The people -vs- capitalism

[Things change I've changed]

I said I would not get out of bed to the same job which required a lot of effort and which rewarded me the same as someone doing something easy if that was the system we were stuck in. Why aspire, train hard and want to get somewhere if someone can sit on their behind and get rewarded the same?

Because you would be motivated to work in a career that your interested in and are care about, I've found that many people in decent jobs have a keen interest in their field and would not do anything boring or mundane for the same money, their motivations go beyond money, this idea that everybody would just want to work 'carp' jobs in an equal society is ridiculous.

Isn't lowrider007 always moaning about a lack of money as well?

no.

I've ranted about housing costs/rent a fair amount, not just on my behalf though.

 

[Tefal]

Because you would be motivated to work in a career that your interested in are care about, I've found that many people in decent jobs have a keen interest in their field and would not do anything boring or mundane for the same money, their motivations go beyond money, this idea that everybody would just want to work 'carp' jobs in an equal society is ridiculous.

So who are these people who are motivated to stack shelves?

or clean toilets?


Also why would you work many stressful hours a week to manage a large organisation, when you could work much less in a lower managerial position and enjoy more time with your family?


what happens if the people who really really want to be doctors just actually aren't as good as the people who do it because it pays well?

just stop having doctors or do you try and encourage more people into the crappy job that pays no more?

perhaps with greater incentives?

 

[Monkeymatt]

Socialism is very good on paper, but due to the natural greed of Humans it doesn't end up anywhere near as good in reality. If we lived in a perfect world where everybody was honest and willing to work for the collective good, then yes I would be willing to assist a move away from capitalism. This isn't a perfect society so Capitalism is the best of a bad bunch.

 

[Things change I've changed]

So who are these people who are motivated to stack shelves?

or clean toilets?

What on earth are you going on about?

Also why would you work many stressful hours a week to manage a large organisation, when you could work much less in a lower managerial position and enjoy more time with your family?

If your in a well paid job managing a large organisation what's stopping them from doing that right now in the current system?, many people in these positions like what they do.

 

[Floogie]

Read it. It's interesting. Done some research.

Excellent. Then you'll know that for a nation to be socialist/communist it will immediately direct production on the basis of use-value and not exchange-value. The by-product of this will obviously put money into obsolescence (as its generated from surplus value). Moreover, this must be done alongside the abolition of private property and require collective democratic ownership of the means of production.

In light of all of the above still being present in the USSR (and its equivalents) can you therefore explain why it still deemed socialist/communist in your opinion?

 

[Tefal]

If your in a well paid job managing a large organisation what's stopping them from doing that right now in the current system?, many people in these positions like what they do.

the business will fail?

because working longer and harder brings in more rewards for themselves.

because they wouldn't be able to afford their mortgage on their multimillion pound house?

You're right those business people do like their high powered jobs because they like the rewards, they like the win. Think alan sugar would have built a business if he'd have earned no more than having got a job at tescos?

Do you think he did it with no material motivation at all?



We pay a lot of extra money for people to do jobs that not many people can actually do (example not everyone is cut out to be a doctor, or an engineer) but many people want to do.

if the people who are capable of doing the jobs chose not to without that extra incentive you're stuck with no one to do it.

placing everything in the hope that "people will want to do it" is retarded.


would many people work on oil rigs not seeing their families for weeks or work abroad not seeing their children potentially for months if it didn't provide the extra compensation it does now.

Also how do you divvy stuff up, who gets the mansions who gets the 1 bed room flats?

 

[Things change I've changed]

placing everything in the hope that "people will want to do it" is retarded.

Nobody on here seems to think very far ahead, capitalism will not be around in it's current form forever, the idea that money or fear of living in poverty are the only secured forms of motivation for working and driving the economy is RETARDED.

I'm always thinking way into the future rather than just living in the now, the problem is most people don't think beyond their own limited life span which is a nats wing in the grand scheme of things, I don't care about tomorrow, I'm thinking hundreds of years into the future, I have a great faith in human evolution and faith in us as human beings, you only have to look over the last few hundred years to see how we have changed and improved dramatically, MASSIVE society changes and standards of living, these MASSIVE changes will continue to occur, fact, history is proof of that, and due to technology and industrial modernization those changes are getting faster, changing how we think, feel, communicate, choose to live our lives, more and more of us are questioning our motivations and our direction in life, you can't even imagine how we will be only a measly 200 years down the road, the need for accumulating material wealth will eventually die out, what will the economy do then?

 

[The Halk]

Excellent. Then you'll know that for a nation to be socialist/communist it will immediately direct production on the basis of use-value and not exchange-value. The by-product of this will obviously put money into obsolescence (as its generated from surplus value). Moreover, this must be done alongside the abolition of private property and require collective democratic ownership of the means of production.

In light of all of the above still being present in the USSR (and its equivalents) can you therefore explain why it still deemed socialist/communist in your opinion?

I'm as interested in debating this with you as I am debating evolution with an American conservative.

 

[Amp34]

Excellent. Then you'll know that for a nation to be socialist/communist it will immediately direct production on the basis of use-value and not exchange-value. The by-product of this will obviously put money into obsolescence (as its generated from surplus value). Moreover, this must be done alongside the abolition of private property and require collective democratic ownership of the means of production.

In light of all of the above still being present in the USSR (and its equivalents) can you therefore explain why it still deemed socialist/communist in your opinion?

Nice and authoritarian there. Take everyones stuff and share it out. And there was elmarko1234 saying socialism didn't have to be authoritarian.

Proper socialism only works in small communities/groups, where everyone knows each other and has an interest in others welfare (such as family groups and small remote villages). It doesn't work when you don't give a **** about most of the people you may be supporting.

Nobody on here seems to think very far ahead, capitalism will not be around in it's current form forever, the idea that money or fear of living in poverty are the only secured forms of motivation for working and driving the economy is RETARDED.

I'm always thinking way into the future rather than just living in the now, the problem is most people don't think beyond their own limited life span which is a nats wing in the grand scheme of things, I don't care about tomorrow, I'm thinking hundreds of years into the future, I have a great faith in human evolution and faith in us as human beings, you only have to look over the last few hundred years to see how we have changed and improved dramatically, MASSIVE society changes and standards of living, these MASSIVE changes will continue to occur, fact, history is proof of that, and due to technology and industrial modernization those changes are getting faster, changing how we think, feel, communicate, choose to live our lives, more and more of us are questioning our motivations and our direction in life, you can't even imagine how we will be only a measly 200 years down the road, the need for accumulating material wealth will eventually die out, what will the economy do then?

No, capitalism will change, slightly, but considering those fears have been driving factors for several thousand years (with money involved) and even longer without forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical... You're essentially suggesting a future where everything is done by something else (robots?) and you only have to do jobs you want to do because you want to. If that is the case then humans will have to find another way of satisfying their greed and competitive nature. I'm not sure you can breed that out in a couple of centuries, considering it's been instilled in us over millions of years...

 

[No1newts]

Nobody on here seems to think very far ahead, capitalism will not be around in it's current form forever, the idea that money or fear of living in poverty are the only secured forms of motivation for working and driving the economy is RETARDED.

I'm always thinking way into the future rather than just living in the now, the problem is most people don't think beyond their own limited life span which is a nats wing in the grand scheme of things, I don't care about tomorrow, I'm thinking hundreds of years into the future, I have a great faith in human evolution and faith in us as human beings, you only have to look over the last few hundred years to see how we have changed and improved dramatically, MASSIVE society changes and standards of living, these MASSIVE changes will continue to occur, fact, history is proof of that, and due to technology and industrial modernization those changes are getting faster, changing how we think, feel, communicate, choose to live our lives, more and more of us are questioning our motivations and our direction in life, you can't even imagine how we will be only a measly 200 years down the road, the need for accumulating material wealth will eventually die out, what will the economy do then?

YOu keep thinking hundreds of years in the future about how great life will be then and at the same time, whining about how **** life is now.

Personally I would rather make my own and the life of my children great and let the future sort itself out.

But whatever floats your boat!

 

[Things change I've changed]

YOu keep thinking hundreds of years in the future about how great life will be then and at the same time, whining about how **** life is now.

I'm not whining at all, this a forum and I'm calmly posting on it, perhaps you should relax mate, and where have I said life is **** right now?, as an evolutionist I have to accept a lot of what is happening in the current climate as the correct system for this time in history, just as I have to accept many bad things in history as part of a learning process for mankind, in many ways our current environment is perfect in terms of teaching us to find our way, my argument was just that the current economic drivers will not will not be around forever, money will not always be the great motivator it once was.

You should listen to this Ted talk, there have been some good studies of what motivates us in the work place,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&list=FLn7t69S4bE6Dn5j3fqUWhXA&index=15&feature=plpp_video

 

[Tefal]

Nobody on here seems to think very far ahead, capitalism will not be around in it's current form forever,

has been for the last 150 thousand years....

 

[Things change I've changed]

No, capitalism will change, slightly, but considering those fears have been driving factors for several thousand years (with money involved) and even longer without forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical... You're essentially suggesting a future where everything is done by something else (robots?) and you only have to do jobs you want to do because you want to. If that is the case then humans will have to find another way of satisfying their greed and competitive nature. I'm not sure you can breed that out in a couple of centuries, considering it's been instilled in us over millions of years...

I agree, it's not something that will be bred out of us over just a couple of centuries, just that radical changes will occur within them, also remember that for millions of years the majority us were essentially surviving beyond a few elite, since the advent of the great industrial revolution we as a majority at least in most countries have started living, there is a big difference, going forward I don't think there will be the same level of stagnation as we suffered during previous ages, since that industrial revolution the amount of change we have gone through in only 110/120 years in comparison to past ages has been unprecedented.

 

[Narj]

Proper socialism only works in small communities/groups, where everyone knows each other and has an interest in others welfare (such as family groups and small remote villages). It doesn't work when you don't give a **** about most of the people you may be supporting.

Absolutely this! I had a blown tyre in the middle of nowhere in Australia which happened to be next to a "commune". I am the political opposite of what they represent but after spending a bit of time with them (and going back to visit them a few times afterwards), I see where they were coming from. A small, self-suffiicent society is a wonderful thing, but it's just not achievable on a grand scale.

Humanity is too inherently selfish to make proper communism work on a national scale. End of story.

 

[Floogie]

I'm as interested in debating this with you as I am debating evolution with an American conservative.

I take it you had nothing to support your baseless claims then?

Nice and authoritarian there. Take everyones stuff and share it out. And there was elmarko1234 saying socialism didn't have to be authoritarian.

Private property was borne out of authoritarianism. In any case, its like this; you are either against authoritarianism entirely including the coercion/aggression that private property facilitates, or you are simply against 'authoritarianism' in a liberal sense. The latter being one which merrily ignores the conditions of the former in order to adhere to a belief of a divine right to private property. Up to which you support, but lets not pretend you calling out socialism as "authoritarian" gives you some kind of moral platform.

Proper socialism only works in small communities/groups, where everyone knows each other and has an interest in others welfare (such as family groups and small remote villages). It doesn't work when you don't give a **** about most of the people you may be supporting.

I can't see why a distinctly higher interest in others welfare would be necessary.

 

[The Halk]

I take it you had nothing to support your baseless claims then?

That's not what I said. I said that I didn't want to have yet another debate with a socialist. If that to you means that I can't possibly defeat you in an argument then you're right, I can't reason someone out of a position of faith, that they didn't reason themselves into. It's also possible that every other socialist I've ever spoken to has got it wrong and you could explain it to me and I'd accept it as the right way. I'm willing to run that risk.

 

[TJM]

has been for the last 150 thousand years....

The hoarding of resources and the existence of the elite began only a few thousand years ago with the move away from hunter-gatherer societies, and the feudal/serfdom societies that have existed for most of the time since couldn't really be described as capitalist.

 

[Floogie]

That's not what I said. I said that I didn't want to have yet another debate with a socialist. If that to you means that I can't possibly defeat you in an argument then you're right, I can't reason someone out of a position of faith, that they didn't reason themselves into. It's also possible that every other socialist I've ever spoken to has got it wrong and you could explain it to me and I'd accept it as the right way. I'm willing to run that risk.

It's really not that hard; I've said what constitutes socialism and if you had truly read Marx then it should be absolutely crystal clear to you too. Not sure what faith has to do with reconciling the content of these books with undisputed history?

Look, I'm not looking for you to admit you were wrong, I'm just hoping you'll look into it yourself instead of subconsciously parroting back someone elses opinion.

 

[shoes]

Last time people listened to you it put to conservatives in government.

You sure you want people to do as you say?

Not true conservatives though, sadly

 

[Stretch]

What are the objectives of this revolution and how will it help archive the objectives?