Forums > Social Discussion > Communism? different way to be paid...
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
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
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
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Why shouldn't he/she earn the same. True craftmen/craftswomen are rare these days- our current economic approach encourages production lines knocking out cheap rubbish, rather than employing craftspeople who produce quality stuff.
However, true craftspeople take pride in their work, and, if they becoame common-place again, job satisfaction and pride in the skills they'd developed, and pride in the crafted products they make, would easily compensate for the fact that their wages aren't vastly higher.
I think most people, if it was a practical possibility, would prefer to work in a decent craft based job where they have self respect and pride in their work; than be doing shifts in some grey factory producing rubbish and earning higher wages (which they blow anyway at the weekend because they need to get bombed out of their minds to compensate for the dreary,pointless reality of their working lives).
Written by: TheBovrilMonkey
In a similar vein, it doesn't take into account relative skill levels - why should a carpenter with say 35 years of experience earn the same amount as an apprentice?
The work they do is going to be far superior - they should earn a suitably higher amount for it.
Why shouldn't he/she earn the same. True craftmen/craftswomen are rare these days- our current economic approach encourages production lines knocking out cheap rubbish, rather than employing craftspeople who produce quality stuff.
However, true craftspeople take pride in their work, and, if they becoame common-place again, job satisfaction and pride in the skills they'd developed, and pride in the crafted products they make, would easily compensate for the fact that their wages aren't vastly higher.
I think most people, if it was a practical possibility, would prefer to work in a decent craft based job where they have self respect and pride in their work; than be doing shifts in some grey factory producing rubbish and earning higher wages (which they blow anyway at the weekend because they need to get bombed out of their minds to compensate for the dreary,pointless reality of their working lives).
"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!
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Very true. I reckon that alot of people going to uni would be better off with something like an apprentiship, uni is highly over-rated and fairly pointless really.
But what about people like doctors - they need to go to med school and it takes years. Why would they bother?
Emphasis mine.
It wouldn't be vastly higher. In fact, it wouldn't be higher at all, regardless of the higher quality work that the older carpenter would be doing.
That higher quality work that would be selling with a higher value, therefore getting someone more hours/money - why shouldn't the carpenter get that extra money? I reckon he's probably earnt it.
As to job satisfaction and pride in your work being a substitute for the extra money, I'd find it very hard to believe that more than a few would make the effort to become a master of their craft if they know they'll only ever be paid as much as they were getting as an apprentice.
Job satisfaction and pride in your work will only go so far for most people. Certainly not far enough to cover seeing your goods sell at a high price but only getting a small fraction of it.
Written by: onewheeldave
Because most of those who spend three years at university rather than on a building site, get a fairly interesting and enjoyable three years- many don't do it purely to get a 'better' job, they do it for the student lifestyle.
Also, many of the jobs reserved for graduates these days, could be done by trained monkeys
Very true. I reckon that alot of people going to uni would be better off with something like an apprentiship, uni is highly over-rated and fairly pointless really.
But what about people like doctors - they need to go to med school and it takes years. Why would they bother?
Written by:
However, true craftspeople take pride in their work, and, if they becoame common-place again, job satisfaction and pride in the skills they'd developed, and pride in the crafted products they make, would easily compensate for the fact that their wages aren't vastly higher.
Emphasis mine.
It wouldn't be vastly higher. In fact, it wouldn't be higher at all, regardless of the higher quality work that the older carpenter would be doing.
That higher quality work that would be selling with a higher value, therefore getting someone more hours/money - why shouldn't the carpenter get that extra money? I reckon he's probably earnt it.
As to job satisfaction and pride in your work being a substitute for the extra money, I'd find it very hard to believe that more than a few would make the effort to become a master of their craft if they know they'll only ever be paid as much as they were getting as an apprentice.
Job satisfaction and pride in your work will only go so far for most people. Certainly not far enough to cover seeing your goods sell at a high price but only getting a small fraction of it.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
For once I agree with Dave...
It's like me and designing web pages... I can't stop tweaking until I am happy and confident that it has been done to the best of my ability. Whereas at work I could care less if your stay at my hotel was good or not because I (a) dont see another dime either way and (b) don't identify with the job at all.
And Im much happier after being a perfectionist with the web page than after being at work for 8 hours...
BUT the realist in me says that at the same time, the infrastructural jobs, like waste management, etc. that almost no one would identify with wouldn't be staffed if everyone did this. There's something to be said for liking what you do, but not everyone can be an astronaut.
For once I agree with Dave...
It's like me and designing web pages... I can't stop tweaking until I am happy and confident that it has been done to the best of my ability. Whereas at work I could care less if your stay at my hotel was good or not because I (a) dont see another dime either way and (b) don't identify with the job at all.
And Im much happier after being a perfectionist with the web page than after being at work for 8 hours...
BUT the realist in me says that at the same time, the infrastructural jobs, like waste management, etc. that almost no one would identify with wouldn't be staffed if everyone did this. There's something to be said for liking what you do, but not everyone can be an astronaut.
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Assume you'd been working as a web designer for years though...
Then assume that you'd created an almost pefect web page, one that looked fantastic, worked brilliantly and matched the specs exactly.
Would you be happy being paid the same amount as someone who'd been in the job for a couple of weeks and who made a page that was bland and uninteresting?
I certainly wouldn't be happy with that situation - if I was going to pour my heart and soul into everything I made, I'd expect to be paid for it.
It'd be part of being proud of my workmanship - if I'm not keeping it, then I'd want to sell it for the money it's worth, anything else would be doing it (and the time, effort and skill involved) a disservice.
Assume you'd been working as a web designer for years though...
Then assume that you'd created an almost pefect web page, one that looked fantastic, worked brilliantly and matched the specs exactly.
Would you be happy being paid the same amount as someone who'd been in the job for a couple of weeks and who made a page that was bland and uninteresting?
I certainly wouldn't be happy with that situation - if I was going to pour my heart and soul into everything I made, I'd expect to be paid for it.
It'd be part of being proud of my workmanship - if I'm not keeping it, then I'd want to sell it for the money it's worth, anything else would be doing it (and the time, effort and skill involved) a disservice.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It may not be selling with a particularly high value- given that the system we're talking about is one in which money is no longer the way people get paid, I suspect that a lot of current distortions will get ironed out.
So, where tables are concerned- given that they're made by true craftsmen, they would all be good quality tables, and so probably go for the same price.
We live in a system where buying stuff that turns out to be rubbish is common- where 'marketing' a product can attract more investment than making it a quality product.
In the system where money is devalued (or eliminated) and the stress is instead placed on quality craftsmanship, and pride in ones work, we wouldn't be getting badly designed webpages, or badly crafted tables.
True Craftsmen/women don't turn out poor work.
An apprentice webpage designer would be being trained, and his/her product would be sold only when they were competant.
And, if their work wasn't quality, they'd not be allowed to do websites, but instead move into a line where they could achieve, at least competency, and, hopefully, excellence.
I can't speak for Beefy, but, for me, if I was doing a job I loved, and producing quality work, and living in a world where happiness, pride and craftmanship were truly valued and encouraged, then yes, I would be totally happy for an apprentice to be paid the same as me.
Rather that, than be paid £50 an hour in a world where apprentices are fleeced, and the majority toil in jobs they despise, producing poor quality stuff that only sells cos it's got the 'right' brand name.
Somewhere along the line, humanity lost track of what's really important- happiness. Money was supposed to facilitate that, instead, it became the point of life.
So much of business these days is about blagging, decieving and ripping off (albeit, legally)- it's horrible, and the only reason more don't see it that way is because it's the norm.
In all seriousness, I'll work for the same wages as an apprentice- if it means I love my job, do something I'm truly suited for, and it means I don't have to walk down the High Street watching crooks selling rubbish to fools.
Written by:
That higher quality work that would be selling with a higher value, therefore getting someone more hours/money - why shouldn't the carpenter get that extra money? I reckon he's probably earnt it.
It may not be selling with a particularly high value- given that the system we're talking about is one in which money is no longer the way people get paid, I suspect that a lot of current distortions will get ironed out.
So, where tables are concerned- given that they're made by true craftsmen, they would all be good quality tables, and so probably go for the same price.
Written by:
Assume you'd been working as a web designer for years though...
Then assume that you'd created an almost pefect web page, one that looked fantastic, worked brilliantly and matched the specs exactly.
Would you be happy being paid the same amount as someone who'd been in the job for a couple of weeks and who made a page that was bland and uninteresting?
We live in a system where buying stuff that turns out to be rubbish is common- where 'marketing' a product can attract more investment than making it a quality product.
In the system where money is devalued (or eliminated) and the stress is instead placed on quality craftsmanship, and pride in ones work, we wouldn't be getting badly designed webpages, or badly crafted tables.
True Craftsmen/women don't turn out poor work.
An apprentice webpage designer would be being trained, and his/her product would be sold only when they were competant.
And, if their work wasn't quality, they'd not be allowed to do websites, but instead move into a line where they could achieve, at least competency, and, hopefully, excellence.
I can't speak for Beefy, but, for me, if I was doing a job I loved, and producing quality work, and living in a world where happiness, pride and craftmanship were truly valued and encouraged, then yes, I would be totally happy for an apprentice to be paid the same as me.
Rather that, than be paid £50 an hour in a world where apprentices are fleeced, and the majority toil in jobs they despise, producing poor quality stuff that only sells cos it's got the 'right' brand name.
Somewhere along the line, humanity lost track of what's really important- happiness. Money was supposed to facilitate that, instead, it became the point of life.
So much of business these days is about blagging, decieving and ripping off (albeit, legally)- it's horrible, and the only reason more don't see it that way is because it's the norm.
In all seriousness, I'll work for the same wages as an apprentice- if it means I love my job, do something I'm truly suited for, and it means I don't have to walk down the High Street watching crooks selling rubbish to fools.
"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!
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
Here in Australia there's a massive problem getting qualified people to go where there's a shortage of work, namely out in the sticks, and it's why my partner is on $120,000 as a diesel fitter in the mines and not $35,000 as a diesel mechanic in Melbourne as he was 3 years ago. It's money that motivates people to spend their time in 40 degree heat with flies and dust for company, not the satisfaction of stripping down a transmission on a belly-dumper.
I see no reason why my job, which involves taking personal responsability for structures that could collapse if I didn't do them right should be paid the same as a trainee hairdresser's. I like earning way more than the country's average. I like having nice stuff, a decent house, investments and spare cash at the end of the month. If I was after lots of personal satisfaction but low wages I'd be drawing comics, instead I have satisfaction and a high wage, and that's why I quit my admin job and took a massive paycut to go into a job vaguely relating to what I wanted to be, bettered myself with the experience and moved halfway around the world.
I also don't see why I have to pay an extra 1.5% Medicare levy for having an income over $50,000. I resent paying 48.5% tax on the top bit of my salary. I don't like the way the Government penalises people for wanting to aim a little higher than average.
Here in Australia there's a massive problem getting qualified people to go where there's a shortage of work, namely out in the sticks, and it's why my partner is on $120,000 as a diesel fitter in the mines and not $35,000 as a diesel mechanic in Melbourne as he was 3 years ago. It's money that motivates people to spend their time in 40 degree heat with flies and dust for company, not the satisfaction of stripping down a transmission on a belly-dumper.
I see no reason why my job, which involves taking personal responsability for structures that could collapse if I didn't do them right should be paid the same as a trainee hairdresser's. I like earning way more than the country's average. I like having nice stuff, a decent house, investments and spare cash at the end of the month. If I was after lots of personal satisfaction but low wages I'd be drawing comics, instead I have satisfaction and a high wage, and that's why I quit my admin job and took a massive paycut to go into a job vaguely relating to what I wanted to be, bettered myself with the experience and moved halfway around the world.
I also don't see why I have to pay an extra 1.5% Medicare levy for having an income over $50,000. I resent paying 48.5% tax on the top bit of my salary. I don't like the way the Government penalises people for wanting to aim a little higher than average.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's true- in our culture people are motivated by money. Pay them enough and they'll go to cruddy places that no-one wants to be in, and do cruddy jubs that no-one wants to do.
Money will get them to do jobs that are highly dangerous.
No-ones denying any of this. Just suggesting that there's a different way, that involves focusing on happiness, and well-being, as an end; rather than accumulation of cash.
If the current approach of emphasising money and economic growth, actually lead to happiness and well-being, and some degree of equality, then I'd be all for it.
But it doesn't; or at least it's got major problems; there's lots of people with lots of money who are miserable; and, propping up the system are even more people with very little money, who are just as miserable.
Personally I don't think communism, or anarchism, or any extreme alternative, is the way forward.
I prefer common sense and realism.
1. Prioritise happiness and well-being (after all, isn't that supposed to be the point of money? Not as an end in itself, or an indication of a person's worth; but rather a means to happiness and well-being).
2. At least accpet that there are some serious issues concerning money, and that somewhere along the line, we kind of lost the plot.
You don't have to overnight scrap the current economy, simply face up to some flaws in it, and consider some alternatives.
Why should a building designer get paid the same as a hairdresser?
I don't like that example, I'll change it to-
why should a building designer get paid the same as a craftsman who makes quality tables?
Because they're human beings of equal value, both doing jobs they love, and are well-suited to.
If said building designer doesn't like designing buildings, then I'd suggest getting a career that they do get something out of, and enjoy.
If they're in the wrong job, then that's for them to sort out- not demand more cash to compensate for it.
I'm pretty sure that if all the well-paid people doing jobs they hate, had the experience of working in something they loved, they'd happily accept more equal wages.
But that's the long-term view; most people are too far embedded in what passes for 'normality' to even see that there is a problem; especially those who are in the higher-earning brackets, comforted by the delusion that this somehow makes them more worthwhile than those doing jobs that are every bit as important (teachers, labourers etc) but considerably less well paid.
It's true- in our culture people are motivated by money. Pay them enough and they'll go to cruddy places that no-one wants to be in, and do cruddy jubs that no-one wants to do.
Money will get them to do jobs that are highly dangerous.
No-ones denying any of this. Just suggesting that there's a different way, that involves focusing on happiness, and well-being, as an end; rather than accumulation of cash.
If the current approach of emphasising money and economic growth, actually lead to happiness and well-being, and some degree of equality, then I'd be all for it.
But it doesn't; or at least it's got major problems; there's lots of people with lots of money who are miserable; and, propping up the system are even more people with very little money, who are just as miserable.
Personally I don't think communism, or anarchism, or any extreme alternative, is the way forward.
I prefer common sense and realism.
1. Prioritise happiness and well-being (after all, isn't that supposed to be the point of money? Not as an end in itself, or an indication of a person's worth; but rather a means to happiness and well-being).
2. At least accpet that there are some serious issues concerning money, and that somewhere along the line, we kind of lost the plot.
You don't have to overnight scrap the current economy, simply face up to some flaws in it, and consider some alternatives.
Why should a building designer get paid the same as a hairdresser?
I don't like that example, I'll change it to-
why should a building designer get paid the same as a craftsman who makes quality tables?
Because they're human beings of equal value, both doing jobs they love, and are well-suited to.
If said building designer doesn't like designing buildings, then I'd suggest getting a career that they do get something out of, and enjoy.
If they're in the wrong job, then that's for them to sort out- not demand more cash to compensate for it.
I'm pretty sure that if all the well-paid people doing jobs they hate, had the experience of working in something they loved, they'd happily accept more equal wages.
But that's the long-term view; most people are too far embedded in what passes for 'normality' to even see that there is a problem; especially those who are in the higher-earning brackets, comforted by the delusion that this somehow makes them more worthwhile than those doing jobs that are every bit as important (teachers, labourers etc) but considerably less well paid.
"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!
SILVER Member
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
Posted:
Communism will never work because of human nature.
Basically. People think people should be earning different money for doing different jobs. and it will always be that way.
Communism will never work because of human nature.
Basically. People think people should be earning different money for doing different jobs. and it will always be that way.
Fair luna bright, fair luna moon
it shines at night but fades too soon
fair luna moon, fair luna bright
forever we dance
we dance under starlight
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
The consequence of a building designer getting it wrong are a bit more serious. At best, having to do major structural alterations at a high cost, at worst, killing people. A leg falling off a table might do that under a very bizarre set of circumstances but otherwise...
At present my professional liability insurance stands at $5000000 against that sort of thing, it's part of that whole personal responsability I mentioned.
Written by:
why should a building designer get paid the same as a craftsman who makes quality tables?
Because they're human beings of equal value, both doing jobs they love, and are well-suited to.
The consequence of a building designer getting it wrong are a bit more serious. At best, having to do major structural alterations at a high cost, at worst, killing people. A leg falling off a table might do that under a very bizarre set of circumstances but otherwise...
At present my professional liability insurance stands at $5000000 against that sort of thing, it's part of that whole personal responsability I mentioned.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
so we're doomed?
naaa - I regard this as a superficial statement
in affection and to repeat stereotypes of the "human race"...
Written by: DoktorSkell
Communism will never work because of human nature.
Basically. People think people should be earning different money for doing different jobs. and it will always be that way.
so we're doomed?naaa - I regard this as a superficial statement
in affection and to repeat stereotypes of the "human race"... the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
Friendly Fire Fiddler
103 posts
Location: Munich, Germany
Friendly Fire Fiddler
103 posts
Location: Munich, Germany
Posted:
"i'm interested to hear exactly what is so obvious about people being paid the same that wouldn't work"
Because the fairest prices are defined by supply vs demand ONLY. A glass of water will always be more pricy in the desert than at lakeside. If it wasnt, people in the desert would die ...
My maybe bit cryptic post 1 was to explain some basic economic laws that people have defined centuries ago. Those prove how communal approaches to steering societies must lead to lower output and poverty for all.
It took me a degree in economy to understand that communism or a "fair third way" just doesnt work. Now I am surprised why we are all taught in school the basisc of biology, physics etc but not ecomomics so even some world politicians just dont understand where our wealth comes from and why people in stoneage were that much poorer.
While Bill Gates personal fortune is indeed obscene vs the poverty in Africa etc. you cannot change the basic system that creates such a big cake / GDP - and expect such a new system would still yield the same ...
Individual freedom to select the job their best at, individual property, risk taking in setting up business and reward by supply-demand pricing is the only way that creates the wealth and allows us to have a working social system ... god I almost sound like Bush ...
"i'm interested to hear exactly what is so obvious about people being paid the same that wouldn't work"
Because the fairest prices are defined by supply vs demand ONLY. A glass of water will always be more pricy in the desert than at lakeside. If it wasnt, people in the desert would die ...
My maybe bit cryptic post 1 was to explain some basic economic laws that people have defined centuries ago. Those prove how communal approaches to steering societies must lead to lower output and poverty for all.
It took me a degree in economy to understand that communism or a "fair third way" just doesnt work. Now I am surprised why we are all taught in school the basisc of biology, physics etc but not ecomomics so even some world politicians just dont understand where our wealth comes from and why people in stoneage were that much poorer.
While Bill Gates personal fortune is indeed obscene vs the poverty in Africa etc. you cannot change the basic system that creates such a big cake / GDP - and expect such a new system would still yield the same ...
Individual freedom to select the job their best at, individual property, risk taking in setting up business and reward by supply-demand pricing is the only way that creates the wealth and allows us to have a working social system ... god I almost sound like Bush ...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Valid and true Hence right now we have the said scenario, that a fisherman doesn't know he should become a fisherman and becomes a cook instead - is unhappy with himself cooking and spitting into each curry he prepares... Right now even people think that a cowboy should not be a cowboy and herd cows but be president and herd a whole nation 
The majority of people are too afraid that they have to pay the full bill and only get an 8th of the beers.
and the world suffers from the desease that some people simply cannot get enough - whereas they will hardly be able to spend all that wealth... 
But hey, what's the point in having more than you can spend? Accumulation of wealth does not improve your security - only polishes your ego and destroys the planet. It's pointless and destructive.
So an easy solution could be to find out where our individual talents are and proceed in this direction. When we have fun doing what we do, enough energy is flowing back to us and we do not have to get satisfied by our bank-statement.
The basic needs have to be met - that's all. I want to eat and drink, feed my children and have a roof over the head. Fullstop. I do not necessarily need a cellphone, neither a car - not even a television. the only thing right now hard to pass out on is a PC - because then I couldn't argue with you guys 
Written by: ZeroG
1. (...) If a fisherman fishes, a farmer farms and a cook cooks, ALL 3 will be better off in the end than if the cook fishes, the farmer cooks and the fisherman farms.
2. Now would it be better to share the yield communally ?
No, as ALL will be worse off. (...)
Or a group down the pub drinks more when buying rounds vs when each orders individually. (...)
Valid and true
Hence right now we have the said scenario, that a fisherman doesn't know he should become a fisherman and becomes a cook instead - is unhappy with himself cooking and spitting into each curry he prepares... Right now even people think that a cowboy should not be a cowboy and herd cows but be president and herd a whole nation The majority of people are too afraid that they have to pay the full bill and only get an 8th of the beers.
and the world suffers from the desease that some people simply cannot get enough - whereas they will hardly be able to spend all that wealth... But hey, what's the point in having more than you can spend? Accumulation of wealth does not improve your security - only polishes your ego and destroys the planet. It's pointless and destructive.So an easy solution could be to find out where our individual talents are and proceed in this direction. When we have fun doing what we do, enough energy is flowing back to us and we do not have to get satisfied by our bank-statement.
The basic needs have to be met - that's all. I want to eat and drink, feed my children and have a roof over the head. Fullstop. I do not necessarily need a cellphone, neither a car - not even a television. the only thing right now hard to pass out on is a PC - because then I couldn't argue with you guys
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm questioning the basic assumption that a person who does a job which, if they mess up, people die, should therefore be paid more.
Why should they be paid more?
Firstly, the fact they are paid more helps no-one in the sad event that they do mess up and people do die.
Secondly, it seems to be based on neglecting the fact that many jobs carry this kind of responsibility, and aren't necessarily highly paid; for example, bus drivers (a mistake can wipe out a busload of people) and sandwich makers (salmonella).
Thirdly, relating specifically to the case of building designers- is it really the case that the lives of the buildings inhabitants are in your hands alone? I would have thought that where something that important is concerned, there are several individuals concerned, and backed up by extensive and rigid procedures, planning restrictions etc, etc.
If though, such vital decisions really are in the hands of one individual, then, IMO, that's a fault in the system and should be rectified.
Fourthly,if a building designer gets a high wage on those grounds, then presumably infantry soldiers patrolloing Iraq, whose actions can lead to many innocent deaths in the event of mistake, as well as being in possibly the most stressful and dangerous career going; should all be millionaires?
So no, personally, I see no grounds whatsoever that those who do such jobs like designing buildings should recieve so much as one dollar more than a sandwich maker (or a soldier).
The fact is they're lucky enough to do important jobs that they can take pride in, in a comfortable and pleasant environment- they do an important job, but, then again, so do most of us (eg teachers, youth workers, labourers).
Written by: EeraWritten by: onewheeldave
why should a building designer get paid the same as a craftsman who makes quality tables?
Because they're human beings of equal value, both doing jobs they love, and are well-suited to.
The consequence of a building designer getting it wrong are a bit more serious. At best, having to do major structural alterations at a high cost, at worst, killing people. A leg falling off a table might do that under a very bizarre set of circumstances but otherwise...
At present my professional liability insurance stands at $5000000 against that sort of thing, it's part of that whole personal responsability I mentioned.
I'm questioning the basic assumption that a person who does a job which, if they mess up, people die, should therefore be paid more.
Why should they be paid more?
Firstly, the fact they are paid more helps no-one in the sad event that they do mess up and people do die.
Secondly, it seems to be based on neglecting the fact that many jobs carry this kind of responsibility, and aren't necessarily highly paid; for example, bus drivers (a mistake can wipe out a busload of people) and sandwich makers (salmonella).
Thirdly, relating specifically to the case of building designers- is it really the case that the lives of the buildings inhabitants are in your hands alone? I would have thought that where something that important is concerned, there are several individuals concerned, and backed up by extensive and rigid procedures, planning restrictions etc, etc.
If though, such vital decisions really are in the hands of one individual, then, IMO, that's a fault in the system and should be rectified.
Fourthly,if a building designer gets a high wage on those grounds, then presumably infantry soldiers patrolloing Iraq, whose actions can lead to many innocent deaths in the event of mistake, as well as being in possibly the most stressful and dangerous career going; should all be millionaires?
So no, personally, I see no grounds whatsoever that those who do such jobs like designing buildings should recieve so much as one dollar more than a sandwich maker (or a soldier).
The fact is they're lucky enough to do important jobs that they can take pride in, in a comfortable and pleasant environment- they do an important job, but, then again, so do most of us (eg teachers, youth workers, labourers).
"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!
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
WIth the whole 'people die as a result of messing up, therefore i should get paid more' side of things, i think that most jobs carry that responsibility, really.
A domestic electrician messes up - potential of electrocutions, house fires, power shortages.
A plumber messes up - poisoning, sickness, all the other nasty things that can happen if one's urine and fecal matter don't go where they're supposed to.
Also, in agreeance with OWD, there should be checks in place. Plus, why should someone that's sitting in a comfortable environment, such as an airconditioned office, be paid any more or less than the person who has to go out and put that building up, possibly in adverse weather conditions, doing manual labour, having put three or more years of their life into learning the skills required to do so, on a minimum wage?
Also, as a claryfying point, i'm not saying that everyone would immediately get paid the same amount. If they all worked the same amount, they would, but should someone, say, a part time sandwich maker, only work 10 hours in a week, they wouldn't get the same amount as someone working 9-5 5 days a week.
There's even the possibility that, say for someone that travels to a remote area, they'd get paid the entire time that they're there, eg. a two week on, two week off diesel mechanic would get 336 hours worth for their time away from home, while a five day on, two day off office worker would get 80 hours for their time spent not at home.
And, in regards to i8beefy's web page making:
You've just finished tweaking and perfecting a web page. Everything works fine, it looks like love on a popstick. In short, its one of the best you've ever done.
How long did it take?
I can knock up a basic three page site in the space of about half an hour, usuing frontpage. But your page is still 'worth' more than mine is, because you've put more time (especially), and therefore more effort and energy into it.
Thus, if someone churning out 10 sites in a week of inferior quality spends the same amount of time working as someone turning out one perfect site in a month. Why should there be any difference between what the two can afford?
WIth the whole 'people die as a result of messing up, therefore i should get paid more' side of things, i think that most jobs carry that responsibility, really.
A domestic electrician messes up - potential of electrocutions, house fires, power shortages.
A plumber messes up - poisoning, sickness, all the other nasty things that can happen if one's urine and fecal matter don't go where they're supposed to.
Also, in agreeance with OWD, there should be checks in place. Plus, why should someone that's sitting in a comfortable environment, such as an airconditioned office, be paid any more or less than the person who has to go out and put that building up, possibly in adverse weather conditions, doing manual labour, having put three or more years of their life into learning the skills required to do so, on a minimum wage?
Also, as a claryfying point, i'm not saying that everyone would immediately get paid the same amount. If they all worked the same amount, they would, but should someone, say, a part time sandwich maker, only work 10 hours in a week, they wouldn't get the same amount as someone working 9-5 5 days a week.
There's even the possibility that, say for someone that travels to a remote area, they'd get paid the entire time that they're there, eg. a two week on, two week off diesel mechanic would get 336 hours worth for their time away from home, while a five day on, two day off office worker would get 80 hours for their time spent not at home.
And, in regards to i8beefy's web page making:
You've just finished tweaking and perfecting a web page. Everything works fine, it looks like love on a popstick. In short, its one of the best you've ever done.
How long did it take?
I can knock up a basic three page site in the space of about half an hour, usuing frontpage. But your page is still 'worth' more than mine is, because you've put more time (especially), and therefore more effort and energy into it.
Thus, if someone churning out 10 sites in a week of inferior quality spends the same amount of time working as someone turning out one perfect site in a month. Why should there be any difference between what the two can afford?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
Hypothetical situation: you want to buy a new dining table. You've been hard at work all week, earnt stacks of cash, lets say $3,000 AUD. Looking through the classifieds, there's a Louis IV 8 seater table available for $100, or there's a Go-Lo 8 seater kit job available for the same price.
I know what i'd buy. And guess which one was made by someone that loves their work...
And that's something that's been lost. There aren't many people out there that are willing to spend half a year turning a tree into a work of art any more. And there's even less people that are willing to spend as many years as are needed to learn the skills, patience, techniques and knowledge needed to do so.
There's many people, i'm guessing, that would pour their heart and soul into a project, but doing so doesn't pay the bills.
why shouldn't it?
Written by: Eera
The consequence of a building designer getting it wrong are a bit more serious. At best, having to do major structural alterations at a high cost, at worst, killing people. A leg falling off a table might do that under a very bizarre set of circumstances but otherwise...
Hypothetical situation: you want to buy a new dining table. You've been hard at work all week, earnt stacks of cash, lets say $3,000 AUD. Looking through the classifieds, there's a Louis IV 8 seater table available for $100, or there's a Go-Lo 8 seater kit job available for the same price.
I know what i'd buy. And guess which one was made by someone that loves their work...
And that's something that's been lost. There aren't many people out there that are willing to spend half a year turning a tree into a work of art any more. And there's even less people that are willing to spend as many years as are needed to learn the skills, patience, techniques and knowledge needed to do so.
There's many people, i'm guessing, that would pour their heart and soul into a project, but doing so doesn't pay the bills.
why shouldn't it?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Emphasis mine.
Surely there'd be no such thing as a minimum wage with a communist setup? Wouldn't everyone be earning a standardised wage instead?
So, someone gets paid to train up for 3 years, then ends up working in an comfortable air conditioned office, while a construction worker spends that time in possible adverse weather conditions doing manual labour? How is that in any way fair?
Written by: MiG
Also, in agreeance with OWD, there should be checks in place. Plus, why should someone that's sitting in a comfortable environment, such as an airconditioned office, be paid any more or less than the person who has to go out and put that building up, possibly in adverse weather conditions, doing manual labour, having put three or more years of their life into learning the skills required to do so, on a minimum wage?
Emphasis mine.
Surely there'd be no such thing as a minimum wage with a communist setup? Wouldn't everyone be earning a standardised wage instead?
So, someone gets paid to train up for 3 years, then ends up working in an comfortable air conditioned office, while a construction worker spends that time in possible adverse weather conditions doing manual labour? How is that in any way fair?
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
That quote is the system we have today, training wages vs qualified wages.
If, however, a worker in rain, hail and shine gets paid as much as one in an office, would it be any less fair than today, when they get about half?
That quote is the system we have today, training wages vs qualified wages.
If, however, a worker in rain, hail and shine gets paid as much as one in an office, would it be any less fair than today, when they get about half?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
One thing missing from the discussion so far. Historically, in Communist countries the citizens weren't actually granted the luxury of deciding on their career path, they were told.
Job satisfaction wasn't ever part of the equation, it was work, or jail
And as to quality of life, well when was the last time you stood in a line to buy substandard toilet paper
True, everybody was equal, and things equally sucked for everybody, Remember when the Berlin wall came down, and we finally got a glimpse of what life was like behind the iron curtain?
Maybe you thing you're hard done by, that life isn't fair when someone can sit in an air conditioned office and make twice as much as someone working out in the elements, but you at least have the opportunity to become that person sitting in that office, if you so desire.
One thing missing from the discussion so far. Historically, in Communist countries the citizens weren't actually granted the luxury of deciding on their career path, they were told.
Job satisfaction wasn't ever part of the equation, it was work, or jail
And as to quality of life, well when was the last time you stood in a line to buy substandard toilet paper
True, everybody was equal, and things equally sucked for everybody, Remember when the Berlin wall came down, and we finally got a glimpse of what life was like behind the iron curtain?
Maybe you thing you're hard done by, that life isn't fair when someone can sit in an air conditioned office and make twice as much as someone working out in the elements, but you at least have the opportunity to become that person sitting in that office, if you so desire.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Just to clarify my position here- as previously stated, I would not support communism. However, as elaborated on in my previous posts on this thread, I do oppose some aspects of the current way of doing things in the West.
And I think change is both possible and desirable.
Just to clarify my position here- as previously stated, I would not support communism. However, as elaborated on in my previous posts on this thread, I do oppose some aspects of the current way of doing things in the West.
And I think change is both possible and desirable.
"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!
SILVER Member
enthusiast
213 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
enthusiast
213 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Posted:
It seems change might be on the way to. I was reading an article the other day about the escalating fuel prices and diminishing fossil fuels. They say there's only about 40 years worth left at current consumption. The most immediate problem that this poses, apart from the overriding problem of environmental damage, is the inevitability of fuel costs reaching such high levels that industry can't afford to function as it does today. Everything from powering the factories to shipping the goods will become so expensive that it simply won't be cost effective. The argument was that this would result in a rennaissance for local traders and traditional small business. Obviously this wouldn't be communism, but more of a slide towards Dave's ideal of the self-respecting craftsperson operating as part of a community. Perhaps this isn't the perfect system, but it's certainly a lot better than the current one.
It seems change might be on the way to. I was reading an article the other day about the escalating fuel prices and diminishing fossil fuels. They say there's only about 40 years worth left at current consumption. The most immediate problem that this poses, apart from the overriding problem of environmental damage, is the inevitability of fuel costs reaching such high levels that industry can't afford to function as it does today. Everything from powering the factories to shipping the goods will become so expensive that it simply won't be cost effective. The argument was that this would result in a rennaissance for local traders and traditional small business. Obviously this wouldn't be communism, but more of a slide towards Dave's ideal of the self-respecting craftsperson operating as part of a community. Perhaps this isn't the perfect system, but it's certainly a lot better than the current one.
Will those capable of telekinesis please raise my hand?
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
I weep for ebay...
I weep for ebay...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
One of the things that MiG's post made me think about was:
Just because someone spends a lot of time making something, doesn't ensure that it is better quality, or of greater worth.
So I could spend 12 hours making a crappy website, and someone else could spend 6 hours making a better one... I'd still get paid more. Also, people who are new to a job will inevitably take more time to do things. Someone who's been working in a Chippy for 20 years will obviously do MORE work in LESS time than someone recruited last week. So the trainee gets more money (relatively speaking) for doing the same amount of work.
Fair?
"Capitalism is the exploitation of man, by man. Communism is the reverse of this" - Someone I've forgotten... I'll check back later.
One of the things that MiG's post made me think about was:
Just because someone spends a lot of time making something, doesn't ensure that it is better quality, or of greater worth.
So I could spend 12 hours making a crappy website, and someone else could spend 6 hours making a better one... I'd still get paid more. Also, people who are new to a job will inevitably take more time to do things. Someone who's been working in a Chippy for 20 years will obviously do MORE work in LESS time than someone recruited last week. So the trainee gets more money (relatively speaking) for doing the same amount of work.
Fair?
"Capitalism is the exploitation of man, by man. Communism is the reverse of this" - Someone I've forgotten... I'll check back later.
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.
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
I'm thinking that maybe i shouldn't have put communism in the title. I'm not saying that this is communism, and i'm not saying that communism is good. Nor am i saying that people should get told what they're doing, nor that they should be shot if they don't like it.
All i am saying is that possibly, a different system of payment might be a good thing
The different method i thought of, and would like to discuss, is one wherein there is a common hourly rate for all persons in the workforce.
That's about as compressed and simple as i can make it. There is no iron curtain, there is no oppression by the government, there is no change (as a direct result, though, indirectly, there probably would be) of supply and demand.
@sethis: yes, that's true. It's true today, as well. And, like happens today, if you overcharge for a shoddy product, you don't get return business. Unless you've got brilliant marketing *coughmicrosoftcough* techniques.
I'm thinking that maybe i shouldn't have put communism in the title. I'm not saying that this is communism, and i'm not saying that communism is good. Nor am i saying that people should get told what they're doing, nor that they should be shot if they don't like it.
All i am saying is that possibly, a different system of payment might be a good thing
The different method i thought of, and would like to discuss, is one wherein there is a common hourly rate for all persons in the workforce.
That's about as compressed and simple as i can make it. There is no iron curtain, there is no oppression by the government, there is no change (as a direct result, though, indirectly, there probably would be) of supply and demand.
@sethis: yes, that's true. It's true today, as well. And, like happens today, if you overcharge for a shoddy product, you don't get return business. Unless you've got brilliant marketing *coughmicrosoftcough* techniques.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
@tom_shill: does that estimation include the exploding demand for oil and petrol in asia, formost china?
to topic: a different way to be paid is just as getting paid the same as right now. This has been stated before, but if you use "hours" instead of "bucks" - you're exterminating the devil with the demon. therefore pointless.
If we're seeking to change the system we have to start at it's roots. If people demand more - the question goes "on what grounds"? It may be responsibility, whereas (as stated before) a doctor and a busdriver already don't have the same responsibility (with the lead of the busdriver)... it may be hardship of the work a mine worker vs. a sandwichmaker... it may be the complexity of the job, a biochemist vs. a postoffice-clerk...
The problem is complex and along with the argument people give up and say: "It's impossible to change the system due to the nature of mankind." - but this I call a superstitious conclusion.
To go to the roots IMO "job-satisfaction" is one major key. The whole educational procedure has to be revised, too. As I find it extremely stupid that the child of a politician automatically receives a better education than the one of a electrician, yet the latter might be of higher intelligence. If we create a world that is rather coming down in the individual than the acclaimed status, we might take a step into the right direction.
IMO it's the educational system we have to revise first - otherwise we may circumnavigate around the issue until forever.
@tom_shill: does that estimation include the exploding demand for oil and petrol in asia, formost china?
to topic: a different way to be paid is just as getting paid the same as right now. This has been stated before, but if you use "hours" instead of "bucks" - you're exterminating the devil with the demon.
therefore pointless.If we're seeking to change the system we have to start at it's roots. If people demand more - the question goes "on what grounds"? It may be responsibility, whereas (as stated before) a doctor and a busdriver already don't have the same responsibility (with the lead of the busdriver)... it may be hardship of the work a mine worker vs. a sandwichmaker... it may be the complexity of the job, a biochemist vs. a postoffice-clerk...
The problem is complex and along with the argument people give up and say: "It's impossible to change the system due to the nature of mankind." - but this I call a superstitious conclusion.
To go to the roots IMO "job-satisfaction" is one major key. The whole educational procedure has to be revised, too. As I find it extremely stupid that the child of a politician automatically receives a better education than the one of a electrician, yet the latter might be of higher intelligence. If we create a world that is rather coming down in the individual than the acclaimed status, we might take a step into the right direction.
IMO it's the educational system we have to revise first - otherwise we may circumnavigate around the issue until forever.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
Friendly Fire Fiddler
103 posts
Location: Munich, Germany
Friendly Fire Fiddler
103 posts
Location: Munich, Germany
Posted:
Thing is, you get paid not for the hours you put in but for the result that comes out.
I can spent 6 hours at a creek holding a line while another guy catches a fish in 20 minutes.
Is this just ? No, but who else should go and give me my fish for all the hard work ?
Darwin would probalby say, that's why a Giraffe has a long neck ...
Thing is, you get paid not for the hours you put in but for the result that comes out.
I can spent 6 hours at a creek holding a line while another guy catches a fish in 20 minutes.
Is this just ? No, but who else should go and give me my fish for all the hard work ?
Darwin would probalby say, that's why a Giraffe has a long neck ...
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Sorry. What the hell are you all talking about.
Communism!? As a word is now so overly imbued with referents that it is virtually meaningless (much the same as postmodernism)
We've had references to China, a state which is on the international capitalist market but has some (often repressive) aspects of state socialism and Russia, a state whic was run by the Communist Party but which by the admission of Soviet leaders such as Breznev was not a communist state but a form of socialist bureacracy.
Communism could mean Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism. It could be referenced by contemporary Marxist thinkers such as Negri and Albert allied with contemporary socio-economic ideas such as Parecon. It could be read into the current reforms being implemented by Chavez in Venezuala, such as worker run factories, land resdistribution and participatory forms of local government.
But without any sort of clarification, just saying communism means very little.
Sorry. What the hell are you all talking about.
Communism!? As a word is now so overly imbued with referents that it is virtually meaningless (much the same as postmodernism)
We've had references to China, a state which is on the international capitalist market but has some (often repressive) aspects of state socialism and Russia, a state whic was run by the Communist Party but which by the admission of Soviet leaders such as Breznev was not a communist state but a form of socialist bureacracy.
Communism could mean Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism. It could be referenced by contemporary Marxist thinkers such as Negri and Albert allied with contemporary socio-economic ideas such as Parecon. It could be read into the current reforms being implemented by Chavez in Venezuala, such as worker run factories, land resdistribution and participatory forms of local government.
But without any sort of clarification, just saying communism means very little.
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
SILVER Member
enthusiast
213 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
enthusiast
213 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Posted:
The OED has communism as:
1. a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.
b. spec. A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and later developed by Lenin, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution; = MARXISM-LENINISM. (Freq. with capital initial.)
2. a. Applied to any practice which carries out this theory in whole or part; e.g. that mentioned in Acts ii. 44 seq., as practised in the church of Jerusalem, or that prevailing in monastic communities. spec. The communistic social order established in Russia after the revolution of March 1917, and later in certain associated countries; = BOLSHEVISM. (Freq. with capital initial.) Also transf.
Communism is a very specific thing. Stalin wasn't a communist, and so far there has not been truly communist state; they always get hijacked by the likes of Stalin and Mao.
The OED has communism as:
1. a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.
b. spec. A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and later developed by Lenin, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution; = MARXISM-LENINISM. (Freq. with capital initial.)
2. a. Applied to any practice which carries out this theory in whole or part; e.g. that mentioned in Acts ii. 44 seq., as practised in the church of Jerusalem, or that prevailing in monastic communities. spec. The communistic social order established in Russia after the revolution of March 1917, and later in certain associated countries; = BOLSHEVISM. (Freq. with capital initial.) Also transf.
Communism is a very specific thing. Stalin wasn't a communist, and so far there has not been truly communist state; they always get hijacked by the likes of Stalin and Mao.
Will those capable of telekinesis please raise my hand?
SILVER Member
enthusiast
213 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
enthusiast
213 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Posted:
@ firetom: I assume so, the article didn't explicitly say so but it must be a consideration in any global projections. Especially since any reductions in western consumption must be balanced increasing usage in asia
@ firetom: I assume so, the article didn't explicitly say so but it must be a consideration in any global projections. Especially since any reductions in western consumption must be balanced increasing usage in asia
Will those capable of telekinesis please raise my hand?
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
1a. is merely a broader definition which would include forms socialism.
1b.
Marxism and Leninism are not the same thing. And what of all the theoretical positions adopted by marxist thinkers over the course of the last hundred years? Trotsky, Negri etc... by the definition you provide as of 1928 there could be no advance of communist doctrine.
So any system with socialist tendencies is communism? This would surely then have to include both Stalin and Mao. Very different from Marx but they carried out the theories in part.
And where in your definition is the all important withering away of the state, a central feature of the writings of Marx, and probably the main differentiation between communism and socialism.
Hang on... the definiton you supply gives examples of communist states.
Perhaps then you mean that these regimes have put theory in practice in part rather than in whole. But the question of which whole still remains. Marx and Lenin had different ideas such as Leninist Cadres. Putting Leninism 'in whole' in pracice will in some ways contradict putting Marxism 'in whole' into practice.
Aside from that, the idea that you can place a 100 or 150 year old theory and merely overlay it onto a contemporary society is ludicrous. Which is why the work of modern Marxist scholars has to be taken into account.
Somewhat importantly, modern radical thinkers have stressed flexibilty, rhizomatic social structures, having learnt from the failures of state socialism.
1a. is merely a broader definition which would include forms socialism.
1b.
Written by:
A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and later developed by Lenin, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution; = MARXISM-LENINISM
Marxism and Leninism are not the same thing. And what of all the theoretical positions adopted by marxist thinkers over the course of the last hundred years? Trotsky, Negri etc... by the definition you provide as of 1928 there could be no advance of communist doctrine.
Written by:
2. a. Applied to any practice which carries out this theory in whole or part
So any system with socialist tendencies is communism? This would surely then have to include both Stalin and Mao. Very different from Marx but they carried out the theories in part.
And where in your definition is the all important withering away of the state, a central feature of the writings of Marx, and probably the main differentiation between communism and socialism.
Written by:
so far there has not been truly communist state
Hang on... the definiton you supply gives examples of communist states.
Perhaps then you mean that these regimes have put theory in practice in part rather than in whole. But the question of which whole still remains. Marx and Lenin had different ideas such as Leninist Cadres. Putting Leninism 'in whole' in pracice will in some ways contradict putting Marxism 'in whole' into practice.
Aside from that, the idea that you can place a 100 or 150 year old theory and merely overlay it onto a contemporary society is ludicrous. Which is why the work of modern Marxist scholars has to be taken into account.
Somewhat importantly, modern radical thinkers have stressed flexibilty, rhizomatic social structures, having learnt from the failures of state socialism.
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
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Ok, so if we remove Communism from the idea, and still keep the concept of money, then we're left with basically a society where everybody earns the same wage regardless of their profession.
What happens to business owners, and the self employed, who pays them ?
Ok, so if we remove Communism from the idea, and still keep the concept of money, then we're left with basically a society where everybody earns the same wage regardless of their profession.
What happens to business owners, and the self employed, who pays them ?
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [communism different way paid] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Communism? different way to be paid... [73 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com