S-Murph wrote: » Capitalism does not reward talent, effort nor hard work. It is totally incapable of measuring these values.
Joycey wrote: » I dont think ive ever actually met an Irish communist... Doesnt seem to be too many in this thread either.
johnathan woss wrote: » Yes but all these people are very light on fact and detail when explaining how the ideas would actually be translated to the real world.
turgon wrote: » Ok, I work harder and put in more effort (long hours, more productivity) and I get more money.
I have talent I get promoted (or even from my own company) I get more money
turgon wrote: » So what is your solution?
donegalfella wrote: » This post has been deleted.
You think people are going to go out and bust their asses building roads, collecting rubbish, and cleaning sewers for the sake of "social recognition"?
Or to hear someone say, "Good job, comrade, well done"? Nonsense.
People work for reward—tangible, material reward. Social prestige is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
Clearly, capitalism is not capable (o)f resolving this.
Your potential view that working class people are "fully aware of their political options" is no more valid than my one. Infact id argue less so, seing as most people dont even know what socialism is - thus one of their political options.
Certainly hunter gatherer societies do not function to any great degree upon "material reward". Infact friendships, human interaction and families in general do not function in this way either.
But to answer your question, Yes, I do. People work to improve their social position in all manner of ways, and beyond bare needs, improving their social position, whether consciosuly or subconsciously, is one of the primary factors for which they w
asdasd wrote: » Why would it? Ronaldo may not work as hard as a brick layer, but he creates more money for Manchester United than a brick layer. And so what. So it goes.
I am somewhat sympathethic to the idea that we could have a tax on inheritence. Maybe a 100% tax. It wouldnt matter. The "social relationships" would stay the same.
In fact starting from equality now
we would get rich and poor again within a generation as smart, useful, or lucky workers saved, invested, set up their own places, hired others and made profit ( from owning a piece of paper). Or had very useful skills. And that would happen in every generation were we to ensure absolute equality of opportunity.
It in fact describes what happened since 1979 in China, Germany from 1945, American from it's beginning. So the "people inherit" stuff is a red herring.
asdasd wrote: » nonsense. You are claiming that workers - which includes DF and myself - are "unaware" of yout ideology. Clearly we are aware and think it bollocks. In fact I quoted from MArx on this thread to be accused by a Marxist of pithy use of language. That it was.
Ah the hunter gatherer "logic". marxists claim that conservatives are reactionary with a their nostagia for a different simpler time - the fifties, Victorians, the old order preior to the Republic. The Marxists just want to turn New York back into a hunter gatherer paradise.
News to y'all. Hunter gatherers did not have a tradable inheritable surplus: food rots. They did not however distribute food equally, the best workers got the most meat. The let their old die.
When they could trade for shiny baubles, they traded for shiny baubles - which were all of currency, wealth symbols, and status.
China and Germany are nothing to do with socialism. They were totalitarian state capitalist regimes. Class systems.
No they wouldnt. You still have an exchage system - currency. I am not proposing a Tax in inheritence. I propose abolishing tax, and money, entirely.
asdasd wrote: » By the way would every Marxist please explain why agriculture fails in communes and succeeds as private ownership. And dont say "prove that it fails". Millions of people died because of your ideologies so feel free to look it up.
Thats correct but it is absolutely involved with money. Even Marxist professors who can still have professorial status ( which is not monetary related necessarily) do not take pay cuts to the average industrial wage, nor give their money earned from their firely denounciations of captialism away - that they leave to Bill gates. Brecht died a millionaire. Eagleton has 3 houses.
I think that's a huge assumption. I'm much more inclined to believe that most people do know what socialism is.
Referring to how people relate to society now does not prove that they must behave that way in their nature.
It might be "one of the primary factors," but there are other important factors too—such as economic security for oneself and one's family, and the pursuit of pleasure and happiness.
I don't see that we need to embrace socialism in other to be in contact with other individuals.
So what? We no longer live in a primitive hunter-gatherer society, and its modes of economic organization just don't scale up.
True. But so what? Again, socialism is not necessary in order to have a relationship with one's family.
They gain tangible benefits that contribute to their health, happiness, security, well-being, and sense of fulfillment.
asdasd wrote: » You would think the billions who lived under communism would know the theories backwards, but on the first chance of getting rid of the system ( and that merely took Gorbechev saying he was not going to send in the troops. It fell). An economist poll from last week ( which is behind a fire wall) shows that the Chinese people are 80% sure that life if better under free markets - higher than the US figure. We will get some cant about that not being real socialism - but botht these groups have learnt their Marx since kindergarten, and the first chance they get - off go the chains of socialism
asdasd wrote: » It doesnt prove the opposite either. However the conciousness is created by society - a claim designed to be unfalsifable - is clearly untrue. Otherwise the creation of Soviet Man would have worked - whether that is precisely your ideology, or not - the Soviets should be born communists. They arent. They are now capitalists.
Soviet Man has nothing to do with me or my ideology. Irrelevent.
asdasd wrote: » I was of course refuting the claim that the proletiariat did not know about socialism - or communism, by pointing that where it was universaly known it was universaly discarded. You deliberately missed that point Feel Free to read the title of the thread. Then look at the wiki you directed me to. We are dicussing communism, the "scientific" works of Karl Marx. We are not discussing "socialism the unique vision of internet nerd S-Murph where nobody has any money and everybodu lives like hunter gatherers". If you want that thread start it up. Try "The moneyless society". This thread is about the works of Karl Marx.
This is a thread about Karl Marx and communism - a classless, stateless, 'moneyless' society.
asdasd wrote: » which is impossible without a totalitarian state. we know this in theory, because the surplus I have created in my time as worker has to be taken from me, and you dont get to do that without a totalitarian state taking it from me. Hunter gatherer societies are not totalitarian. They are stateless. Besides, I havnt a notion what your babbling on about. Maybe you could rewrite it in a more comprehensible way, with all due respects. And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society. But totalitarianism has nothing what-so-ever to do with communism. Your talking crap. Without the freedom to sell my labout as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a suplus, to choose where to eat and buy I am unfree. Communism is a society of free labour. You can work if you want to work and consume what you want to consume. More free than capitalism. The "moneyless" society will feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, fut it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. So I would be feed plastic tofu from a centralized state. No thanks. There is no state in communism.
Hunter gatherer societies are not totalitarian. They are stateless. Besides, I havnt a notion what your babbling on about. Maybe you could rewrite it in a more comprehensible way, with all due respects. And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society. But totalitarianism has nothing what-so-ever to do with communism. Your talking crap. Without the freedom to sell my labout as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a suplus, to choose where to eat and buy I am unfree. Communism is a society of free labour. You can work if you want to work and consume what you want to consume. More free than capitalism. The "moneyless" society will feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, fut it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. So I would be feed plastic tofu from a centralized state. No thanks. There is no state in communism.
And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society.
Without the freedom to sell my labout as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a suplus, to choose where to eat and buy I am unfree.
The "moneyless" society will feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, fut it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. So I would be feed plastic tofu from a centralized state. No thanks.
You are the perfect example of how people dont know what socialism is, or what it advocates. Your refuting yourself lol.
asdasd wrote: » which is impossible without a totalitarian state. we know this in theory, because the surplus I have created in my time as worker has to be taken from me, and you dont get to do that without a totalitarian state taking it from me. And in practice. Because all communist states - fully recongnised by worldwide communists, marxists, and fellow travellers as Marxist - were totalitarian. Because you need to have totalitarian States to have a commuinist society. We have been whacking that mole too. Without the freedom to sell my labout as a commodity to whom I want ( which means I can move on from job to job), to create a surplus, to choose where to eat, and what to buy I am unfree. The "moneyless" society will possibly feed me, if it can get any workers to produce food, but it cant have restaurants because they would need money, or tokens of transaction. No wine because why produce wine? Which is "socially unnecessary" anyway (or if any is produced then why produce good wine since the wine workers get the same anyway). Everything would be sh*te under socialism.We know that in theory anyway, and it was clear in practice. ( Not that the communist States were as bad as the kind of hellhole you want. They allowed money, and had some small private enterprise - Poland had 300,000 people working in private enterprise under communism). That allowed restaruants, farmers, and local producers. It was still hell They queued for days for the simplest items. Your monelyess society would force us all to be slaves of the political classes who determine whether we get whatever unedible food they offer on that day, depending on whether we were good :wokers" or not. A political decision. The most obvious states that tended towards this utopian ideal - and they all tried in diffrerent ways - were the Chinese cultural revolutionaries and Pol Pot. Pol Potism is exactyl what you get with a moneyless surplus less society. There is no other way. So liess of the want about "we dont want a totalitarian State". Of course you do. You cant have a moneyless communist state without one.
asdasd wrote: » I have read most of Marx.
But totalitarianism has nothing what-so-ever to do with communism. Your talking crap.
Yeah, babble away to yourself. You havnt a notion of what your talking about or the subject at hand.
asdasd wrote: » That would be you're. good man. ( I think I see why you may not be able to read clear English). Every single communist State was totalitarian. To make everybody equal clearly demands a state deciding wages because otherwise the different "communes" would pay different rates. But you believe in a moneyless society of course. So lets get down to brass tacks. A restaurant. We know how it works under capitalism. A lot of producers, mostly self-employed - grow, or farm food. The better they are the more they can charge. Some farmers make their own secondary produce - cheese, or meat - and garner a reputation as goo dquality producers. Others sell it to privately owner butchers, or cheesmakers. A restuarant owner comes along and buys the best produce, meat, vegetables, fish from producers and gives them money. The restaurant is good, and I go. Spending money. How would any of this work under communism without money.
