sort of extra compensation however, if you like my work?

Why should you? Especially if it's naturally occuring, actually.Because I discovered it, not you - see the foregoing coments re: selfish human

But, who says you don't receive any credit. You just might not receive a credit card. Why not?

The needs wouldn't be subservient.

You might convince people to trade in their 'wants', though - for the greater good - ESPECIALLY if you can come up with a model where people still get to satisfy some, if not all, of their wants... but never have to worry about their needs.But people "want" so many different and varied things that such a model is impossible and impractical. Keeping up with the Jones will still reign.

...Does capitalism work simply because, although we could technically live life as above, we can't trust others not to abuse the system and if everyone works off this assumption, this is the result?
?

No, capitalism works because it ties self-interest with meeting the desires of others. It is that simple.

Absolutely. Hardly anything that's possible could be better.

Where is my incentive to go "above and beyond?" If I come up with something remarkable, is there a reward system?Yes. The existence of the something remarkable is the reward.

Let's deconstruct the assumptions a bit.

Roughly choose your housing... and if I choose to be a novelist, I can live in a beautiful home on a cliff on a windswept cape, because I need it for inspiration?

Choose my food- lobster weekly, thank you. Education, other stuff, all free? I like quality.

But who provides these things? Do THEY have a choice? I've chosen lobster- where does it come from? What if too many of us choose lobster, and not enough of us choose to be lobstermen?

And who do I call if the cess pool needs repairs?

Do I have to guess that in the world of free choice, NONE of use chooses to repair cess pools?

Come on, show of hands, how many of you responded to Barringtonia's query with "ooh, yes, I WANT to work in a tank filled with other people's shit!"

Would you do it for the fame and glory of being among those select few who REALLY keep civilization going? I mean, take away our teachers, we'll muddle through, take away our plumbers, the world falls apart.

Can you name any inspiring, famous cess pool maintainers?

Is there a point to the rhetorical questions?

Yes. It is to lead one to query, "where do cess pool maintainers come from"?

We get them in one of two ways. In a market economy, some people volunteer for the job, because it pays better than the other options open to them. In a command economy, some people get volunteered for the job, and they have no other options open to them.

So whenever you read "you'll get..." remember that on the other end is someone being told "you'll provide...".

If you get all the free medical care you want, somewhere, on the other end, is a lab technician who must work as long and as hard as it takes to meet your wishes.

Let's make it clean and simple for analysis: imagine at its most basic form, society consists of 1 farmer/builder/factory worker and 1 doctor/teacher/hair stylist. And each provides for the other, and they split it all equally, and each works 8 hours a day. And one day, the farmer says, look, doc, I want a few extra hours of your time, my foot hurts. But, don't expect me to pay anything more. I expect to work my 8 hours growing your food.

One of two things is going to happen at this juncture.

1) The doctor will now work 10 hours to the farmers 8. He/she will now be the second class citizen in this tiny communist society, and he/she will resent it.

2) The doctor will demand some compensation, for the extra time, and they will come to an agreement. Perhaps the farmer/builder/factory worker will make the Doc a new lawn chair. Perhaps the Doctor/teacher/hair stylist will cut back on the amount of teaching he/she is providing, to restore the balance. Whatever the case, we have just invented capitalism.

You may think capitalism means corporations and tax credits and quality focussed extrapolated paradigms, but the reality is, that's just what grows out of it, just like what grows out of communism is the Stasi and bans on cell phones and bloated bureacracies. At the heart, communism is "to each according to his needs, the extent of which shall be determined by your government", but the heart of capitalism is "let's make a deal."

Absolutely. Hardly anything that's possible could be better.

Yes. The existence of the something remarkable is the reward.That's not enough, I want something tangible that, in my opinion, makes my life better.

Yes. The existence of the something remarkable is the reward.


Not only is this generally not true, it's often counter-productive!

If your job is to repair flat tires, then the only thing that might make your performance remarkable is the speed. No one gives a rat's butt what the tire plug looks like, but if you do it with blinding speed, THAT is impressive.

But, if you do this working in a shop with other tire mechanics, guess what that means? Right, more work for you. YOU get to do twice as many tires in a day, because your speed is so remarkable! Won't that be a great reward?

There is not one mechanic on earth who would be satisfied with that arrangement. Each and every one will demand compensation, in the form of more time off (so that he does the same total number of tires at the end of the day), or more money.

This is why, in a command economy, any given group of workers will always slow to the pace of the slowest one.

Why are we needing surplus? Surely, 'enough' is enough?

And, why couldn't they 'trade'? If business A needs chemical A, and business B needs chemical B - and shipper X can transfer those goods between them... where is the problem?


Your looking right at the problem and the answer but you don't see it. Why does shipper X, who needs neither chemical A nor chemical B, care?

Unless, of course, company A and company B are both producing a SURPLUS, some of which they can share with shipper x in return for transport?

Surplus, in this kind of economics use, does not mean unnecessary and extraneous. It means, we have more value out than we got in, so we can do something with the extra.

If enough is enough, why are you even on the internet, consuming energy? Surely face to face and paper communication, which was enough for 99.9% of Human history, is enough, and the surplus not needed? Or is enough not really enough?

nice analysis mott.

and to barringtonia...dont i even get a fucking medal??

That's not enough, I want something tangible that, in my opinion, makes my life better.The existence of the 'something remarkable' makes your life better.

Not only is this generally not true, it's often counter-productive!

If your job is to repair flat tires, then the only thing that might make your performance remarkable is the speed. No one gives a rat's butt what the tire plug looks like, but if you do it with blinding speed, THAT is impressive.

But, if you do this working in a shop with other tire mechanics, guess what that means? Right, more work for you. YOU get to do twice as many tires in a day, because your speed is so remarkable! Won't that be a great reward?

There is not one mechanic on earth who would be satisfied with that arrangement. Each and every one will demand compensation, in the form of more time off (so that he does the same total number of tires at the end of the day), or more money.

This is why, in a command economy, any given group of workers will always slow to the pace of the slowest one.Wowmaui said 'something remarkable', which I took to not be something like speed, but rather, to continue your analogy, a jack that lifts the cars up that significantly reduces the effort needed on the part of the tire changer.
The existence of the jack makes the tire changer's job easier, and therefore (presumably)makes his life better.

The existence of the 'something remarkable' makes your life better.

Wowmaui said 'something remarkable', which I took to not be something like speed, but rather, to continue your analogy, a jack that lifts the cars up that significantly reduces the effort needed on the part of the tire changer.
The existence of the jack makes the tire changer's job easier, and therefore (presumably)makes his life better.
The new jack makes my job easier, but it doesn't neccessarily make my life better, a 60" plasma screen TV and a royalty payment from every shop that adopts my invention so I can buy a yacht and quit work altogether, that would make my life better.

The new jack makes my job easier, but it doesn't neccessarily make my life better, a 60" plasma screen TV and a royalty payment from every shop that adopts my invention so I can buy a yacht and quit work altogether, that would make my life better.
or at least getting asked to all the good parties because you are the guy who invented that great jack!

if i cant have money, i want recognition.

or at least getting asked to all the good parties because you are the guy who invented that great jack!

if i cant have money, i want tangible recognition.

^ fixed

^ fixed
reasonable fix.

The new jack makes my job easier, but it doesn't neccessarily make my life better, a 60" plasma screen TV and a royalty payment from every shop that adopts my invention so I can buy a yacht and quit work altogether, that would make my life better.Quitting work altogether doesn't seem to be particularly fulfilling, and there is evidence that it is psychologically unhealthy. There is a reason that retired people frequently do volunteer work.

Quitting work altogether doesn't seem to be particularly fulfilling, and there is evidence that it is psychologically unhealthy. There is a reason that retired people frequently do volunteer work.
yes but someone has to have the job of sailing pretty young things around the carribean and putting sunscreen on their backs.

Not for profit, yes, at least for a bit. For cheap as free? Eh perhaps for a little time.

You are laboring under the misconception then that you could not have a system where your 'free' labor to society was not compensated overly by everyone else in society doing the same thing as you, then everyone would have access freely to the entire social product simply because they provided their own product to society.

You wouldn't be living very comfortably, lets put it that way.


I'm poor. I'm not living THAT comfortably now.

But, if 'enough' exists, how comfortable do I need to be?


Because that's very unlikely to ever happen in reality, the vast majority of the time, the only thing the business can offer the other company that's giving them the resources is money.

That's why you would set up reciprocation networks.
A needs b, B needs c, C needs x, etc.

Your looking right at the problem and the answer but you don't see it. Why does shipper X, who needs neither chemical A nor chemical B, care?

Unless, of course, company A and company B are both producing a SURPLUS, some of which they can share with shipper x in return for transport?

Surplus, in this kind of economics use, does not mean unnecessary and extraneous. It means, we have more value out than we got in, so we can do something with the extra.

If enough is enough, why are you even on the internet, consuming energy? Surely face to face and paper communication, which was enough for 99.9% of Human history, is enough, and the surplus not needed? Or is enough not really enough?

In English?

Why am I on the internet? Because I have a circle of friends that spans continents.

I think you're trying to argue a different meaning of 'enough'. There's really no reason why, in this day and age, a model couldn't provide enough food, enough housing, enough water, enough warmth... enough telephone talk time, enough broadband access.

As for your axe-job on the supply model... why wouldn't shipper x deliver the goods? That's his job. If he's not going to do it, someone else will, and he can... I don't know, peel taters.

What shipper X needs, is the 'to each' part of the equation. How shipper X 'pays' for that, is with the 'from each' part of the equation.

Let's deconstruct the assumptions a bit.

Roughly choose your housing... and if I choose to be a novelist, I can live in a beautiful home on a cliff on a windswept cape, because I need it for inspiration?

Choose my food- lobster weekly, thank you. Education, other stuff, all free? I like quality.

But who provides these things? Do THEY have a choice? I've chosen lobster- where does it come from? What if too many of us choose lobster, and not enough of us choose to be lobstermen?

And who do I call if the cess pool needs repairs?

Do I have to guess that in the world of free choice, NONE of use chooses to repair cess pools?

Come on, show of hands, how many of you responded to Barringtonia's query with "ooh, yes, I WANT to work in a tank filled with other people's shit!"

Would you do it for the fame and glory of being among those select few who REALLY keep civilization going? I mean, take away our teachers, we'll muddle through, take away our plumbers, the world falls apart.

Can you name any inspiring, famous cess pool maintainers?

Is there a point to the rhetorical questions?

Yes. It is to lead one to query, "where do cess pool maintainers come from"?

We get them in one of two ways. In a market economy, some people volunteer for the job, because it pays better than the other options open to them. In a command economy, some people get volunteered for the job, and they have no other options open to them.

So whenever you read "you'll get..." remember that on the other end is someone being told "you'll provide...".

If you get all the free medical care you want, somewhere, on the other end, is a lab technician who must work as long and as hard as it takes to meet your wishes.

Let's make it clean and simple for analysis: imagine at its most basic form, society consists of 1 farmer/builder/factory worker and 1 doctor/teacher/hair stylist. And each provides for the other, and they split it all equally, and each works 8 hours a day. And one day, the farmer says, look, doc, I want a few extra hours of your time, my foot hurts. But, don't expect me to pay anything more. I expect to work my 8 hours growing your food.

One of two things is going to happen at this juncture.

1) The doctor will now work 10 hours to the farmers 8. He/she will now be the second class citizen in this tiny communist society, and he/she will resent it.

2) The doctor will demand some compensation, for the extra time, and they will come to an agreement. Perhaps the farmer/builder/factory worker will make the Doc a new lawn chair. Perhaps the Doctor/teacher/hair stylist will cut back on the amount of teaching he/she is providing, to restore the balance. Whatever the case, we have just invented capitalism.

You may think capitalism means corporations and tax credits and quality focussed extrapolated paradigms, but the reality is, that's just what grows out of it, just like what grows out of communism is the Stasi and bans on cell phones and bloated bureacracies. At the heart, communism is "to each according to his needs, the extent of which shall be determined by your government", but the heart of capitalism is "let's make a deal."

The problem with your example, is that in trying to (or pretending to?) make it 'clean' and 'simple' for analysis - you invent a broken artifact.

Your dissection of it, then - is the dissection of a strawman. So - a logical fallacy. You can't make any objective analysis that way.

For example - we know that, with modern technology, for every hundred people in your 'commune-ity' only two of them will be farmers, sheep-shearers, cabbage-cutters, or whatever. Your one-for-one model is far beyond unrealism.

Let's assume ONE of your farmers needs medical attention - does that instantly mean that your one doctor (is it one?) has to work two hours of overtime? Or... is he THAT booked? Can he bump a customer to tomorrow (as doctors do, even under 'capitalist' models).

The problem is - you examine it as though every single person involved is bartering his or her services directly. Which is an insupportable assumption, to be honest - especially in groups of more than about 4 people. A more realistic examination would be that the doctor does his day doctoring, the farmer does his day farmer-ing... and when the farmer needs a doctor, he gets a doctor, because the doctor has always been able to call on the indirect service of the farm.

There's more to life than housing, food and education. Such a system would give a pretty safe, stable life, but a slightly boring one too.
Isn't that why he included the part about "enjoy"?