Communists.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

Not very good answers BTB

As I thought, you have pre-prepared answers to your own questions, none of which actually deal with what I said in any detail.

which means that your communist society allows private enterprise unless the guy employs someone. He better not get too succesful ( but then, where would he get the capital to expand?)

What does "controlling your own labour mean" exactly? Does it mean everybody is self employed? What exactly? Communes will control people.

Why will communes control people?

Why was the question stupid? As a trained scientist I asked how the early State owned dictatorship of the proletariariat cedes to the Stateless society you claim to be true Communism.

Do trained scientists often use Moses as a factor in their studies?

The gold is valuable on its own. I am not asking a question about Jewellery, but gold. Which has market value in it's raw state unrelated to the labour cost of production ( mining, or finding).

Your one time lucky find disproves the theory? Rubbish. Apart from the fact to find the gold means it is not produced, and therefore is not a method of labour, you ignore the labour cost of producing jewellry, which I already pointed out?

Let me be clear. The labour theory of value is utter bunk. It is the stupidest theory in economic history ( and I know Marx is not the only believer). Work - which is a scientific term - can destroy value. Equal amounts of work gets unequal results. Madonna will work for two weeks in a recording studio and make millions, and someone else work for the same amount of time,spend the same amount of energy and make nothing.

You deliberately ignore the true meaning of the theory. If Madonna goes to the recording studio to work, how many people then work together on the same project? How much combined labour is there? You already know this of course, but prefer to ignore it. You're actually going so far out of your way to annoy me, that you'd prefer to pretend the mechanics of the capitalist economy you enjoy so much were not true, rather than deal with the issue of labour properly. You can pretend all you want that this theory is "utter bunk" but I've still shown you to be wrong twice now.

Really? Most Marxists were wrong for generations then. ALl Marxists in the early 20th century belived in planned economies.

All that communes can plan, of course, is the build and production of whatever product they hope to manufacture or sell. In fact a co-operative (which works within capitalism) is a commune. I dont recall Marxists historically spending too much time demanding the rise of the co-operative movement, rather the demand was for the increasing involvement of the State - the taking of the means of production into Public ( i.e. State) ownership.

I am also unsure about how we all get our needs taken care of in a society of communes only, how wealth is transfered "according to need" and from ability. You would need a State for that. To do the transfers.

Communes can't plan?

And how do modern co-operations fit in? Or are they out? Do we live in victorian American type communes ( iike the religious communities - Amish, Shaker etc.), or do we control factories as communes. If the factories - or companies - that already exist become communes and workers are no longer exploited by the profiters then Microsoft Employees will get richer ( temporarily) and WalMart emplyees stay about the same, since the profit margin in WalMart is tiny, and MS makes huge profits per employee. The system becomes more unequal without a State to balance things up.

(temporarily because as capital dries up the whole system collapses)

How this makes us all "equal" is beyond me, as is how we run a pensions system, or make the needy get paid more than the able. Cant do that without a State.




The question is not whether you care. If you are asking for the dissolution of private property it matters who lives where. Some places are more desirable than others, some are bigger. Anybody who lives in the best areas, or the biggest houses will the real elite of the new society. How is this decided? Lottery? By need?


Epic Fail.

Read the manifesto again (or for the first time I suppose) and you'll have a better idea of how it would be decided.

Epic fail huh? Is this AH or the political theory forum? You've contributed nothing to this thread tbh, you aren't even capable of sniping at people intelligently.

DF, if you don't know the difference then its no wonder you have such a hard time understanding Marxism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

To continue on with the music story, consider that fact that the first Beatles album was recorded in 10 hours using one engineer and one manager and the four performers alone. There was obviously a little mixing and mastering after this.

Yet this album, which took hardly any time to record compared to modern music, is a huge seller - it has sold more than lots of alums on the current chart Id imagine. Obviously the (2 remaining) Beatles are getting a lot more $/hr than modern bands. And yet you seem to think that this is somehow wrong?

Or maybe Im misinterpreting what your saying. Because if you think that Beatles getting so much money from the 1 billion combined albums they have sold is wrong, well thats just being silly and jealous.

Serenity Now!

Boy, the wiki-wagging in this thread is hilarious.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I havent actually read the whole thread, just the last page and the first, so apologies if someone else has already shown the above to be rediculous.

From your representation of what BtB was saying here I agree entirely with him. What I take from Marx, who was writing over 150 years ago now, is his poignant critique of the dehumanising effect that capitalism has on the people who are forced to sell their labour in order to survive. His economic predictions failed to come to pass, and I vehemently oppose the authoritarianism inherent in his later work in particular.

I have never come across anyone who endorses "free market" capitalism, or the status quo, or any other system within which people are forced to sell their labour for a wage, who has any kind of an answer to Marx's identification of the wrong which is being done when someone is alienated from the produce of their labour and as a result, from themselves.

Whether you completely oppose his ideas or not (seemingly most people who entirely reject him have never bothered their hole to actually read him), read what he says in the early economic and philosophical manuscripts about alienation. At the very least it may give a better understanding and strength to your arguments in opposition to him.

Back to what you were saying DonegalFella, the ideas of a "free market" and "libertarianism" are actually opposing, unless you take a very narrow definition of freedom which has entirely to do with transactions, and really just serves as a psuedo-moral facade for what is actually a justification to maintain the proponents position as bloated, self satisfied members of the middle class in whatever Western "democracy" they hail from...

If you really endorsed "freedom" or "liberty", then you would be campaigning to make the case that the 400 million or so people in Africa who do not have access to clean drinking water had the same "freedom" to become software designers or particle physicists or radiologists, or even to get a third level degree as the average Irish person is.

How can you seriously argue with a straight face that free market principles result in a "meritocracy" when you have idiot daddy's boys whos only natural asset is the fact that their parents are ludicrously rich and pay their way through fee-paying second level schools, colleges where you dont need points to get access to and end up getting degrees as accountants and spending the rest of their empty, talentless existences helping other rich people to skive money away to bank accounts in Barbados and the Dominican Republic. How is this situation, in any way, shape, or form, better then what BtB is proposing?

af_thefragile

Joycey wrote: »

I havent actually read the whole thread, just the last page and the first, so apologies if someone else has already shown the above to be rediculous.

From your representation of what BtB was saying here I agree entirely with him. What I take from Marx, who was writing over 150 years ago now, is his poignant critique of the dehumanising effect that capitalism has on the people who are forced to sell their labour in order to survive. His economic predictions failed to come to pass, and I vehemently oppose the authoritarianism inherent in his later work in particular.

I have never come across anyone who endorses "free market" capitalism, or the status quo, or any other system within which people are forced to sell their labour for a wage, who has any kind of an answer to Marx's identification of the wrong which is being done when someone is alienated from the produce of their labour and as a result, from themselves.

In a free market state, its the people who hold the businesses or means or production or whatever you'ld like to call it. People are getting paid for their labour, they can buy whatever they want with that pay. Why is it necessary that the person needs to get a part of the very produce he labored for? A man builds cars in a factory, does this mean he needs to get a share of that car he built? What if he's paid the equal of that share in the form of money?
According to Marx's theory the person should get that car he built, or maybe share it between the people he worked with on building it. But what if he doesn't need a car? What it he likes another car or wait, forgot, there is no choice in communism!
Correct me if i'm wrong here...

Whether you completely oppose his ideas or not (seemingly most people who entirely reject him have never bothered their hole to actually read him), read what he says in the early economic and philosophical manuscripts about alienation. At the very least it may give a better understanding and strength to your arguments in opposition to him.

Back to what you were saying DonegalFella, the ideas of a "free market" and "libertarianism" are actually opposing, unless you take a very narrow definition of freedom which has entirely to do with transactions, and really just serves as a psuedo-moral facade for what is actually a justification to maintain the proponents position as bloated, self satisfied members of the middle class in whatever Western "democracy" they hail from...

If you really endorsed "freedom" or "liberty", then you would be campaigning to make the case that the 400 million or so people in Africa who do not have access to clean drinking water had the same "freedom" to become software designers or particle physicists or radiologists, or even to get a third level degree as the average Irish person is.

I can't see how communism could solve the problem in Africa. It hasn't performed any wonders so far!

Freedom means the person is free to think, to fend for himself and is free to live his life wherever he wants and however he wants to as long as he's not harming anyone else.
Free market gives people the freedom to put their innovative ideas into reality and production. They progress society by providing a better and cheaper product which can make people's life easier or more comfortable. Free market gives people the freedom to create and experiment with new forms of business which could be advantageous for both the entrepreneurs and the workers. And a free market system is not just for the ones who can afford it cuz in a free market system every single person could be a potential consumer and competition would result in progressively cheaper and more affordable commodities.
And then there could also be many rags to riches stories. People who are born in poverty but according to their hardwork and skill manage to make it to the top. Now don't tell me thats not possible cuz there are tons of examples around the world.
Hence a free market is not just for the rich.

Coming back to Africa, a free market entrepreneur could potentially see Africa an excellent opportunity for investment. It is afterall almost a blank slate to start from. An entrepreneur could maybe set up a solar power plant in the middle of the barren plains bringing employment and wealth to the poverty stricken nation. There are tons of business opportunities one could find in Africa if he's smart enough which would benefit the business as well as the African people hugely.
Has communism got a better answer to the problems in Africa? From where I see it, the only way Africa can be developed is by foreign businesses making use of Africa's natural resources. And no its not a De Beers like exploitation of natural resources but something like a solar plant that could benefit both the African people and could help solve world's energy crisis. Some sort of an establishment of an industry which could result in a spin off infrastructure development.
I'm not an economist so don't ask me how exactly this can be done. Though being a kind of an entrepreneur kind of a person, i could list a bunch of business ideas which i believe would work amazingly well in Africa while bringing major development to the region.

How can you seriously argue with a straight face that free market principles result in a "meritocracy" when you have idiot daddy's boys whos only natural asset is the fact that their parents are ludicrously rich and pay their way through fee-paying second level schools, colleges where you dont need points to get access to and end up getting degrees as accountants and spending the rest of their empty, talentless existences helping other rich people to skive money away to bank accounts in Barbados and the Dominican Republic. How is this situation, in any way, shape, or form, better then what BtB is proposing?

Free Market results in a meritocracy cuz if that daddy's boy is really that much of an idiot then he'll fail at school and won't be able to get anywhere in life. Even if he manages to "pay his way out of school" he'll screw up any job or business he handles and would end up again nowhere in life. Most rich kids end up nowhere exciting in their lives anyway.
On the other hand, we could have another rags to riches story where a poor guy who went to the poor people's school was determined to work hard and become successful one day and soon his hardwork and determination paid off and he managed to become a millionaire. Many examples of such people around in society. Check out Andrew Carnegie who was the wealthiest person in america at one point, started off with nothing.

So yeah, if communism does anything to the smart, talented and hardworking guy is undermine his credibility and give him a job alongside the dumbest person on earth. A smart, creative and innovative person has no opportunity to make use of his talents in a communist society. He is forced to end up doing what everyone else around him is doing. Otherwise how can he be equal as them?!

af_thefragile

*sorry, just realised it was a doubt post...*

turgon

alienated from the produce of their labour and as a result, from themselves.

You see communism is so old it has just not held up. Example: I worked as a charity worker for 3 weeks signing people up to direct debits. How do your propose that I would be "de-alienated" from the produce of my labour? The produce being direct debit instructions.

I cant wait to hear this.

asdasd

I cant wait to hear this.

good point. And not only that, if alienation was true it would only be capitalism where people were able to de-alienate themselves by running their own business, owning the means of their own production, and doing their hobby - like a car fanatic who works as a mechanic. Or running a restaurant. Or opening a photography shop.

af_thefragile

turgon wrote: »

You see communism is so old it has just not held up. Example: I worked as a charity worker for 3 weeks signing people up to direct debits. How do your propose that I would be "de-alienated" from the produce of my labour? The produce being direct debit instructions.

I cant wait to hear this.

There probably wouldn't be any such a thing as charity and direct-debit in the commie state. Commies believe we're all either farmers or industrial workers. Quite a 19th century mindset i must say...

asdasd

Free Market results in a meritocracy cuz if that daddy's boy is really that much of an idiot then he'll fail at school and won't be able to get anywhere in life. Even if he manages to "pay his way out of school" he'll screw up any job or business he handles and would end up again nowhere in life. Most rich kids end up nowhere exciting in their lives anyway.

A billionaire would find it hard to spend all that money. As it happens I support a very large inheritence tax. We would stil be in a capitalist society though.

turgon

I would disagree. Part of the motivation for the most responsible people is giving their kids a good future.

DadaKopf

asdasd wrote: »

good point. And not only that, if alienation was true it would only be capitalism where people were able to de-alienate themselves by running their own business, owning the means of their own production, and doing their hobby - like a car fanatic who works as a mechanic. Or running a restaurant. Or opening a photography shop.

There's actually something qualitatively different between, for example, working in a factory and working in these ways. One is about things and one is about people - objects and subjects and the links between them. It feels good to make something yourself and to be recognised as the person who, through your own energy and ingenuity, made that object. Through the industrial process, this became more distanced. Marx observed the emotional wasteland that is visited on people whose only value is the market value of their 'labour' (energy, ingenuity, identity) in the production of objects for an employer. This is qualitatively different to an occupation which involves altering the world through esablishing relationships, engaging in co-operation with other human beings. Marx observed that capitalism is a 'social relation' (one of many) - a process which influences how people relate to each other as human beings. His analysis was that capitalism tends to produce 'alienation' through producing processes of subjectivisation (the becoming of individual human beings with agency) which limited the capabilities of all people in different but connected ways. (Don't forget that, in Marx's theory, not only was the factory worker alienated, but so too was the burgeois capitalist - someone who was alienated because his only way to act on the world to change it was through the efforts of his workers. Marx sought to break out of the loop of alienation.)

Anyway, clearly this theory is inadequate. On one hand, in late-capitalism, subjectivisation has become commodified - in developed countries, the creation of human interactions/relationships/experiences have themselves become commodities. Intangible commodities - all that 'have a nice day, sir' stuff. This actually extends alienation further into people's inner spaces, but communications technologies also provide new ways for people to relate to each other in positive ways. Also, as mentioned in this thread, technology has reduced the cost of the 'means of production' and reduced the potential for alienation in certain industries, such as music production, graphic design, journalism, architecture, anything that can be produced on a computer. Connected with this is another new development: the infinite reproducibility of digital commodities and the expansion of intellectual property rights and resistance to the expansion by companies of IP.

For the record, I've worked in charity organisations since leaving university - it's my career choice. I've also worked some miserable jobs here and there, I've even been a part-time freelance graphic designer. I've been badly paid in the charity sector, know I'm able enough to work in the private sector and could earn more money, and I have felt a little exploited by charity organisations at times, but I've never felt alienated. Why? Because, as an employee, I can connect my work with people, it's an emotionally satisfying link, even if the work is very hard and at times frustrating. Also, I did not feel alienated working as a freelance designer. But I did feel alienated working in shops and other service industry jobs.

Joycey

DadaKopf wrote: »

Anyway, clearly this theory is inadequate. On one hand, in late-capitalism, subjectivisation has become commodified - in developed countries, the creation of human interactions/relationships/experiences have themselves become commodities. Intangible commodities - all that 'have a nice day, sir' stuff. This actually extends alienation further into people's inner spaces, but communications technologies also provide new ways for people to relate to each other in positive ways.

Enlightening post.

Im just wondering about what your saying above. You say that the facade which people are forced to present to the world in order to achieve "success" in whatever their chosen career path is, is actually responsible for a degree of alienation which takes place in their "inner spaces".
(forgive me if this is veering vastly off-topic, if so then someone move this post into a new thread in the philosophy forum)

Does this idea of an inner space at least somewhat distinct from the expression of what is presented to the external world not presuppose some notion of "authenticity" which is being violated by our forced role playing? If there is no such state of authenticity which is being violated then exactly what is it I am being alienated from? If I am the sum of my interactions with the world then "I" am this facade. Otherwise you are presupposing some objective "me" that is being repressed/alienated by the system which I have bought into.

Now, I can understand how alienation (at least as it makes sense to me from my limited knowledge) in the old sense, from the Economic + Philosophical manuscripts, functioned, whereby my

'labour' (energy, ingenuity, identity)

was alienated from me, and because the above qualities are part of me, I become alienated from myself. However, when you extend alienation to cover behaviour where it seems to be the exact opposite of energy, ingenuity, identity etc that is being expressed, it loses its meaning. It seems more that this forced behaviour which comes about as a result of my inhabiting a capitalist system, is in fact the negation of these qualities rather then their expression and co-optation(real word?). If we expand alienation to cover this I think we lose the sense of it having its own technical meaning, and lose the power of Marx's original argument.

Hopefully that made sense.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, but there is a problem with relying on what friends and associates claim he said to them. It's a bit dodgy as they can say whatever they like.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

From the history and sources I have read, Hitler was not a fan of Marxism. Ultimately, Hitler seemed to care about power. Anything that stood in the way of this; religious alliegance (Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism) or groups such as Freemasons or trade unionists were suspect.
Private enterprise was fine by Nazism with companies such as IG Farben and Degesch doing well provided they didn't get in the way.

af_thefragile

DadaKopf wrote: »

There's actually something qualitatively different between, for example, working in a factory and working in these ways. One is about things and one is about people - objects and subjects and the links between them. It feels good to make something yourself and to be recognised as the person who, through your own energy and ingenuity, made that object. Through the industrial process, this became more distanced. Marx observed the emotional wasteland that is visited on people whose only value is the market value of their 'labour' (energy, ingenuity, identity) in the production of objects for an employer. This is qualitatively different to an occupation which involves altering the world through esablishing relationships, engaging in co-operation with other human beings. Marx observed that capitalism is a 'social relation' (one of many) - a process which influences how people relate to each other as human beings. His analysis was that capitalism tends to produce 'alienation' through producing processes of subjectivisation (the becoming of individual human beings with agency) which limited the capabilities of all people in different but connected ways. (Don't forget that, in Marx's theory, not only was the factory worker alienated, but so too was the burgeois capitalist - someone who was alienated because his only way to act on the world to change it was through the efforts of his workers. Marx sought to break out of the loop of alienation.)

Anyway, clearly this theory is inadequate. On one hand, in late-capitalism, subjectivisation has become commodified - in developed countries, the creation of human interactions/relationships/experiences have themselves become commodities. Intangible commodities - all that 'have a nice day, sir' stuff. This actually extends alienation further into people's inner spaces, but communications technologies also provide new ways for people to relate to each other in positive ways. Also, as mentioned in this thread, technology has reduced the cost of the 'means of production' and reduced the potential for alienation in certain industries, such as music production, graphic design, journalism, architecture, anything that can be produced on a computer. Connected with this is another new development: the infinite reproducibility of digital commodities and the expansion of intellectual property rights and resistance to the expansion by companies of IP.

What are you on about?
Are you trying to say rich people have no soul?

You guys keep ignoring all the amazing things capitalism has got in our lives which have helped us connect with one another so much. We wouldn't have cell phones, computers, internet, cheap modes of transport, clubs/pubs, leisure centers, cinemas and all these things that help people interact and connect with one another without some entrepreneur guys thinking up all these things driven by the fantasy of making his idea into reality and in turn becoming rich and successful!

If people didn't have this drive to become rich and successful, no one would take the time and hassle to become an entrepreneur and set up a service that would make people's lives better.

Joycey

af_thefragile wrote: »

What are you on about?
Are you trying to say rich people have no soul?

Haha, now why didnt you just put it like that Dada? Wasting our time reading all that stuff :pac:

brianthebard

af_thefragile wrote: »

What are you on about?
Are you trying to say rich people have no soul?

You guys keep ignoring all the amazing things capitalism has got in our lives which have helped us connect with one another so much. We wouldn't have cell phones, computers, internet, cheap modes of transport, clubs/pubs, leisure centers, cinemas and all these things that help people interact and connect with one another without some entrepreneur guys thinking up all these things driven by the fantasy of making his idea into reality and in turn becoming rich and successful!

If people didn't have this drive to become rich and successful, no one would take the time and hassle to become an entrepreneur and set up a service that would make people's lives better.

Would it really be so terrible to improve people's lives without becoming rich? You make it sound like your ultimate dystopia, where people enjoy their lives and work to improve society as a whole for the sake of society as a whole. *shudders* you're right, how terrible!

af_thefragile

brianthebard wrote: »

Would it really be so terrible to improve people's lives without becoming rich? You make it sound like your ultimate dystopia, where people enjoy their lives and work to improve society as a whole for the sake of society as a whole. *shudders* you're right, how terrible!

Its human nature.
No one gives a **** until he gets something back in return for his efforts. Maybe someday we could help each other as a whole without expecting something back in return. But, all men aren't Jesus, although even Jesus expected people to obey God's command in return.
So there you go. There is no such thing as free lunch.

turgon

I still dont see how people can be but alienated from their produce.

Like the cheapest ways to make cars is to make small parts in 100 factories worldwide and then assemble in Germany. Yet just so these workers wont be alienated from the cars they help produce you want to clos4e these 100 factories and reduce productivity hugely in one fell sweep.

What would you say I i said I didnt care about being alienated from my work? Once I get money Im happy. What does this matter to you? Why are you trying to force us to come in touch with our work when we dont want to?

brianthebard

I'd say you've never worked in a factory if you sincerely believe that. Why is productivity so important to you? Why do you need a massive surplus of cars in the world? What's wrong with having enough cars?

Joycey

brianthebard wrote: »

I'd say you've never worked in a factory if you sincerely believe that. Why is productivity so important to you? Why do you need a massive surplus of cars in the world? What's wrong with having enough cars?

Or to the extent that there is a necessity for this kind of alienating work, that people should be remunerated in accordance with the degree of harshness that their work entails. In other words, that if people are manufacturing, say, tractors that are vital for the agricultural sector of that society, then the workers who work in that factory should divide the procedes of their labour amongst eachother. What actually happens in instances of this type of factory (many of which are in existence in various parts of South America) is that the division of labour whereby 80% of the workers do alienating, disempowering work, and the other 20% do empowering work which gives at least some semblence of a sense of dignity and fulfillment, is no longer in operation. Instead the labour which needs to be done for the healthy and productive operation of the factory is divided in some more equal manner among those who work in and benefit from the factory.

turgon

Joycey wrote: »

Or to the extent that there is a necessity for this kind of alienating work, that people should be remunerated in accordance with the degree of harshness that their work entails.

So your saying that those working in tractor factories should get rewarded more than the educated and ambitious workers in, say, a law firm?

You ask why we need a surplus of cars? That is simply dodging the argument by picking one side effect of capitalism and basing your pro-communist views solely on it.

So you want to produce exactly the right amount. So who decides what is the right amount? Is every family entitled to one car or two cars? Or is it judged on each individual? Do workers such as plumbers get more cars? What if I dont agree and I want extra cars, can you just send out some police to silence me?

You advocate an idealistic world that is just not practical. You cant determine how many things people need. Like does everyone get a blender and a microwave? I use 2 spatulas when cooking, but do I have to be satisfied with 1? How about George Foremans? Not that those kind of grills would be around in the non innovate world of communism.

We also have 3 guitars and a piano in my house as well as a plethora of tin whistles - is this above the benchmark for what you determine an adequate amount of musical instruments per capita?

How many lights per room?

And then of course if I disagree then you get to decide. Because communism involves people being forcefully coerced. Ye mentioned the lack of advertising agencies. So if I want to advertise then I am to be coerced into stopping.

If I want to set up a charity and seek direct debits, you are going to coerce me into stopping.

And finally, if everyone gets the same rewards regardless of ambition, what motivator is there to be innovative? Why would Dyson design a good hoover if he was rewarded same for just making an old model?

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

So your saying that those working in tractor factories should get rewarded more than the educated and ambitious workers in, say, a law firm?

Not necessarily, but who are you to say how ambitious the people working in the factory are? If they have received inadequate education to be doing the skilled work then this is something that should be remedied, and in a democratic workplace then it would be in the interests of all the co-owners that there be as many skilled people there as possible, therefore institutions would be set up within the workplace to make this the case. As for the law firm, the people who currently do exclusively high end, soliciting etc, under the new democratic ownership system, would, over time, also be doing clerical work, and vice versa.

You ask why we need a surplus of cars? That is simply dodging the argument by picking one side effect of capitalism and basing your pro-communist views solely on it.

Not at all, its only by virtue of the fact that people are trying to extract as much profit from eachother under the current system that people are conditioned to want superfluous cars, if people were no longer brainwashed to believe that more and newer cars will make them happy then there wouldnt be the demand for cars which serve no purpose other then to make the few people who profit from the excess more money, and to destroy the planet for everyone else.

And finally, if everyone gets the same rewards regardless of ambition, what motivator is there to be innovative? Why would Dyson design a good hoover if he was rewarded same for just making an old model?

People dont get the same rewards fullstop. You are remunerated according to the effort and time that you put in, and the harshness which you endure, as well as the uniqueness of the particular labour which you contribute. The only thing which you no longer receive money for, is having your name on a piece of paper saying you, and only you, own X and deserve, by virtue of this, to get money for nothing.

af_thefragile

Joycey wrote: »

Not necessarily, but who are you to say how ambitious the people working in the factory are? If they have received inadequate education to be doing the skilled work then this is something that should be remedied, and in a democratic workplace then it would be in the interests of all the co-owners that there be as many skilled people there as possible, therefore institutions would be set up within the workplace to make this the case. As for the law firm, the people who currently do exclusively high end, soliciting etc, under the new democratic ownership system, would, over time, also be doing clerical work, and vice versa.

I don't know a single lawyer who'ld like to do clerical work. Why would anyone wanna go backwards in life?
Oh and what if say one of the these guys you're teaching the skills for building the tractor is absolutely dumb and has no clue what to do, what would you do about him?
And also who are these people teaching the people the skills to build a tractor.

Anyway, all that aside. I still don't get the necessity of the person to get a part of his labor. There are 2926 people working in the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy. Out of those there are the few who build the engines, chassis, etc. Not all of them own Ferrari's. But they still wouldn't trade their job for the world. The guy who assembles the engine also gets to put his name on the engine of a car he'll probably never see or drive again. You could call him alienated from the produce of his labour. But he still loves every single bit of his job.
Now why would anyone wanna take him out of that Ferrari factory and throw him in a factory building tractors saying people don't need Ferraris and what people need is more tractors to improve farming??
I bet the guy would be very happy shifting his job from building beautiful Ferrari engines to building tractors which he would then drive on the farmland allocated to him...??

Not at all, its only by virtue of the fact that people are trying to extract as much profit from eachother under the current system that people are conditioned to want superfluous cars, if people were no longer brainwashed to believe that more and newer cars will make them happy then there wouldnt be the demand for cars which serve no purpose other then to make the few people who profit from the excess more money, and to destroy the planet for everyone else.

I like Ferraris and Lamborghinis. If i have the money, i wouldn't think twice before buying one. And you can't stop me. Cuz its my life and my money, i can do whatever i want with it! Also i'm not brainwashed or anything. I like good machines. Driving a pretty sports car is both aesthetically and viscerally pleasing. I like that feeling, i wouldn't trade it for your grey metal boxes on wheels you like to call cars.
I presume a lot of people feel the same as me towards cars and the fancy stuff in life. As i've said it before I'm not gonna spend my whole life working on a farm or building community housing. I would probably be the first rebel in the commie state!

People dont get the same rewards fullstop. You are remunerated according to the effort and time that you put in, and the harshness which you endure, as well as the uniqueness of the particular labour which you contribute. The only thing which you no longer receive money for, is having your name on a piece of paper saying you, and only you, own X and deserve, by virtue of this, to get money for nothing.

People don't get the same rewards... wait, i thought in the commie state everyone was equal!

Also that Dyson guy went through a lot of effort and time to build his innovative line of hoovers. He needs to be rewarded for his contribution to society and so does he get rewarded with a patent that will last him for life or whatever number of years it is set to last.

turgon

Joycey wrote: »

As for the law firm, the people who currently do exclusively high end, soliciting etc, under the new democratic ownership system, would, over time, also be doing clerical work, and vice versa.

An example of waste. Why should a qualified person be dividing their time between unqualified work and qualified work? Surely this is a waste of education in the same way capitalism is a waste of cars?

Joycey wrote: »

people are conditioned to want superfluous cars, if people were no longer brainwashed to believe that more and newer cars will make them happy then there wouldnt be the demand for cars

Are you actually being serious?

The reason I want I new car is because it is more efficient, more comfortable, easier to drive and a hell of lot easier to maintain, not because some ad has "brainwashed" me into thinking so.

Joycey wrote: »

which serve no purpose other then to make the few people who profit from the excess more money, and to destroy the planet for everyone else.

So you want to get rid of cars it would seem? What if, like I am planning now, I want to go away with my girlfriend to Clare and stop every 30 minutes to admire scenery, see the sights, eat etc etc.

I assume you want me to use the bus, but this sort of start-stop trip wouldnt be possible. So due to the fact you dont believe in taking a car to Clare, you want everyone else to abandon cars. So right there you have coerced your life style onto someone else. Is that right? Is that "equality"?

Btw you only addressed cars. Tell me how this system of producing things according to "need" applies to the kitchen utensils and musical instruments above. Or, surprise surprise, is there actually no answer?

Joycey wrote: »

The only thing which you no longer receive money for, is having your name on a piece of paper saying you, and only you, own X and deserve, by virtue of this, to get money for nothing.

Your obviously on the inside track, please share with me where I can get this "money for nothing." Id be well pleased.

But you may be referring to property. If so the property was an investment, the investor is being rewarded for the risk he took. Also the housing boom wouldn't have been as big in this country if it werent for the government.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

As for the law firm, the people who currently do exclusively high end, soliciting etc, under the new democratic ownership system, would, over time, also be doing clerical work, and vice versa.

There is no economic theory to back this up , you would be asking amateurs to compete with professionals or you would need the state to keep the professionas out and to put a gun to consumers heads to buy the sub standard products.

to paraphrase something Mises wote - the real bosses of the workers, the ones who ultimately determine wages, working conditions and whether the workers are employed at all, are the cold-hearted, greedy and merciless consumers who purchase the workers' output, or choose not to.

brianthebard

Turgon you are making no attempt to actually relate to people's posts and instead berate and negate them by suggesting that because (if?) they are pro-communist they are wrong and that they should be ignored. Why don't you actually try to understand the positions being put forth instead of creating silly strawmen and irrational arguments. At least then the debate would be interesting.

asdasd

BrianTheBard, whenever you are getting hammered in a debate, whenever the actually rality of how communism is to actually work is asked of you, you cry.

Grow some balls, man. Turgon is pointing out the absuridites in the Communist ideology, and you whine and cry about him not listening.

he is not your shrink. You are demanding the radical transfomration of society into something which increasingly more obviously is goint to be - even by the admission of your fellow travellers on this thread - to be a prison camp nightmare. And you dont have the guts to take criticism on the internet.

If you people really want to transform society - which invoves taking the wealth of everybody in the world and handing it to the State - you probably need to be tougher.