- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Communism? different way to be paid...
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:I've been thinking a bit, and toying around with an idea.
We're all familiar with the 'If i work x hours, i get y money'. That money, then, is used for all sorts of stuff.
Why not cut out the messy, tedious mucking around with money, and get paid in hours?
I work a 40 hour week, and get about AUD 250 (apprentice). Now, $250 isn't much to live on, after rent of $100pw is taken out, food is bought etc etc.
Howeve, if payment in hours took place, then i'd be getting paid just as much as anyone else that works a standard week, and thus would be able to afford stuff a bit easier.
now, this is almost definitely full of holes, so feel free to pick it to pieces, and i'll try and fill in the gaps
We're all familiar with the 'If i work x hours, i get y money'. That money, then, is used for all sorts of stuff.
Why not cut out the messy, tedious mucking around with money, and get paid in hours?
I work a 40 hour week, and get about AUD 250 (apprentice). Now, $250 isn't much to live on, after rent of $100pw is taken out, food is bought etc etc.
Howeve, if payment in hours took place, then i'd be getting paid just as much as anyone else that works a standard week, and thus would be able to afford stuff a bit easier.
now, this is almost definitely full of holes, so feel free to pick it to pieces, and i'll try and fill in the gaps
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Posted:Concerning communism- a common critisism is that all communist states have failed, and turned into oppressive regimes.
A common response from supporters of communism is that none of them actually were true communist states.
Which is a valid response.
What I would want to say is that, where democracy is concerned, it can be equally said that there has never been a true democratic state either- they've all been approximations and fudged attempts at democracy (hence the large numbers of people who critisise our varying voting systems).
I can't help wondering though, that the fact that states based on an approximation of democracy, tend to do so much better (in degree of freedom and lack of oppression to its population), than approximations of communism; shows that maybe democracy is more valid than communism?
It would be interesting if a communism supporter would address that concern.
Dream- for clarity of discussion, seeing as how you disagree with the dictionary definition of communism, for aiding in clarification, I wonder if you'd consider putting forward your own definition of what constitutes true communism, in a clear, consise form.
Whilst I can't promise to comment on it, I will say that the likelyhood of me doing so, will be in direct proportion to the clarity, consiseness and brevity of your explanation/definition (and that this will apply also to most here who will have good points to make on it)
A common response from supporters of communism is that none of them actually were true communist states.
Which is a valid response.
What I would want to say is that, where democracy is concerned, it can be equally said that there has never been a true democratic state either- they've all been approximations and fudged attempts at democracy (hence the large numbers of people who critisise our varying voting systems).
I can't help wondering though, that the fact that states based on an approximation of democracy, tend to do so much better (in degree of freedom and lack of oppression to its population), than approximations of communism; shows that maybe democracy is more valid than communism?
It would be interesting if a communism supporter would address that concern.
Dream- for clarity of discussion, seeing as how you disagree with the dictionary definition of communism, for aiding in clarification, I wonder if you'd consider putting forward your own definition of what constitutes true communism, in a clear, consise form.
Whilst I can't promise to comment on it, I will say that the likelyhood of me doing so, will be in direct proportion to the clarity, consiseness and brevity of your explanation/definition (and that this will apply also to most here who will have good points to make on it)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Dave...
In answer to your question about 'true communism'... I think there's no such thing. Why would any one branch be somehow more 'true' than another. Tradition doesn't help either, otherwise Marxism becomes synonymous with communism, thus again making it a purely historical phenomenon.
What is needed it the use of more descriptive and accurate terminology. Composite communism.
Marxist (which itself contains both high and low order communisms) Communism, Leninism, Trotskyism, State Socialism as seen in Russia, Maoism.
All can be seen as forms of communism, but mean vastly different things. For example Marx descibes the withering away of the state, while Mao reinforced it through the apparatus of the Chinese CP.
Thus to make any sort of coherent point address the specific forms you mean.
Again and similarly... Your truly democratic state thing loses me. Are you talking about direct democracy?
Written by:
I can't help wondering though, that the fact that states based on an approximation of democracy, tend to do so much better (in degree of freedom and lack of oppression to its population), than approximations of communism; shows that maybe democracy is more valid than communism
But communist systems are supposed to be democratic?! And not simply on a representational political level, but a participatory level involving all aspects of life.
Without a much clearer delineation of what exactly you mean by democracy and approximations of democracy (remember that most tyrannical dictators rig the occasional election to support them) it's very hard to make any sense out of this statement.
Sorry
In answer to your question about 'true communism'... I think there's no such thing. Why would any one branch be somehow more 'true' than another. Tradition doesn't help either, otherwise Marxism becomes synonymous with communism, thus again making it a purely historical phenomenon.
What is needed it the use of more descriptive and accurate terminology. Composite communism.
Marxist (which itself contains both high and low order communisms) Communism, Leninism, Trotskyism, State Socialism as seen in Russia, Maoism.
All can be seen as forms of communism, but mean vastly different things. For example Marx descibes the withering away of the state, while Mao reinforced it through the apparatus of the Chinese CP.
Thus to make any sort of coherent point address the specific forms you mean.
Again and similarly... Your truly democratic state thing loses me. Are you talking about direct democracy?
Written by:
I can't help wondering though, that the fact that states based on an approximation of democracy, tend to do so much better (in degree of freedom and lack of oppression to its population), than approximations of communism; shows that maybe democracy is more valid than communism
But communist systems are supposed to be democratic?! And not simply on a representational political level, but a participatory level involving all aspects of life.
Without a much clearer delineation of what exactly you mean by democracy and approximations of democracy (remember that most tyrannical dictators rig the occasional election to support them) it's very hard to make any sense out of this statement.
Sorry
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Posted:dream, I think most people who read this will have somewhat less specific knowledge on Communism than you do. Whenever someone says "Communism" to me, then I think of something similar to definition 1a in the Oxford English Dictionary. That's what most people here are working with (I think).
So while you might get extremely irritated that people are not making the distinction between State Socialism and Marxist-Leninism, it's the only way we will get people to participate, because most people will not have the specific knowledge you do. It's like starting a thread on Genetic Engineering and getting angry at people when you start talking about base pairs and amino acids and we haven't a clue what you mean... most people simply can't go into that kind of specific detail.
And the original question wasn't actually about communism, it was about another system of finance, not political/social systems.
Written by: MiG
And, like happens today, if you overcharge for a shoddy product, you don't get return business.
How do you overcharge when you're charging the amount of time you spent on it? And should a trainee get no return business because s/he's taking longer to do something that professionals will do for cheaper (by virtue of taking less time to do it)? How then will you get enough business to make a living?
So while you might get extremely irritated that people are not making the distinction between State Socialism and Marxist-Leninism, it's the only way we will get people to participate, because most people will not have the specific knowledge you do. It's like starting a thread on Genetic Engineering and getting angry at people when you start talking about base pairs and amino acids and we haven't a clue what you mean... most people simply can't go into that kind of specific detail.
And the original question wasn't actually about communism, it was about another system of finance, not political/social systems.
Written by: MiG
And, like happens today, if you overcharge for a shoddy product, you don't get return business.
How do you overcharge when you're charging the amount of time you spent on it? And should a trainee get no return business because s/he's taking longer to do something that professionals will do for cheaper (by virtue of taking less time to do it)? How then will you get enough business to make a living?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:Written by:
the original question wasn't actually about communism, it was about another system of finance, not political/social systems
don't you think that economic and socio-political systems are mutually codependent?
Especially as we're talking about Marx... Base and Superstructure.
the original question wasn't actually about communism, it was about another system of finance, not political/social systems
don't you think that economic and socio-political systems are mutually codependent?
Especially as we're talking about Marx... Base and Superstructure.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Posted:dream- OK you don''t understand what I was saying; fair enough.
Before I invest time trying to explain it, I really need to know your definition of communism (a consise one).
If that's not possible, in your opinion, then we'll leave it.
Given that this thread isn't actually about communism anyway and, in conjunction with what you seem to be saying, which is that to meaningfully discuss communism requires a long and detailed study of a multitude of communist literature or study of multiple communist systems; then, as they say on 'Dragons Den'- "I'm out"
If it is possible (a consise defintion of the basic principles of communism) then do so, and I'll be in again.
Before I invest time trying to explain it, I really need to know your definition of communism (a consise one).
If that's not possible, in your opinion, then we'll leave it.
Given that this thread isn't actually about communism anyway and, in conjunction with what you seem to be saying, which is that to meaningfully discuss communism requires a long and detailed study of a multitude of communist literature or study of multiple communist systems; then, as they say on 'Dragons Den'- "I'm out"
If it is possible (a consise defintion of the basic principles of communism) then do so, and I'll be in again.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Dave
My point is that Communism as a descriptor is so overburdened with contraditory connotations that you have to be more precise about the system you are referring to.
Written by:
to meaningfully discuss communism requires a long and detailed study of a multitude of communist literature or study of multiple communist systems
pretty much, to discuss such a loaded word you need to understand all its uses and meanings (something that I won't profess to able to do, although parts of my PhD research are connected to Marxist, and Post-Marxist theory). However, if you want to talk about Marxism, Leninism, Maoism etc then things become much more simple.
Thus if you want to talk about Marx writings say Marxism, if you want to talk about the USSR's economic system say that. By specifing which branches you're referring to you bypass the need to try and create artificially simplisitc models of communism as a whole.
Written by:
a common critisism is that all communist states have failed, and turned into oppressive regimes.
A common response from supporters of communism is that none of them actually were true communist states.
is a perfect example. The two statements are using incompatible meanings of the word communism.
'Ttrue communist' means nothing because it can mean so many different things. Whether something is 'truly communist' depends on a subjective reading of communism, and what is the true meaning among its varients. If its replaced with Marx's conception of higher order communism then it works fine.
My point is that Communism as a descriptor is so overburdened with contraditory connotations that you have to be more precise about the system you are referring to.
Written by:
to meaningfully discuss communism requires a long and detailed study of a multitude of communist literature or study of multiple communist systems
pretty much, to discuss such a loaded word you need to understand all its uses and meanings (something that I won't profess to able to do, although parts of my PhD research are connected to Marxist, and Post-Marxist theory). However, if you want to talk about Marxism, Leninism, Maoism etc then things become much more simple.
Thus if you want to talk about Marx writings say Marxism, if you want to talk about the USSR's economic system say that. By specifing which branches you're referring to you bypass the need to try and create artificially simplisitc models of communism as a whole.
Written by:
a common critisism is that all communist states have failed, and turned into oppressive regimes.
A common response from supporters of communism is that none of them actually were true communist states.
is a perfect example. The two statements are using incompatible meanings of the word communism.
'Ttrue communist' means nothing because it can mean so many different things. Whether something is 'truly communist' depends on a subjective reading of communism, and what is the true meaning among its varients. If its replaced with Marx's conception of higher order communism then it works fine.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Posted:At the end of the day most people want that bit of food on the table and the social / economical stability to live another day.
Though relating to hours as a wage and not the current currencey. If I built a time machine using little bits of sticky plaster left over from the rolls of toilet paper and created a 60 second time loop would that mean that I would now be the richest man on earth as my Hour as wage would increase expenentially and I could finally fulfil my dream and buy ..........Tasmania?
Though relating to hours as a wage and not the current currencey. If I built a time machine using little bits of sticky plaster left over from the rolls of toilet paper and created a 60 second time loop would that mean that I would now be the richest man on earth as my Hour as wage would increase expenentially and I could finally fulfil my dream and buy ..........Tasmania?
Delete
Posted:...I can't belive you guy's are still talking about this... or are you still just trying to figure out what the he1l MiG's on about?
Anyways... communisim was my term when Rhys first verbalised this silly idea whilst we were sitting on his front porch...
Too me what he said basically boiled down to everyone being paid the same for the same ammount of work, regardless of skill level or quality, which is precicely the theory that communisim works on.
Also, this thing doesn't take into account things like selling your house at a profit (unless we just put an hour value on the area of the land and floor space) stock investments (cuz how do you put an hour value on fluctuating demand?) and other such bits and pieces...
yeah, anyways, on a side note i haven't read this whole thread cuz i'm lazy and it didn't make much sence most of the time, so if i'm repeating anyone, you can hit me or something...
And Shane (i've just noticed you there) what on earth would you do with Tasmania?
Anyways... communisim was my term when Rhys first verbalised this silly idea whilst we were sitting on his front porch...
Too me what he said basically boiled down to everyone being paid the same for the same ammount of work, regardless of skill level or quality, which is precicely the theory that communisim works on.
Also, this thing doesn't take into account things like selling your house at a profit (unless we just put an hour value on the area of the land and floor space) stock investments (cuz how do you put an hour value on fluctuating demand?) and other such bits and pieces...
yeah, anyways, on a side note i haven't read this whole thread cuz i'm lazy and it didn't make much sence most of the time, so if i'm repeating anyone, you can hit me or something...
And Shane (i've just noticed you there) what on earth would you do with Tasmania?
"i am exotic, and must keep my arms down" - Rougie
"i don't understand what penises have to do with getting married" - Foxie
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Some people I know tried to start a communist system where everyone got paid the same regardless of how much work they did. Thus, the doctor who worked 6 days a week got the same income as the guy who did lawn work 4 days a week. It worked well for the first generation, because they were all committed to the cause. The first generation all had careers that they had made under capatilism, and simply joined together. The children had to form new careers under communism. The children had major motivation problems. Everyone realized that extra effort would not be met with extra benefits, but that any income you brought in above the average would be given to other people who were bringing in incomes below the average. Some kids were slackers and wanted to game the system, so they goofed off and basically did no work.
This brought the average income way down. Self motivated workers who didn't believe in the cause were irritated that their extra effort was not being rewarded, so they reduced their labor to what they thought was fair for what they were getting paid. The children who were dedicated to the cause and self motivated ended up funding the bulk of the economy. The majority of the income was being brought in by a minority of workers. This was not "from each according to his ability" because all people were not freely choosing to work to their ability.
In order to make them work to their ability, you must either convince them to believe in the cause or force them to work whether they like it or not. Since they had all received the same education, the ones who ended up being slackers would have to either recieve education that would persuade them against their will (brainwashing, some would call it), or be forced to work (slavery).
Neither brainwashing nor slavery is legal, since they were doing it in America. The people in the middle (the ones who were willing to work for a fair wage) and the dedicated communists (the ones willing to work extra hard for average pay) were outnumbered by those who liked to do little work and still get paid the same. This impoverished the entire economy. While they were "sharing the wealth" generated by the hard workers, they were also "sharing the poverty" of those who would not work.
This is why I think that communism needs a totalitarian form of government that will keep people from deciding to slack off and live off of others. Otherwise, human selfishness will cause the system to the collapse.
Capatilism accepts selfishness, and uses freedom to be selfish to create wealth. The wealthiest capatilist countries are usually the ones that are most free, all else being equal. Communism must compete with selfishness in order to generate the same amount of wealth. Since communism has to fight human nature in order to generate the same amount of wealth, far more government effort is needed and the people are less likely to be happy with their situation.
This brought the average income way down. Self motivated workers who didn't believe in the cause were irritated that their extra effort was not being rewarded, so they reduced their labor to what they thought was fair for what they were getting paid. The children who were dedicated to the cause and self motivated ended up funding the bulk of the economy. The majority of the income was being brought in by a minority of workers. This was not "from each according to his ability" because all people were not freely choosing to work to their ability.
In order to make them work to their ability, you must either convince them to believe in the cause or force them to work whether they like it or not. Since they had all received the same education, the ones who ended up being slackers would have to either recieve education that would persuade them against their will (brainwashing, some would call it), or be forced to work (slavery).
Neither brainwashing nor slavery is legal, since they were doing it in America. The people in the middle (the ones who were willing to work for a fair wage) and the dedicated communists (the ones willing to work extra hard for average pay) were outnumbered by those who liked to do little work and still get paid the same. This impoverished the entire economy. While they were "sharing the wealth" generated by the hard workers, they were also "sharing the poverty" of those who would not work.
This is why I think that communism needs a totalitarian form of government that will keep people from deciding to slack off and live off of others. Otherwise, human selfishness will cause the system to the collapse.
Capatilism accepts selfishness, and uses freedom to be selfish to create wealth. The wealthiest capatilist countries are usually the ones that are most free, all else being equal. Communism must compete with selfishness in order to generate the same amount of wealth. Since communism has to fight human nature in order to generate the same amount of wealth, far more government effort is needed and the people are less likely to be happy with their situation.
Delete
Posted: Written by:
The wealthiest capatilist countries are usually the ones that are most free,
first time i've ever heard an american say that they're country is less 'free' than equatorial guniea.
or for that matter that the United Arab Emirates is more free than the EU.
The wealthiest capatilist countries are usually the ones that are most free,
first time i've ever heard an american say that they're country is less 'free' than equatorial guniea.
or for that matter that the United Arab Emirates is more free than the EU.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:You didn't. I made a generalization with two caveats. Notice that the portion you quoted ended with a comma, indicating that I had written something else at the end of that sentence.
Delete
Posted:My idea, however, didn't have the same wage per week, no matter how much worked. It was an amount paid for work done. Basically, you could reprase it to be everyone is on a standard wage, minus all benefits etc.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Posted: Written by:
The wealthiest capatilist countries are usually the ones that are most free, all else being equal
As no two countries have the same natural resources, cultural heritage etc this statement is entirely meaningless.
As opposed to if you leave the last part out, which makes it comical.
Written by:
Capatilism accepts selfishness, and uses freedom to be selfish to create wealth
Capitalism encourages selfishness, on both a personal and societal scale. Thus we look around the world today and see the exploitation of natural resources which is leading to an environmental crisis, a world where the richest 200 men have greater assets than the poorest 2 billion people, where wars over natural resources and land are commonplace, and the enduring legacy of the capitalist project of colonialism endures...
This is not human nature. One of Marx's comments which really got me into political thought was the observation that in any society, the qualities manifest by the ruling ideology must present themselves as 'natural' to humans. Thus in capitalist countries, competitivity and selfishness present themselves as human nature, whereas in socialist states cooperation and interdependency were presented as the central features of human nature.
In truth 'human nature' itself is a red herring as it presupposes the possibility of an artificial division between nature and culture allowing humans to seperate the two out, as they see themselves not as part of the natural world, but some kind of special higher being imbued with a trancendent soul. Crap... I'm saying this to our resident fundamentalist...
The wealthiest capatilist countries are usually the ones that are most free, all else being equal
As no two countries have the same natural resources, cultural heritage etc this statement is entirely meaningless.
As opposed to if you leave the last part out, which makes it comical.
Written by:
Capatilism accepts selfishness, and uses freedom to be selfish to create wealth
Capitalism encourages selfishness, on both a personal and societal scale. Thus we look around the world today and see the exploitation of natural resources which is leading to an environmental crisis, a world where the richest 200 men have greater assets than the poorest 2 billion people, where wars over natural resources and land are commonplace, and the enduring legacy of the capitalist project of colonialism endures...
This is not human nature. One of Marx's comments which really got me into political thought was the observation that in any society, the qualities manifest by the ruling ideology must present themselves as 'natural' to humans. Thus in capitalist countries, competitivity and selfishness present themselves as human nature, whereas in socialist states cooperation and interdependency were presented as the central features of human nature.
In truth 'human nature' itself is a red herring as it presupposes the possibility of an artificial division between nature and culture allowing humans to seperate the two out, as they see themselves not as part of the natural world, but some kind of special higher being imbued with a trancendent soul. Crap... I'm saying this to our resident fundamentalist...
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [communism different way paid] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > S-Staff Buugeng > S-Staff / Buugeng > Both hands different direction - backwards *help/resource
2. Learn > S-Staff Buugeng > S-Staff / Buugeng > Both hands different direction - forwards *help/resource
3. Learn > POI > Crossers > A Different Approach to Crossers *help/resource
4. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner 3-beat: Different Facing Patterns *help/resource
5. Forums > Staff in different cultures [27 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.