Communists.

turgon

S-Murph, you do not think it, but you are exactly like the creators of communist state.

You come on here explaining Communism. You tell us whats "good for us." Apparently social interaction is "good for us." You tell us that getting in touch with what we produce is "good for us." You seem to have a very good view of whats "good for us."

You tell us that certain things will be rewarded, and notably it seems you will be the one to decide what merits award. And apparently reward is linked to your ability. So a disable person is made a king for building a wooden cat house, while an able worker given nothing from making a nice house.

Your just one step away from telling us that the Ukraine Famine is "good for us," too. Your one step away from telling us that a mansion and a limo is what you deserve to be rewarded, while we grovel on the ground snatching your scattered breadcrumbs. With your convictions I have no doubt you would end up just like the rest of the "communists."

turgon

And btw, you get no respect here for ignoring comments from other posters.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

S-Murph, you do not think it, but you are exactly like the creators of communist state.

Im nothing to do with a communist state.

You come on here explaining Communism.

Yes

You tell us whats "good for us."

No.

Apparently social interaction is "good for us."

Yes. You dont have to be a socialist to tell you that.

You tell us that getting in touch with what we produce is "good for us."

I dont have a clue what your referring to.

You seem to have a very good view of whats "good for us."

I have my views, as do you.

You tell us that certain things will be rewarded, and notably it seems you will be the one to decide what merits award.

No.

And apparently reward is linked to your ability.

Yes, in socialism.

So a disable person is made a king for building a wooden cat house

No, socialism opposes monarchy.

while an able worker given nothing from making a nice house.

Nobody said that.

Your just one step away from telling us that the Ukraine Famine is "good for us," too.

Join the other chap in the totalitarian thread. Nothing to do with here.

Your one step away from telling us that a mansion and a limo is what you deserve to be rewarded,

Havnt a notion what your on about.

while we grovel on the ground snatching your scattered breadcrumbs.

No im talking about socialism, not capitalism.

With your convictions I have no doubt you would end up just like the rest of the "communists."

I couldnt give a damn what you think. Especially from what iv seen so far.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

And btw, you get no respect here for ignoring comments from other posters.

Great.

Do people get "respect" for derailing threads too?

turgon

You did actually come out with a list of things that are good for us.

I think money is good for me - it allows me to purchase lots and lots of books. But Im just deluded right?

Anyway, why dont you go address asdasd's post on the restaurant?

And who decides reward, if you dont?

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

You did actually come out with a list of things that are good for us.

I outlined a theory of human motivation. If you disagree with that, fine. Just remember that disagreeing with something does not make you right.

I think money is good for me - it allows me to purchase lots and lots of books. But Im just deluded right?

No. But I dont think its the money which is good for you, given your description. Rather, the books. The money is just bits of metal and paper after all. But if thats what your into there's a few scrap yards around.

Anyway, why dont you go address asdasd's post on the restaurant?

And who decides reward, if you dont?

You mean the post where he continuously derails the thread by introducing the topic of totalitarianism - and without ever understanding my previous posts?

But to answer.

His explanation already contain the 'seeds' of a socialist reward system. The Butcher gets his money/custom.

Money in and of itself is not the motivation, as I have already said numerous times. So we must look at why the butcher works for currency. For one, he has his needs - food, shelter, a bed, bills, transport etc.

After this he has his physical comfort. Improved living conditions and food for their mere utility value.

After this you have his expenditure on forms of both 'social recognition' and self expression. By self expression it is meant activities undertaken for his own self attainment and experience. Drawing, for example. This may overlap with and involve forms of social recognition. To realise the value of his drawing, he may seek to show other individuals - thus self expression and social recognition is attained in one go.

I really need more information about the butcher to address why he works. I do propose that those reasons will fall amongst those four catagories above.

---

If you are still not clear, let me explain further....

It is not a state which gives reward, its the persons active participation in, and with, the society in which he lives. He recieves various forms of rewards through his subjective evaluation of what he percieves from other members of society, and his own actions.

All reward values are subjective to the individual, even under capitalism. A poor person might make alot of ten euro, a rich person may not. Despite recieving the same currency, they subjectivley interpret their value differently.

Think of amateur football. Who gives out the rewards to the individuals who play?

On the one hand, they may recieve official rewards - plaques, medals etc., and on the other they recieve their reward by both participation in the game itself (self expression) and the receptive interaction with other members of the team (social recognition).

The fact that they dont get paid does not make them play any less, nor does it mean playng is not rewarding. Its rewarding driectly through participation.

Similarly, working within socialism is rewarding through participation and interaction. It would no longer be possible to attain social values or social recognition, to any significant degree, from material wealth or objects. Since people seek social recognition, by virtue of being social animals, they must find it through other ways. Within socialism, work itself becomes the means, becomes the want in a persons life.

As mentioned, people already do work for social recognition, and forms of social power and self actualisation. To understand socialism, its simply a matter of looking at this motivation minus money and material wealth, the medium under capitalism.

There does not need to be any 'warping of so-called human nature'. People will work for very much the same reasons as they do under capitalism.

turgon

You talk of reward. Money, you see, is a universal tool by which anyone can get any specific reward they want (once they have attained enough reward). You seem to be advocating the removal of money, and instead the introduction of direct reward. But how do we judge who gets what rewards? Are some rewards worth more than others?

I see where you are coming from with the football story. But who is going to have fun working on an assembly line?

I think your too eager to generalise. You talk of human as "social creatures" yet I know of one man who lived alone his whole life in virtual confinement. It was the only way he wanted to live. Are you going to punish him by refusing rewards?

Also I dont know about this self recognition. Are we all going to go parading around the town showing off our wears? What if I dont like drawing?


Your system does imply a self control. You are not simply designing an economic system; you are effectively planing how people live their lives (drawing and socialising etc). The beauty of capitalism is everyone is left to do what they want.

asdasd

But to answer.

Not really.

His explanation already contain the 'seeds' of a socialist reward system. The Butcher gets his money/custom.

Primarily he gets my money. About my custom he would care less were it not for my money.

Money in and of itself is not the motivationas I have already said numerous times.

If it were not the main reason he would give his food away for free. And gain recognition.

So we must look at why the butcher works for currency. For one, he has his needs - food, shelter, a bed, bills, transport etc.

Which he needs currency for. Since the providers of shleter, beds, transport expect a reward not a clap on the back.

My restaurant example wanted an explanation of how the restaurant would work without money. What we have here is a list of peoples needs.

After this he has his physical comfort. Improved living conditions and food for their mere utility value.

Which he can get in a money system by working harder.

After this you have his expenditure on forms of both 'social recognition' and self expression. By self expression it is meant activities undertaken for his own self attainment and experience. Drawing, for example. This may overlap with and involve forms of social recognition. To realise the value of his drawing, he may seek to show other individuals - thus self expression and social recognition is attained in one go.

Marvelous. Chap has a hobby. We just really cant get how the moneyless system works.

So let me ask again. Teh farmer, the butcher, the cheesmaker. Why would they bother producing anything in a moneyless system, for anybody. Why would it matter what the quality they produced was since the payment - zero - would be the same. And why would I get a free meal from a restaurant owner, who would get free food from the suppliers who would get their needs looked after by whom - since you dont believe in a State.

I am not getting it. The system cannot work. The restaurant has no business doing business.

Everybody starves.

asdasd

By the way the amateur football example falls flat on its face. Here is the real reason why amateur footballers play for free.

They are not good enough to be paid

As Turgon suggested playing football is one of the more enjoyable work activies. As such it - unlike say cleaning toilets- is also a hobby.

However despite being a hobby, and despite being fun for its practicionars, the very best footballers do not work for free.

They work for money.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

You talk of reward. Money, you see, is a universal tool by which anyone can get any specific reward they want (once they have attained enough reward).

Yes, within the capitalist market this is the case. It dosnt work with friendships or within families however. Rewards within these institutions happen directly. You cant, in general, buy friendship or family.

Is interaction with friends 'motivating'? is it rewarding?

I find it is, and I think most would think so too.

So it is not as universal as it may seem.

You seem to be advocating the removal of money, and instead the introduction of direct reward. But how do we judge who gets what rewards? Are some rewards worth more than others?

The entire reward system, in any society, is subjective. What a person 'feels' about a reward is not really calculable, but only in the individuals mind.

As with the example in the previous post, capitalism may reward a poor and a rich person with ten euro. Which person gets the reward 'worth' more?

Well, its up to the individuals to determine what its worth. Capitalism cannot determine this.

People judge, through their interaction, how they recieve the actions and participation of other individuals.

If you perform badly on an amateur football team, you will know about it. If you perform good, and the team are satisfied, well thats a rewarding experience. gaining both social acceptance and respect - amongst many others.

I see where you are coming from with the football story. But who is going to have fun working on an assembly line?

Well thats the thing. Capitalism, and its social and property relationships shapes and creates our cultural perceptions of various occupations.

For example, the army may not be a particularly enjoyable occupation. Yet, cultuarally, there is a perception, created within the system, which boosts its 'prestige' rating. People want to join the army. That alone is worth investigating why this may be.

But take for example a cleaner. Would our perceptions of that occupation change if it were a very well paid job? would people want to be a cleaner? Would it be culturally associated with the 'bottom rung'?

I think not. For the pay is the exchange to achieve forms of 'social recognition'. The more pay, the better society precieves that occupation.

Similarly, with a production line, if production line workers are demanded and needed, then the recognition and cultural screen society gives to that occupation would be high - and people would activley want to do it.

There would also be the fact that workplaces would be democratically run, power distributed, alienation removed significantly and a persons life would be more voluntary. Combine all these, and more, and its not improbable that people would activley pursue it.

We as individuals are all about what position we obtain in society. Everything we do, from the clothes we wear, our behaviour and actions, are influenced, to a massive degree, by the cultuaral and social screen we are placed within.

We might not consciously think it, but we are.

I think your too eager to generalise. You talk of human as "social creatures" yet I know of one man who lived alone his whole life in virtual confinement. It was the only way he wanted to live. Are you going to punish him by refusing rewards?

No, but I think he is in an extreme minority. I cant comment on this situation, but it would be interesting to know whats inside his head. He must interact with society somehow - books? internet? TV?

How much of him as an individual are an impression of society? - his clothes? haircut? etc.

He wouldnt be punished. Infact, if he dosnt like participating with society, making him participate would be a punishment. So isolation, for him, is a reward.

Also I dont know about this self recognition. Are we all going to go parading around the town showing off our wears? What if I dont like drawing?

"Social recognition" I understand can be misleading. I havnt really defined it in this thread. I call it recognition in that we, as individuals, seek to be recognised. We dont want to be invisible. Without society - its ideas, assistance, interactions - who are we? Imagine living without ever seeing another conscious soul. What would we be? What would we think of ourselves? Would we be self conscious?

Being 'recognised' as an individual is extremely important. We are impressions of society - its values, ideas, norms. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization).

We wouldnt be anything without other individuals, human or otherwise. It would be solipsist.

So social recognition is not about "looking for attention". Its about interactions with other individuals. All that we gain from those interactions. Interactions that we seek. Even as I speak, I am interacting. I am shaping my consciousness, doing what I like. I can bounce ideas off here thus shaping who I am, what I think.

To be recognised is to have interaction with other individuals, good or bad.


I just used drawing as an example.

Your system does imply a self control. You are not simply designing an economic system; you are effectively planing how people live their lives (drawing and socialising etc). The beauty of capitalism is everyone is left to do what they want.

In socialism, people are left to do what they want too. Even more so infact. We can consume what we want, work when we want and undertake activities that we want.

Socialism seeks to change the social framework and fabric in which people live.

This social fabric affects who we are and what choices we make. Again, while we may think we are free, much of our actions, thoughts, behaviour, choices are merely an impression of the society in which we live. Much of it is subconsciously learned.

People who are now unemployed would feel trapped. People who are now starving, or working in a job simply to maintain it - I wouldnt call 'free' myself.

Its a form of economic coercion.

S-Murph

Primarily he gets my money. About my custom he would care less were it not for my money.

He cares about his social position however.

Or is he a hermet like the chap turgon described.

If it were not the main reason he would give his food away for free. And gain recognition.

Thats not sustainible. He needs to be profitible to maintain an income to give food away.

Lots of people do infact volunteer in preparing food, time and money for charitable causes such as the simon community.

Which he needs currency for. Since the providers of shleter, beds, transport expect a reward not a clap on the back.

In capitalism yes. The capitalist market governs our social relations.

My restaurant example wanted an explanation of how the restaurant would work without money. What we have here is a list of peoples needs.

For all I know restaurants might not even exist. Thats up to people to decide. If they gain from it then I suppose they would.

Which he can get in a money system by working harder.

Capitalism is incapable of rewarding based upon hard work.

Marvelous. Chap has a hobby. We just really cant get how the moneyless system works.

So let me ask again. Teh farmer, the butcher, the cheesmaker. Why would they bother producing anything in a moneyless system, for anybody. Why would it matter what the quality they produced was since the payment - zero - would be the same. And why would I get a free meal from a restaurant owner, who would get free food from the suppliers who would get their needs looked after by whom - since you dont believe in a State.

I am not getting it. The system cannot work. The restaurant has no business doing business.

Everybody starves.

I have already explained. They would work for pretty much the same reason as they do now. They would seek to better their quality for the same reason as they do now.

Money is not the end goal in any society, and material wealth without social value is, well, valueless. Its not 'wealth'.

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

By the way the amateur football example falls flat on its face. Here is the real reason why amateur footballers play for free.

They are not good enough to be paid

As Turgon suggested playing football is one of the more enjoyable work activies. As such it - unlike say cleaning toilets- is also a hobby.

However despite being a hobby, and despite being fun for its practicionars, the very best footballers do not work for free.

I explained in my previous post.

smegmar

I completely agree with S-Murph (Kudos given). Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs

In 1954, Maslow first published Motivation and Personality, which introduced his theory about how people satisfy various personal needs in the context of their work. He postulated, based on his observations as a humanistic psychologist, that there is a general pattern of needs recognition and satisfaction that people follow in generally the same sequence. He also theorized that a person could not recognize or pursue the next higher need in the hierarchy until her or his currently recognized need was substantially or completely satisfied, a concept called prepotency. It is often illustrated as a pyramid with the survival need at the broad-based bottom and the self-actualization need at the narrow top.

In a socialism society the lower motivators would all be satisfied by the state. A house, food, water security and stability could all be provided. Then it is the higher needs that drive us. Self respect, respect from others, self development.

Remember, if you can, any sustained period where you could not go to work/school due to illness or other causes. eventually you will get board of daytime TV, and missing out what your friends are getting up to all day. eventually there will be a shame in your own lack of work, productivity and purpose.

If this seems unlikely, find someone who was made redundant or forced to retire or even won the lottery, and there are quite a few. Even though they can at will do nothing except the pursuits of pleasure many will want to work, actively fight for it [ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0726/1217013245744.html ]

People want to work. Everyone want to find meaning. If that be as a cleaner, chief of surgery, butcher, Taoiseach, factory worker or bin man. It is a human need and to keep the system based on such base concerns as food and housing is insulting to our species

S-Murph

smegmar wrote: »

I completely agree with S-Murph (Kudos given). Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs

In 1954, Maslow first published Motivation and Personality, which introduced his theory about how people satisfy various personal needs in the context of their work. He postulated, based on his observations as a humanistic psychologist, that there is a general pattern of needs recognition and satisfaction that people follow in generally the same sequence. He also theorized that a person could not recognize or pursue the next higher need in the hierarchy until her or his currently recognized need was substantially or completely satisfied, a concept called prepotency. It is often illustrated as a pyramid with the survival need at the broad-based bottom and the self-actualization need at the narrow top.

In a socialism society the lower motivators would all be satisfied by the state. A house, food, water security and stability could all be provided. Then it is the higher needs that drive us. Self respect, respect from others, self development.

Remember, if you can, any sustained period where you could not go to work/school due to illness or other causes. eventually you will get board of daytime TV, and missing out what your friends are getting up to all day. eventually there will be a shame in your own lack of work, productivity and purpose.

If this seems unlikely, find someone who was made redundant or forced to retire or even won the lottery, and there are quite a few. Even though they can at will do nothing except the pursuits of pleasure many will want to work, actively fight for it [ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0726/1217013245744.html ]

People want to work. Everyone want to find meaning. If that be as a cleaner, chief of surgery, butcher, Taoiseach, factory worker or bin man. It is a human need and to keep the system based on such base concerns as food and housing is insulting to our species

Thank you smegmar, well said.

What I am saying is consistent and compatible with Maslows hiererchy of needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs

dreamlogic

At least someone like donegalfella has the integrity and the balls and the manners to address questions that were put to them.
asdasd has been asked on at least 3 occasions now to back up or elaborate on his assertion that a state will simply go to war against another state simply for the hell of it.
Again asdasd! You said yourself that a state will go to war regardless of what its population thinks. So. Why then does a state go to war? Simple question which you've refused to answer.
Let's hear your answer then, presuming you're interested in exploring the topic.
Thanks in advance.

smegmar

Imagine a world in which your motivation was self esteem and social recognition and not money for the most basic of needs. All forms of crimes would go down drastically. Burglary, fraud and prostitution would be almost completely wiped out. In a moneyless society drugs would not exist, the buyer would not have money, the seller no self esteem, and without the profits the supplier has no reason to supply.

The capitalistic idea of "work harder and get rewarded" doesn't seem to work in reality. In most occupations it's not the effort put into a job but rather the innate characteristics and social connections that determine your progression.



+Sorry thought I put in the link to Maslows hierechy in the last post.

S-Murph

smegmar wrote: »

Imagine a world in which your motivation was self esteem and social recognition and not money for the most basic of needs.

And thats just the thing smegmar. We already do work for these things. Except within capitalism, we are channeled into acheiving them through material wealth accumilation. Material wealth becomes the measure of ourselves. Our self worth. Our success.

Is it neccessary is the question. I think not. Look at friendships and family relations.

smegmar

dreamlogic wrote: »

At least someone like donegalfella has the integrity and the balls and the manners to address questions that were put to them.
asdasd has been asked on at least 3 occasions now to back up or elaborate on his assertion that a state will simply go to war against another state simply for the hell of it.
Again asdasd! You said yourself that a state will go to war regardless of what its population thinks. So. Why then does a state go to war? Simple question which you've refused to answer.
Let's hear your answer then, presuming you're interested in exploring the topic.
Thanks in advance.

I really can't speak for asdasd, but I would put forward the idea that if a group or entity wanted to force a state of war between nations it is easier to do then you might think.

A prime example in Gulf war II. many would believe the US administration under president Bush manipulated the facts of September 11th in order to peruse an agenda of war against the nation of Iraq. Never did Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) threaten America, claim to have nuclear weapons or break any international agreement since Gulf War I.

Granted a government can't go to war without popular consent but that too can be shifted into a favorable outcome with the right propaganda.

dreamlogic

smegmar wrote:

really can't speak for asdasd, but I would put forward the idea that if a group or entity wanted to force a state of war between nations it is easier to do then you might think.

I am not questioning at all the 'ease' with which it can be done. Actually what disturbs me most about the current era is the very ease in which this can be accomplished without consulting the general populace. This is how it is in USA. This is how it is in Europe. They want disenfranchisement. Why can't ppl see that?!
You seem to be putting forward the idea that war is somehow a natural and acceptable way of dealing with disagreement. My stong point of view is that we are in 2009 - a progressive society in which we should have long moved on from dropping bombs on civilians, going to war as a means of communicating with someone who happens for various reasons to have a different point of view etc.

A prime example in Gulf war II. many would believe the US administration under president Bush manipulated the facts of September 11th in order to peruse an agenda of war against the nation of Iraq. Never did Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) threaten America, claim to have nuclear weapons or break any international agreement since Gulf War I.

Exactly. Well that's cool, we cannot disagree. My hope as a mere pleb...with no agenda or vested interest whatsoever is that ppl would just wake the **** up and stop trusting the fat cats at the helm, Cowen et al being the latest incarnation and so it goes.

Granted a government can't go to war without popular consent but that too can be shifted into a favorable outcome with the right propaganda.

Sorry but what planet are you living on?!
What do you mean by 'popular consent' here? Are you including mass apathy here? I am fully aware that this is a seperate issue from the topic being discussed but please at least clarify your point here.

silverharp

smegmar wrote: »

Imagine a world in which your motivation was self esteem and social recognition and not money for the most basic of needs. All forms of crimes would go down drastically. Burglary, fraud and prostitution would be almost completely wiped out. In a moneyless society drugs would not exist, the buyer would not have money, the seller no self esteem, and without the profits the supplier has no reason to supply.

how would you allocate scarce resources? why take a job on an oil rig? why bother going to northern canada to find the next copper deposit?
Also how do you migrate away from the current system. does a year 0 have to occur?

turgon

Ok I think I see what ye mean.

So one of the motivations in your system is to find social recognition and a feeling of pride within one work? This is the reward? No material gain, just the warm fuzzy feeling.

But I still dont see how I can translate being a good cleaner into getting new books.

Now the suggestion has been thrown out that the state provides the baser needs: housing and food. Are are there extras such as, as I mentioned, my appetite for books?

You also seem to have an idea of what is and isnt needed. I think restaurant will be needed. Theres little people like more on a working evening to not make dinner and go to a nice restaurant and relax.

smegmar wrote: »

People want to work. Everyone want to find meaning. If that be as a cleaner, chief of surgery, butcher, Taoiseach, factory worker or bin man.

Thats bull****. I know of a guy who went on the dole for 1 year after leaving school until he was forced off it. I see a lot of people in my town wasting away with drugs and just hanging around. One cannot generalise. Not everyone wants to work.

Also most people work just for money (material reward) and that cannot be avoided.

smegmar

Assuming most people in this thread have finished secondary school, please answer this question

When deciding which career path to take what were your influencing factors?

I doubt anyone decided on a career based on work/pay ratio. The main influencing factors would be either a genuine interest in the subject, a family member or close friend already in the area of study or prestige of the job.

there are some people who would gladly stay on the dole and do nothing in the current system, but they are a very small minority. Eventually people who have been out of work for so long without reason would be given menial tasks by the state, like FAS, {except without the ridiculous expenditure scandal}.

turgon wrote: »

I know of a guy who went on the dole for 1 year after leaving school until he was forced off it. I see a lot of people in my town wasting away with drugs and just hanging around. One cannot generalise. Not everyone wants to work.

We must remember that we live now in a capitalistic society and our motivations have already been shaped by that system, people living outside that system would have different motivations. Now your friend has no motive to work because he has financial reward and no need for social recognition in this system.

turgon wrote: »

Now the suggestion has been thrown out that the state provides the baser needs: housing and food. Are are there extras such as, as I mentioned, my appetite for books?

Yes there would be luxuries like books, computers, C.D's etc etc. They would be personal choice so you would pick them up at your discretion.

Consider one day, through the fruits of labour, that the government has a strong economy and surplus finance, and reward the population by improving the class of cars that they can have. If a government had to supply a nation with cars at about 3 million, don't you think every car manufacture in the world will be trampling each other to get that contract? And in turn the state would benefit from huge price per unit reductions. If you consider the state and population as a unit there is a massive saving for everyone as opposed to the capitalist system where each car is bought singularly.

Now understand it's not the exact same car that everyone will be given just a class of car. A car would be given to meet the needs of recipients. 5 person families would have a bigger car then, student living alone for example. Type is also based on personal choice etc etc there are allowances to any system.

asdasd

Again asdasd! You said yourself that a state will go to war regardless of what its population thinks. So. Why then does a state go to war? Simple question which you've refused to answer.

I dont read all of this thread. The email system for boards is a bit whacked. So I didnt see the question.

Why do States go to war. Many reasons. To benefit the State itself mostly, or elites including capitalists ( and Statists and Militarists) who benefit individually or colectively, to save face, to expand the area controlled by the State, because of previously assumed commitments ( like an entente) etc.

I mean this is kindergarten stuff and seems unrelated to the thread.

asdasd

Consider one day, through the fruits of labour, that the government has a strong economy and surplus finance, and reward the population by improving the class of cars that they can have. If a government had to supply a nation with cars at about 3 million, don't you think every car manufacture in the world will be trampling each other to get that contract? And in turn the state would benefit from huge price per unit reductions. If you consider the state and population as a unit there is a massive saving for everyone as opposed to the capitalist system where each car is bought singularly.

The State? I thought there was no State.

How does it buy cars in a moneyless system?

I mean I cant even get my head around exactly what you are on about. The precise version of communism change on a whim - there is a State. There isnt a State.

asdasd

What I am saying is consistent and compatible with Maslows hiererchy of needs.

Maslows hireacrchiy of needs is correct. However Status is comensuarate with material Status. A clap on the back is not going to make people feel that they have the respect of their peers. A medal might help. But a big house would help much more. And a car. And easy access to the best goods. That was how the communist system in practice ran - with the best workers ( scientists working on the space program) and communist members themselvels having access to the best goods in special shops, and getting the best housing.

Thats not communism, you say? Sure it isnt. Not by your Utopian measures. Marx wanted a economic system from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. This makes ability a liability and need an asset ( although social welfare can do that in capitalistic societies anyway). So the best scientist would get the crap house as he is single, and the couple with the most kids get the biggest house.

There is no chance of Maslows hierarchy being achieved in a system which rewards on need, not ability.

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

Ok I think I see what ye mean.

So one of the motivations in your system is to find social recognition and a feeling of pride within one work? This is the reward? No material gain, just the warm fuzzy feeling.

I think you are using wording which diminishes the motivations I have been speaking about.

Its not just a 'fuzzy feeling'. Its our very being as social animals to want to take part in society. We gain our very identity and consciousness from society. We are an impression of society.

Its not oh ill go to work today to "get a fuzzy feeling". Its im going to work because it makes me a complete person, it makes me happy, it gives me identity. I can achieve some sort of self value from my work.

But I still dont see how I can translate being a good cleaner into getting new books.

Books would be 'free' to take. Everything, with few exceptions, would be free to take. Even if you didnt work.

Now the suggestion has been thrown out that the state provides the baser needs: housing and food. Are are there extras such as, as I mentioned, my appetite for books?

See above.

You also seem to have an idea of what is and isnt needed. I think restaurant will be needed. Theres little people like more on a working evening to not make dinner and go to a nice restaurant and relax.

It works upon the very same principles as capitalism. If society needs something, or some labour, then the 'social recognition' and cultural value of that requirement would be greater. If people are doing easy jobs, or little work, then the social value decreases.

So you have a market of sorts. But not one based upon wealth accumilation or money, but on direct subjective, and otherwise incalculable values.

Thats bull****. I know of a guy who went on the dole for 1 year after leaving school until he was forced off it. I see a lot of people in my town wasting away with drugs and just hanging around. One cannot generalise. Not everyone wants to work.

Can I just say that there is a large misconception here. All sociological statistics on this particular subject indicate that the overwhelming majority of those unemployed and on the dole want to work, with few exceptions.

We cant just pick out individual cases, but we must look at it broadly.

silverharp wrote:

how would you allocate scarce resources? why take a job on an oil rig? why bother going to northern canada to find the next copper deposit?
Also how do you migrate away from the current system. does a year 0 have to occur?

The argument you brought up is the only significant argument against the functioning of a socialist or communist system. Its an economic one.

The difference between socialism and capitalism in the allocation of scarce resources is that socialists advocate rational planning.

Scarce resources would be planned.

This does not necessarily mean "central planning", but the planning process proposed by anarchists and libertarian Marxists like myself is a decentralised one. Other wise the economic calculation problem might ring true!

To 'migrate' there needs to be a socialist revolution. The system cannot be reformed out of existence. As James Connolly put it:

"Its not a Labour party the workers need. Its a revolutionary party pledged to overthrow the capitalist class in the only way it can be done, by putting up barricades, arming the workers and taking over the factories by force. There is no other way" - James Connolly

And no there dosnt need to be a year zero. This is crap from a looper called Polpot. Nothing to do with Marxism.

Asdasd wrote:

The State? I thought there was no State.

In Marxist socialism there would need to be a state. However 'the state' can be difficult to define the more libertarian you go.

A clap on the back is not going to make people feel that they have the respect of their peers. A medal might help. But a big house would help much more. And a car. And easy access to the best goods. That was how the communist system in practice ran - with the best workers ( scientists working on the space program) and communist members themselvels having access to the best goods in special shops, and getting the best housing.

No your talking about totalitarianism again. Did you start that thread yet?

Your other points above are merely reflections of values under capitalism.

Think outside the box for abit.

Thats not communism, you say? Sure it isnt. Not by your Utopian measures. Marx wanted a economic system from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. This makes ability a liability and need an asset ( although social welfare can do that in capitalistic societies anyway). So the best scientist would get the crap house as he is single, and the couple with the most kids get the biggest house.

There is no chance of Maslows hierarchy being achieved in a system which rewards on need, not ability.

You obviously dont understand the meaning of "from each according to ability to each according to need".

If a scientist "needs" a mansion, then according to this quote - he gets one.

Though such an occurance would not be anticipated, as I have explained billions of times already.

asdasd

And no there dosnt need to be a year zero. This is crap from a looper called Polpot. Nothing to do with Marxism.

its from a Marxist Academic. Althusser, I think. This is typical Marxism. Invent phrases. Impose a system. The say "That was not what we meant". In fact Pol Potism was an attempt at a libertarian, communal, moneyless from of communism based on the then current canonconical beliefs of entrenched Marxists, particularly French Marxists. His animosity to "intellectuals" was based on the Marxist idea that technical workers were being embourgeoised by the system. and were complicit in it. He was educated at the Sorbonne.

Your other points above are merely reflections of values under capitalism.

I clearly gave an example of life under communism worked.

I am not going to start a thread on totalitarianism because I think that Marxist libertarianism is ****. Marxism has to be totalitarian. You have to have a State to remove private property because people are not going to hand over their savings, their houses, their land ( farmers), their stocks, their pension funds, their restaurants, their small businesses without a fight. In fact Marxist teleogogy has also supported a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which meant what it said. All Marxists saw Stalinism as correct for generations. You dont get to demur now. In some readings the State disappears, mechanism not explained, after a generation or so.

The question about a "year zero" stands - without State intervention how does Libertarian Marxism seize my wealth. Or how do I , and the rest of the world, decide unanimously to give it up? If you have no answer to this you have no answer to anything.

You obviously dont understand the meaning of "from each according to ability to each according to need".

If a scientist "needs" a mansion, then according to this quote - he gets one.

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!! ROFL. Stop!! You are cracking me up.


I love the sneer about me not understanding a simple English word because seems to have a different meaning under Marxist rhetoric. Why should I care? The fact is you cant define "need". It is an utterly useless word as used by Marxists ( and I mentioned this earlier in the thread)

I tell you what I need under socialism then. All of Roman Abromovichs housing, a harem, and the entire Western Seaboard of the Americas.

You seem to be confusing need with desire, with want. To play in the real world, Marxists are going to have to use the same terminology as the rest of us. If need does not mean "basic necessities" in that usage, then everybodys need is going to become inflationary, dont you think?

S-Murph

asdasd wrote: »

its from a Marxist Academic. Althusser, I think. This is typical Marxism. Invent phrases. Impose a system. The say "That was not what we meant". In fact Pol Potism was an attempt at a libertarian, communal, moneyless from of communism based on the then current canonconical beliefs of entrenched Marxists, particularly French Marxists. His animosity to "intellectuals" was based on the Marxist idea that technical workers were being embourgeoised by the system. and were complicit in it. He was educated at the Sorbonne.

In popular consciousness, its from Polpots totalitarian regime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)

Lots of people "attempted" a 'libertarian, communal, monelyess form of communism'. These have nothing to do with Marxism, and such attempts are widely discredited and utopian.

Polpots regime couldnt possibly have been based upon Marxism. Marxism advocates the taking over of production by the working class themselves in an advanced capitalist society. Not by a political class. Besides, Cambodia didnt even have and industrial working class, it had a peasentry.

I clearly gave an example of life under communism worked.

You dont even know what communism is. The previous point I made outlines that.

I am not going to start a thread on totalitarianism because I think that Marxist libertarianism is ****. Marxism has to be totalitarian. You have to have a State to remove private property because people are not going to hand over their savings, their houses, their land ( farmers), their stocks, their pension funds, their restaurants, their small businesses without a fight.

You dont neccessarily need a state to fight. Common sense really. :rolleyes:

In fact Marxist teleogogy has also supported a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which meant what it said. All Marxists saw Stalinism as correct for generations. You dont get to demur now. In some readings the State disappears, mechanism not explained, after a generation or so.

Yeah and such a term is entirely misunderstood by people like you. Go read over Marx again. This time read it properly because you havnt a clue about what your talking about.

The question about a "year zero" stands - without State intervention how does Libertarian Marxism seize my wealth. Or how do I , and the rest of the world, decide unanimously to give it up? If you have no answer to this you have no answer to anything.

:rolleyes:

Sure people get burgalled all the time. Are they states which carry it out?

Honestly, use your brain.

I love the sneer about me not understanding a simple English word because seems to have a different meaning under Marxist rhetoric. Why should I care? The fact is you cant define "need". It is an utterly useless word as used by Marxists ( and I mentioned this earlier in the thread)

Need is defined by each individual subjectivly.

I never said anything to the contrary. Infact if you bothered to read over my previous posts ten times each (because I think you would particularly need to) then you would know that.

I tell you what I need under socialism then. All of Roman Abromovichs housing, a harem, and the entire Western Seaboard of the Americas.

Yawn. Im guessing you have a private army to enforce that.

You seem to be confusing need with desire, with want. To play in the real world, Marxists are going to have to use the same terminology as the rest of us. If need does not mean "basic necessities" in that usage, then everybodys need is going to become inflationary, dont you think?

Eh, no. It wouldnt become infaltionary. Read my previous posts. Im not repeating myself.

turgon

S-Murph wrote: »

Its not oh ill go to work today to "get a fuzzy feeling". Its im going to work because it makes me a complete person, it makes me happy, it gives me identity. I can achieve some sort of self value from my work.

One of my friend is employed for 9 hours day for Yves-Roche screwing lids on makeup. Where is the self-vlaue in that?

S-Murph wrote: »

Books would be 'free' to take. Everything, with few exceptions, would be free to take. Even if you didnt work.

Well thats the job, because Ive been really hankering for all 1082 Penguin Classics, although its unlikely I would read most.

And Ive also wanted a new laptop and a new car, so I assume Ill get all those. Hell, I may as well take a 1000 Dvds too in case im sick, and a handful of chandeliers for my home.

The point is you cant make everything free. Everyone is just going to take everything they want! There will be no restrictions, and certainly not enough to go around. A shortage will happen, and this has happened in Communist States before.

Do you still stand by the stance that it is effectively a free-for-all?

S-Murph wrote: »

It works upon the very same principles as capitalism. If society needs something, or some labour, then the 'social recognition' and cultural value of that requirement would be greater.

So people are going to be solely motivated by social value. But that utterly ridiculous. In your ideal system everyone will have every material object they could ever possibly want. So why go to the trouble of setting up a business. Why bother even have a job, given that the unemployed are also party to this free-for-all?

People are not going to be motivated by social recognition.

S-Murph wrote: »

We cant just pick out individual cases, but we must look at it broadly.

Wrong. Your system involves the forcible coercion of everybody into some system, therefore every single possible case must be examined.

S-Murph wrote: »

The difference between socialism and capitalism in the allocation of scarce resources is that socialists advocate rational planning.

Who is the lucky one who gets to the planning? Can they plan to appropriate lots of the communal property into their own hands?

S-Murph wrote: »

This does not necessarily mean "central planning", but the planning process proposed by anarchists and libertarian Marxists like myself is a decentralised one

It is still state planning, much like the USSR.

How does the state plan how many products need to be made. From earlier in the thread, how does the state plan how many spatulas need to be made?

S-Murph wrote: »

"Its not a Labour party the workers need. Its a revolutionary party pledged to overthrow the capitalist class in the only way it can be done, by putting up barricades, arming the workers and taking over the factories by force. There is no other way" - James Connolly

Lenin and Mau also used lovely force. What makes Connoly so different?

S-Murph

turgon wrote: »

One of my friend is employed for 9 hours day for Yves-Roche screwing lids on makeup. Where is the self-vlaue in that?

I dont know the person. Infact I know next to nothing about them or their lives. Its not possible for me to answer your question.

If, in socialism, the job were rewarding, then being in a position to gain social recognition gives you your self worth.

Self worth derives from society.

Well thats the job, because Ive been really hankering for all 1082 Penguin Classics, although its unlikely I would read most.

And Ive also wanted a new laptop and a new car, so I assume Ill get all those. Hell, I may as well take a 1000 Dvds too in case im sick, and a handful of chandeliers for my home.

The point is you cant make everything free. Everyone is just going to take everything they want! There will be no restrictions, and certainly not enough to go around. A shortage will happen, and this has happened in Communist States before.

A change in the social and property relations of society would alter how humans behave towards, and interact with, material objects.

Films or books, for example, would be used for their utilitarian value. Sharing, it would be anticipated, would increase. Things would be held and used 'in common'.

What you want now as regards a particular model of car, are a reflection of present social conditions. What you want now you may not want in a socialist society.

I think for most things, and taking into account the points above, there would be ebough to go around.

For other things, these would be rationally planned.

Do you still stand by the stance that it is effectively a free-for-all?

Yes.

So people are going to be solely motivated by social value.

Nope. Didnt I mention, as one of my catagories, 'self expression'?

But that utterly ridiculous. In your ideal system everyone will have every material object they could ever possibly want.

But what people 'want' is, for the most part, and in particular with objects used for anything other than utilitarian value, defined by society and the conditions in which they live.

People want material objects for a reason. Not 'for the sake of it'.

So why go to the trouble of setting up a business. Why bother even have a job, given that the unemployed are also party to this free-for-all?

As I said countless times already.

Money/material wealth is used for their social value. If Objects have no 'social value' then people wouldnt desire them.

It is society they seek. Not objects.

People are not going to be motivated by social recognition.

LOL.

They already are.

Wrong. Your system involves the forcible coercion of everybody into some system, therefore every single possible case must be examined.

As does 'your' system.

That does not prevent sociologists looking at society and social groups as-a-whole. Infact thats what sociology is, the study of society - ie, more than one individual.

Who is the lucky one who gets to the planning? Can they plan to appropriate lots of the communal property into their own hands?

Im guessing someone given the power to plan through democratic structures. They would have no desire to 'plan property into their own hands'. No social value would be attached to that property.

It is still state planning, much like the USSR.

How does the state plan how many products need to be made. From earlier in the thread, how does the state plan how many spatulas need to be made?

Its not state planning. A state is a dedicated institution, with full time participants, for the purposes of asserting property rights through violence.

A hospital, private or otherwise, is not a state because it 'plans' and allocates its resources. Its an organisational body.

So calling it state planning falls flat.

To answer your question. For most resources and products it will function as capitalism does - filling gaps in the "market".

For other, more scarce resources, rational planning will decide their allocation.

How better the world would be today even with an ounce of rational planning - rather than the anarchy and "hidden hand" of the market.

Lenin and Mau also used lovely force. What makes Connoly so different?

There's nothing wrong with using force. Connolly had a unique interpretation of the national question, and his 'brand' of Marxism predated lenin's dreadful application of his theories of the vanguard party.

Connolly was an agitator. He took action to change people's consciousness, and thats exactly what happened from his actions.