Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Communists.
Options
Comments
-
dreamlogic wrote: »Well you're the one who formulated the question as "what do you do if you work in a factory". So I answered with a rhetorical question to begin my answer. Please don't try to set it up like I was the one who formulated the question that way! And then change your original question :rolleyes:
Sorry?
The question I posed wasnt to do do with individual workers, more so how communist society would produce products as a whole.dreamlogic wrote: »Well again it wouldn't be vastly different from current human motives if you think about it.
So its the same....dreamlogic wrote: »Except that the element of greed is deincentivized.
...but completely different.
Look lets face it, most workers go into work not because of some higher theory on the ethics of good work, they want to make bob. By removing the element of "greed," I assume you are removing pay packets. So where does the motivation come from?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
"The question you posed" was NOT one single question and it is unfair of you to try and suggest so!Sorry?
The question I posed ...
For clarity, here is how "the question you posed" evolved over the course of a few posts:
So what you are obviously doing here is changing your question each time; and each time an answer is given, you maintain that it is all one question really, and that the other person is avoiding "the question you posed", which - at last count - had morphed into #3 listed above. They are 3 separate and distinct questions turgon! The first one is about a factory worker. The second is about an individual who may or may not be a worker. The third is - in your own words - about "how communist society would produce products as a whole"!1 - "Because it seems to me that communism ties people down in their innovation. If Im working in a car factory and I suddenly think up of a new type of engine, what do I do?"
2 - " You dont do anything. You put in work perfecting the idea, patenting it and then licensing it on to manufacturers. Thus being rewarded for your ingenuity."
3 - "...wasnt to do do with individual workers, more so how communist society would produce products as a whole. "
If you intended to ask only one question, then if you are really interested in exploring the issue, the sensible thing to do would be to retract your original wording and attempt to clarify what you really mean to say. I am sorry for being so blunt here, but you cannot expect people to be mindreaders!
So its the same....dreamlogic wrote: »Well again it wouldn't be vastly different from current human motives if you think about it.
As you can see I have emphasised the relevant phrases we each employed so that it can be seen how churlish and reactionary your responses are...
..but completely different.dreamlogic wrote: »Except that the element of greed is deincentivized.
So where on the list of priorities do you place what you call "ethics of good work"? We've already established that "making bob" is the top priority.Look lets face it, most workers go into work not because of some higher theory on the ethics of good work, they want to make bob.
And out of curiousity what do you even mean by "ethics of good work"? Are you referring to quality control, human relationships, ... what ?
Well you assume incorrectly.By removing the element of "greed," I assume you are removing pay packets.
Considering your unwillingness sofar to engage in a fair and openminded debate - even though I have been answering your questions in a fair manner - maybe I could be excused for declining to address this question, (and any further questions you may have, if that's your level of your engaging in debate).So where does the motivation come from?
And before you interject to accuse me of declining to answer because there is no answer or it's because you are correct etc, I will hasten to add that if anyone else wants to put those same questions, but who doesn't wish to twist and distort a person's answers in some petty playground-style of oneupmanship(which doesn't get anyone anywhere), I am willing to attempt to provide answers and/or participate in an exchange of views.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I did read the entire thread turgon. In fact I never enter into a discussion without reading the thread beforehand. That would be kind of rude. May I ask where in any of my posts did I say I didn't read the thread; or where did I indicate somehow that I had not read the thread?
Well if you didnt saunter on to the thread at page 21, you would realise there was one question that being how does communism produce products.dreamlogic wrote: »"The question you posed" was NOT one single question and it is unfair of you to try and suggest so!
And how does one "saunter" on an internet forum I'd like to know :pac:
As to your question about "producing products", what does that even mean? The word "product" derives from the word "produce". One is a noun. One is a verb. This is not primary school though.
I would suggest that if you are looking for the answer to a question, give the question you want to ask a little bit of thought beforehand and then we might get somewhere...
Perfectly valid examples. No argument there. What about them though?The examples I used were kitchen utensils and musical instruments, specifically spatulas.
Again asking me to read the thread? I'm telling you for the second time that I already read the thread before joining in.Please read the rest of the thread if your going to be throwing allegations like above.
"Throwing allegations" ? Riggghht :cool:
Again about reading the thread? That's 3 times you've said it now over the course of a short few sentences.
Reading the discussion so far, as you have failed to do, does not constitute mind reading.dreamlogic wrote: »I am sorry for being so blunt here, but you cannot expect people to be mindreaders!
Obviously that's what I'm saying. I have said this at least twice already. Clearly and in plain English too. Others earlier in the thread have also pointed out that wealth accumulation is not a top priority. How many times do you need this repeated to you before you are able to accept it as an answer and stop repeating yourself? If you disagree with this, then logically go on from there to state why you disagree, and ask another question leading on from that.
Are you saying it isnt?dreamlogic wrote: »We've already established that "making bob" is the top priority.
Has it not occurred to you that maybe he enjoys his job, and that job satisfaction is its own reward? Many teachers enjoy their job and see it as a vocation. My sister is in the same profession and she loves it.
I am referring to the way some people, like my teaching father, go to work and work to the best of their ability for no other benefit other than a feeling he has a moral obligation to. He oft times works overtime in school and at home on his laptop. He goes way beyond the required standard accepted of primary teachers, and gets no reward for this. He sees working way over what is expected to be ethical.dreamlogic wrote: »And out of curiousity what do you even mean by "ethics of good work"?
Nah that's 4 times you've actually said it now :P You're still wrong though, even after saying the same thing 4 times. Maybe if you say it a 5th time, that might do the trick.For the third time, read the thread.
So are you saying I'm not welcome to join in the discussion? If that's the case then why don't you start your own private discussion forum and discuss this issue in a closed environment with a "no trespassers" sign on the front?Both Donegalfella and asdasd were asking the exact same question before you joined in.0 -
-
Fair enough. I get that. I still think we need to be more specific about what we're asking though..Playstation is a product. Sony produces Playstation. Sony produces a product. Is that ok? Or would you like to send more time on semantics rather than the topic?Your very welcome. The more communists on the thread the higher the probability for some answers about the practicalities of communsim.BtB made a criticism of capitalism in that a surplus is produced. Also the others said it was ridiculous that we had 20 manufacturers making cars. Also they want people "de-alienated" from their work.If people are to be de-alienated, does that mean they must see the finish product?
Well first of all let me say that I'd hesitate to identify myself as a communist. I am a critic of the capitalist system because of the fact that it is fundamentally undemocratic. What I mean by that is that it is hierarchical and people do not have power(financial, moral etc) commensurate with the actual work that they put into what is produced. Which should be at equivalent(or almost) to the bosses power IMO. I am against concentration of power in one individual, or one entity(central government for example). I think that society would be a far better(nicer) and more productive place if power was distributed rather than only being the preserve of the few. This is the crux of alienation - people not having a say basically.
It is a whole attitude about how things should be done in capitalism. It's almost as if the people at the top are afraid of people who are further down in the hierarchy. And vice versa. This attitude is contagious and propagates distrust and suspicion of each others motives. Thus people who are alienated will also see the world as "each man for himself". After all you can hardly expect them not to start thinking this way, if their leaders and mentors behave in this way, they have been educated this way since childhood etc. People are told everywhere you look in the business world that it's dog-eat-dog and that if you can't be greedier than the next person, someone will trample over you to get ahead; that all this is inevitable.
Many people would have you believe that unless you are super-greedy, you can't be "a success" in life. If you think about it, there is something very wrong with this message. I admit that a certain amount of greed up to a certain point is natural and healthy. We all need the basics as well as what could be called extras(non-essentials).. And we all need to be fairly remunerated for the work that we contribute. Capitalism goes beyond and actually distorts and manipulates this natural human element of greed for its own ends. In my opinion anyway. If other aspects of what makes us human were incentivized, and the emphasis was removed from the element of greed, our whole consciousness as a race would change too.
In what I've just said I've told you more or less what I think about alienation. It is a very important concept that deserves discussion and ought not be glossed over.
Actually the biggest problem with this discussion - and this nothing at all to do with the participants themselves - is that the topic is way too large and there are so many questions to be asked and each question deserves a thread of its own. Maybe someone - if they want to disuss this more - could start a new thread on say "alienation", or any other topic that warrants discussion in its own right... Another topic that could be a whole thread(or series of threads) would be along the lines of market abolitionism(or aspects of this) which Joycey was talking about earlier. The topic "Communism" is simply too large a topic to do justice to each concept without taking from the topic as a whole. Anyway I am pressed for time here... Turgon I will get back to the rest of the questions you raise later. (Also I have to go back and read the last couple of pages of what other people wrote..) Or - if someone wants to start a new thread on those topics - I'll continue in that new thread. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement