Is equality an absurd notion?

[Bill3000]

I think there should be relative equally based on your career choice. For instance, if you are are employed as an engineer, you should be close to or above the median salary for engineers.

What if one is just a crappy engineer?

 

[Tani Coyote]

You seem to be under the impression that all work would be rewarded the same, this is untrue. "From each according to his ability to each according to his contribution" is the motto that would take hold at first, probably in the form of labor credits.

Very good! You're on the path to making communism a viable system; you've acknowledged that not everyone is content with being paid the same. You cannot change the input, but you can change the input; rather than trying to reach the lofty goal of eliminating the negative aspects of human nature, it's better - and more realistic, if only slightly - to tame them to work for the collective good.

That's exactly what anarchism and communism is trying to prevent. You don't elect any business owners, because everyone is the owner. If there was a big decision to be made everyone would likely vote on it. And there's no profits in communism with which to be risky about.

Again, you wouldn't elect a business owner to make all the decisions because that's hierarchy, which contradicts the whole idea of anarchism. Unless is were a small management job(like making sure everyone made it to work on time or compiling some data) everyone would take part in the decision making process.

You'll have to forgive me; most of the other Communists here have talked about electing the owners and management, so I assume that's what you were arguing for. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

Now here's a good question: if you have a direct democracy running each business instead of a representative one, how do you ensure it is run well? Given the inherent differences in personality and occupation, how can they all be entrusted to know what is best for everyone - via what is best for the company - rather than what is best for just themselves? Selfishness is just as much an issue when the workers run things as it is when the capitalists do.

And similarly, just like a clique of capitalists, they can easily run the company into the ground with a few poor choices. How do you make sure all the workers have memorised all the technical data, finances, company qualities, etc. to know what the best decision is? It is arguably easier for a smaller group of people to do all this, so an elected management might be a more efficient idea.

Oh no, I'm certainly not a Marxist and I disagree with him on a lot of things(for instance I think a violent revolution should avoided at all costs). However, he did basically invent the term communism so it only makes sense to use his definition.

Well this changes the debate entirely then, since I don't have a template of your ideas/views and have to actually extract them from you. I feel like an Astrologist... automatically guessing someone's views/personality based on a label rather than actually... you know, asking them.

I understand you are an anarcho-communist, so here's a few questions based on this statement: even without capitalists running the show, there is still free enterprise and a competitive market(as has often been said by Cheezy).

Under anarcho-communism, what do you do when a company goes bankrupt, as there is no welfare state to pick all the pieces - or, people, rather - up?

Similarly, as companies go out of business, how do you prevent a monopoly from forming, as there is no government to break it up?

Another one: how do you regulate the safety, fairness, and quality of products, as well as business practices, without a government?

These aren't meant to sound hostile; they are honest questions based on what I've heard so far.

 

[Murky]

What if one is just a crappy engineer?

They need to take a different career path. If you're not good at something then you need to find something else you are good at.

It's senseless to be a "crappy" anything.

 

[Bill3000]

They need to take a different career path. If you're not good at something then you need to find something else you are good at.

It's senseless to be a "crappy" anything.

What if being a crappy engineer is the best he can be at and the highest paying job he can take?

 

[Murky]

What if being a crappy engineer is the best he can be at and the highest paying job he can take?

That doesn't make any sense. If you're not good at something then don't even bother to try making a living with it. For instance, I'm no good at making music or singing. I have no talent for it. I wouldn't expect to be able to make a career out of it at all no matter how hard I tried to make it work.

Nearly everyone is good at something. One of the keys to success is finding something you're good at then find a way to make a living doing it. There are instances where people are good at more than one thing. In that case, they should choose what they like to do most.

 

[civver_764]

Very good! You're on the path to making communism a viable system; you've acknowledged that not everyone is content with being paid the same. You cannot change the input, but you can change the input; rather than trying to reach the lofty goal of eliminating the negative aspects of human nature, it's better - and more realistic, if only slightly - to tame them to work for the collective good.

I'm hardly the first one to have though of this

You'll have to forgive me; most of the other Communists here have talked about electing the owners and management, so I assume that's what you were arguing for. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

Hmm, I've never heard anyone calling for that, maybe it's a Marxist-Leninist thing.

Now here's a good question: if you have a direct democracy running each business instead of a representative one, how do you ensure it is run well? Given the inherent differences in personality and occupation, how can they all be entrusted to know what is best for everyone - via what is best for the company - rather than what is best for just themselves? Selfishness is just as much an issue when the workers run things as it is when the capitalists do.

I'm afraid I can't really answer that without you being more specific. How would selfish interests get in the way?

And similarly, just like a clique of capitalists, they can easily run the company into the ground with a few poor choices. How do you make sure all the workers have memorised all the technical data, finances, company qualities, etc. to know what the best decision is? It is arguably easier for a smaller group of people to do all this, so an elected management might be a more efficient idea.

Yeah, if it's a technical issue then those educated/trained in the subject hold authority on the matter, but that doesn't mean these people are able to extend that authority over to other more general decisions.

I understand you are an anarcho-communist, so here's a few questions based on this statement: even without capitalists running the show, there is still free enterprise and a competitive market(as has often been said by Cheezy).

Hmm, I don't actually think there would be a competitive market, because that means capital still needs to exist and that's going to conflict(ie. why would anyone start a business if that had to supply the start up capital and then they didn't get a greater say in the company's direction than other workers). So I'm not a market socialist like Cheezy may be. I envision it as instead of all DVD manufacturers for instance competing for the consumer market they would all work together in one "company".

Under anarcho-communism, what do you do when a company goes bankrupt, as there is no welfare state to pick all the pieces - or, people, rather - up?

Welfare would still exist under the system I propose, it would be primarily how we deal with those there are no jobs for(and probably the least-able to work). As for company's going bankrupt, well there wouldn't really be any revenue to a company in the first place beyond wages to the various workers that make it up. If no one was using labor credits to buy the products of that company they would probably just be downsized and the other workers would either be put on welfare or find a new job.

I think what Cheezy argues against, although I may be mistaken, is welfare for those who are perfectly able to work but choose not to, in which case I support that position.

Similarly, as companies go out of business, how do you prevent a monopoly from forming, as there is no government to break it up?

Under the system I am proposing monopolies exist by default, but they aren't driven by profit so there's no real problem.

Another one: how do you regulate the safety, fairness, and quality of products, as well as business practices, without a government?

Probably the populace would elect some inspectors if they thought it was necessary.

 

[Narz]

Well yes, human societies have been mostly egalitarian, but were so only by being equally poor.

That's a rather cynical attitude & not particularly accurate. For example check out book #5 in my sig.

For modern examples you can check Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarian_community

When intensely hierarchical societies first formed their populaces were much unhealthier than their tribal neighbors (shorter stature, lifespan, etc.). They worked harder & the efforts of their labor were funneled upwards. Their evolutionary advantage was in numbers (stored grain, large settlements & expansion by conquest allowed population to increase more rapidly than their more sustainable neighbors). This is common anthropological knowledge.

Modern man has the advantages he does (with some disadvantages) due to technology & organization, not due to a hierarchical system.

It wasn't egalitarianism, it was survival.

Egalitarianism aids survival for complex beings like humans. Which is why it evolved. One dominant ape with all the apetts for himself might work for monkeys but few human males (except one of course) would be keen on being part of such a tribe. Sure some cultures allow polygamy but it's not to the extreme than it is with our primate ancestors.

Fortunately, we developed far beyond the tribal system.

Not at all. We're still tribal animals. Shoot, that's why we're here (CFC is a modern day tribe).

We have flashlights & MP3 players & jets but we're still tribal by nature because that's what works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm, I've never heard anyone calling for that, maybe it's a Marxist-Leninist thing.

I believe it was Cheezy who once said, "Socialism is workers' democracy." That's why when I try to stay closer to the textbook meaning of socialism, I define it as either: the government takeover of business(not taxes and redistribution like the American right says; ACTUAL takeover. They'd crap their pants if they had real socialism to deal with), or, as socialists here put it, worker's democracy. Though of course, the terms are very muddy as I'm sure you've noticed. For example, I know Communists and Socialists themselves who use the term incorrectly as Communism being totalitarian and Socialism being democratic.

I'm afraid I can't really answer that without you being more specific. How would selfish interests get in the way?

Self-interest has always dominated the human mind to an extent. We all forget the symbiotic relationship we have all too often because we think too much of ourselves. What's a good example... say, Wal-Mart, which is now Wal-Marx. lol The cashiers want more money for themselves, so they vote to cut the wages of the other employees such as the janitors, who keep the place clean and thus good for all workers' health, and those who stock the shelves and thus allow the company to function.

It's not a perfect analogy, but you can see how even by eliminating the capitalist class, there will still be selfishness to deal with. Any workers under this system would do good to remember that one story of the stomach and the body: the numerous body parts just saw the stomach hanging there and assumed it to be worthless; so they stopped feeding it. Eventually, the entire body starved because the body parts didn't think about how important the stomach actually was to them all, and how each body part - or rather, each individual - plays their own special role in society. It applies in eco systems, and it applies in economic systems too.

Yeah, if it's a technical issue then those educated/trained in the subject hold authority on the matter, but that doesn't mean these people are able to extend that authority over to other more general decisions.

So, if I had to think of a comparison, it would basically be like having bureaucrats who are specialised in certain roles, but without the actual elected policymakers, as general decisions ultimately reside with the workers.

I envision it as instead of all DVD manufacturers for instance competing for the consumer market they would all work together in one "company".

Ah, now that makes better sense; a democratic monopoly.

Now for the other part: what do you do about conglomerates? Logically, without competition and without the breaking up of monopolies, it is logically possible for the largest business, over time, to acquire all the others, until one company controls all. This hypothetical mega-company would essentially be the new government, run by all the workers rather than all the citizens.

Of course, since you speak of eliminating the need for money, it's more of a non-issue, as money is the backbone of corporate takeovers.

Welfare would still exist under the system I propose, it would be primarily how we deal with those there are no jobs for(and probably the least-able to work).

How would welfare exist without a government however?

Mass charity perhaps? (Here's another odd gem: other Communists here - I believe this was RedRalphWiggum - state that Communism's goal is to make charity unnecessary... I will give you all credit; Communists certainly are very diverse)

You speak of the abolition of money(or at least that's what it sounds like); how is charity/welfare possible then without money transfers? Further on the topic of the abolition of money, how do you enable employees to be compensated differently? More goods, better goods, special goods, etc.? Certain special benefits/services?

I think what Cheezy argues against, although I may be mistaken, is welfare for those who are perfectly able to work but choose not to, in which case I support that position.

I think that's one area where hell will always freeze over as capitalists and communists can actually agree. Some communists, however, take "to each according to his need" and change it to "to each according to his want," and so obviously people willingly refusing work but expecting all the benefits of communism certainly are a headache that needs to be remedied.

Under the system I am proposing monopolies exist by default, but they aren't driven by profit so there's no real problem.

Arguably, there still will be profit margins: privately-held monopolies had profit in mind, and a public-held one will want more money to distribute to its workers as well; they would likely do whatever is possible to move in on another industry, therefore increasing profits for all who work for the company and screwing over anyone who does not. And the worst part is, there's no government to stop the snowball effect with the force of law. How do you address this possible problem?

Though as said before, without money, this isn't really an issue, as money is, again, the backbone of takeovers.

Furthermore, without competition introducing new ideas, what shall prevent the company's innovation and new products from becoming sorely lacking? The hopeful diligence of the workers within it?

Probably the populace would elect some inspectors if they thought it was necessary.

Now if you elect inspectors, how do they enforce the standards without there being a government? Are police officers elected as well? If so, it sounds moreso like you're not advocating anarchy so much as a government that is 100% elected by and accountable the people and doesn't have any appointed and/or indirectly-elected positions.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't have much to add, but I would like to comment on one thing:

TaniciusFox-You'll have to forgive me; most of the other Communists here have talked about electing the owners and management, so I assume that's what you were arguing for. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

Thats more of a French Utopian Socialist viewpoint than a Marxian. Its probably closest to Fourier or Blanc. I can't remember which one advocated for sharing all jobs in a system.

 

[civver_764]

I believe it was Cheezy who once said, "Socialism is workers' democracy." That's why when I try to stay closer to the textbook meaning of socialism, I define it as either: the government takeover of business(not taxes and redistribution like the American right says; ACTUAL takeover. They'd crap their pants if they had real socialism to deal with), or, as socialists here put it, worker's democracy. Though of course, the terms are very muddy as I'm sure you've noticed. For example, I know Communists and Socialists themselves who use the term incorrectly as Communism being totalitarian and Socialism being democratic.

Yeah it is workers' democracy, but not a representative democracy like we have today.

Self-interest has always dominated the human mind to an extent. We all forget the symbiotic relationship we have all too often because we think too much of ourselves. What's a good example... say, Wal-Mart, which is now Wal-Marx. lol The cashiers want more money for themselves, so they vote to cut the wages of the other employees such as the janitors, who keep the place clean and thus good for all workers' health, and those who stock the shelves and thus allow the company to function.

I think you are misunderstanding how this whole labor credits system works. There is no finite supply of it as if there were money, it's simply a quantifiable way of "thanking" you for your hard work. In other words, by decreasing the salary of a janitor that doesn't mean there's more for you, it just means there's less for them. So the only reason you would vote to lower their salary is because you're an evil dick .

So, if I had to think of a comparison, it would basically be like having bureaucrats who are specialised in certain roles, but without the actual elected policymakers, as general decisions ultimately reside with the workers.

Yes.

Now for the other part: what do you do about conglomerates? Logically, without competition and without the breaking up of monopolies, it is logically possible for the largest business, over time, to acquire all the others, until one company controls all. This hypothetical mega-company would essentially be the new government, run by all the workers rather than all the citizens.

Of course, since you speak of eliminating the need for money, it's more of a non-issue, as money is the backbone of corporate takeovers.

Yeah, there would be no real incentive for corporate take-overs but either way it wouldn't make a difference, would it? All of the different companies are working together to provide their services to society already, what difference does it make if they're all under the same name?

How would welfare exist without a government however?

Mass charity perhaps? (Here's another odd gem: other Communists here - I believe this was RedRalphWiggum - state that Communism's goal is to make charity unnecessary... I will give you all credit; Communists certainly are very diverse)

No, not charity, they just get labor credits without actually having to work. I mean I suppose charity wouldn't be illegal or anything, but no one would expect another person to rely on it(unless they were able to work but chose not to).

You speak of the abolition of money(or at least that's what it sounds like); how is charity/welfare possible then without money transfers? Further on the topic of the abolition of money, how do you enable employees to be compensated differently? More goods, better goods, special goods, etc.? Certain special benefits/services?

Labor credits, which sort of act like a one way currency. For instance, let's say I go to work for 8 hours a day. Since the "company" I work with is part of an anarchist "society" that society has agreed to reward the workers of the company with labor credits.

However, let's say I want a package of Oreos. I go to the Grocery store and exchange an appropriate amount of labor credits for these Oreos. The difference here from money is that the owners of the store do not get to turn around and use the labor credits for something else. It's essentially non-existent once used. They will get paid for providing the Oreos to me with their own labor credits because they are part of this anarchist society.

I think that's one area where hell will always freeze over as capitalists and communists can actually agree. Some communists, however, take "to each according to his need" and change it to "to each according to his want," and so obviously people willingly refusing work but expecting all the benefits of communism certainly are a headache that needs to be remedied.

That is actually the ultimate goal of communism, I think: the abolition of labor. In our current capitalist system, with the rise of technology less and less human labor is needed. However, because there are not enough jobs for everyone, some people are left in the dirt, either living as homeless or on some minimum form of welfare. In a communist system this would be embraced and these people will be placed on welfare. Eventually when technology completely takes over and 99% of labor is done by machines everyone will be on welfare effectively and all their wants can be addressed as well.

Arguably, there still will be profit margins: privately-held monopolies had profit in mind, and a public-held one will want more money to distribute to its workers as well; they would likely do whatever is possible to move in on another industry, therefore increasing profits for all who work for the company and screwing over anyone who does not. And the worst part is, there's no government to stop the snowball effect with the force of law. How do you address this possible problem?

Though as said before, without money, this isn't really an issue, as money is, again, the backbone of takeovers.

Furthermore, without competition introducing new ideas, what shall prevent the company's innovation and new products from becoming sorely lacking? The hopeful diligence of the workers within it?

Well yeah, the workers get paid from an infinite source of "money" so I don't see how this would be a problem.

As for innovation, it was only a matter of time before you brought this up, as most capitalists do. I don't really see this as a problem because the workers involved with the innovation would almost certainly be revered by society and most would agree that they deserve a little extra credits for their new invention. This is actually a better form of incentive I think, because now you are being paid directly for your new idea.

Now if you elect inspectors, how do they enforce the standards without there being a government? Are police officers elected as well? If so, it sounds moreso like you're not advocating anarchy so much as a government that is 100% elected by and accountable the people and doesn't have any appointed and/or indirectly-elected positions.

The standards would also be decided by the people collectively. And make no mistake, this is certainly anarchy. All anarchy means is the absence of hierarchy.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

We must separate what we mean by equality.

If you mean equality under the law, that should continue to be pursued, for the aim of law is to have consistency, so that everyone knows what is expected of him and can match their behavior accordingly and coexist in peace and prosperity in a society. But that is not the same as a guarantee of equality in all things. Everyone is not equipped with the same skills and talents, and we are not all capable of the same tasks. To expect everyone to perform all things is unrealistic. I have always favored a meritocratic state but the problem always devolves to how to judge rationally and impartially who is best suited for what offices in the state. One thing that is certainly not an effective judge is the voting public, who elect people to office that are often unsuited, based on superficial and emotional judgements.

 

[LightFang]

When we debate religion/evolution, you guys tend to point out that we are primates profusely. However, when we discuss human nature, scientists seem to want to throw biology and evolution entirely out the window.

This wasn't directed at me, but I for one am a fan of keeping biology and evolution in the picture--if they are relevant. I'm not a blank slater.

On a biological level, promoting equality upon all members of a same species is indeed bad. It prevents a species from advancing. Evolution, at its base, glorifies and exemplifies the best, strongest, and brightest of a species and as a rule, discards the weakest of a species(however you choose to define that). That is how all species evolve and advance into higher forms or more adaptable variations.

What does "advancing" mean? Evolution does not have a goal. Evolution is just a change in the frequency of alleles in a population's gene pool. That's it. It says nothing about the fastest surviving, or the smartest, or anything. If being dumb and slow were evolutionarily beneficial, then we would expect genes that conferred those traits to propagate while contrary ones died off. There is no "higher form" that beings strive for.

Homo Sapiens would have never evolved if it had not been this kind of natural selection that eventually gave us out large brains.

Yes, this is true. So what?

I know people want to think that humans somehow do not play by these rules of evolution, but that would be a mistaken notion.

Sure, I'll agree.

Promotion mediocrity simply hinders advancement.

I'm with you here too.

However, any type of incentive for people to rise up above average will make society unequal.

Sure, I can accept that, since humans are quite variable and random chance is always involved.

I personally think that striving for absolute equality is a very flawed notion. There needs to be some restrictions against hyper-inequality but ideas like a libertarian or communist utopia are not really things we should work towards.

What if we could raise the bottom instead of cutting people down from the top? Do you think this is worthwhile? I mean, obviously there's no way to do this easily but I like to think that most of us who are striving for more equality don't want something out of "Harrison Bergeron".

--

And now, something not from a few pages ago!

That doesn't make any sense. If you're not good at something then don't even bother to try making a living with it. For instance, I'm no good at making music or singing. I have no talent for it. I wouldn't expect to be able to make a career out of it at all no matter how hard I tried to make it work.

Nearly everyone is good at something. One of the keys to success is finding something you're good at then find a way to make a living doing it. There are instances where people are good at more than one thing. In that case, they should choose what they like to do most.

You're misrepresenting Bill, I think. Picture a guy who really loved engineering, and it was the highest paid job he could get. Well clearly he would try to be an engineer, right? But what if he was pretty bad at it? Sure, he might not expect to make a career out of it, but he really wants to do it. And, there's always gotta be somebody at the bottom of the skill scale, right? Even if you only hired the best of the best, there's always (well, usually) variance within a group.

 

[lovett]

You seemed to have compared Perfection's response to a Rawlsian one. If you still think so, how does the criticism that he is seeking equality of outcome stick? Rawls was quite clearly for equality of opportunity both for offices and in general, the latter in the sense that all are ensured equal opportunity to appreciate life in whatever way they wish (as long as it does not compromise the liberty of others to do the same). This already indicates that he was not so much concerned about particular outcomes, which would certainly differ between individuals (some would prefer to trade wealth for more leisure, for example).

And I think we can say that people should be given equality of opportunity without having to support a dualist position. At the very least the notion is much more intuitive, whatever your inclination.

I see you point. First things first the part of Perfection's response I found Rawlsian was this:

In my mind, everyone is equally deserving of the good life. However, that's not to advocate that everyone should get an equally good life, because giving certain people (those who help provide good lives to others) a better life than normal will result in everyone getting a better life.

It seems to be a rough stab at the difference principle.

That is to say, societal rules should be in place such that they benefit every single person in society; no one is disadvantaged by them. That is to say, a material distribution which disadvantages a small fraction of the population for the sake of the great majority would be unjust. The clear contrast is utilitarianism; rules should be put in place such that they promote average utility.

I wouldn't say Rawls was unconcerned with equality of outcome here; this is entirely to do with outcomes! He was more concerned with equality of rights and opportunity given, but he felt that an equal distribution of material wealth should be our conceptual starting point. He justifies the difference principle on the grounds that it is senseless for everyone to be 'equally poor'. That every member of society will prefer being richer, even if some become richer than others. But he starts with the presumption that an equal distribution is maximally just.

It's that notion which I think requires some radical similarity between otherwise different different people, and dualistic assumptions seem to provide such similarity. Certainly I'd argue that Rawl's 'original position' requires something of the sort; he strips people of all their attributes and still thinks they can be the same people. I don't see how this is possible unless one assumes some sort of immaterial soul.

So whilst his conclusions aren't prima facie indicative of equality of outcome, they are built on said equality. Such is their foundation, and he has yet to provide some sort of radical similarity to support this.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I think you are misunderstanding how this whole labor credits system works. There is no finite supply of it as if there were money, it's simply a quantifiable way of "thanking" you for your hard work. In other words, by decreasing the salary of a janitor that doesn't mean there's more for you, it just means there's less for them. So the only reason you would vote to lower their salary is because you're an evil dick .

A system where "money" is not zero-sum; that's an interesting one.

All of the different companies are working together to provide their services to society already, what difference does it make if they're all under the same name?

Touché, provided the workers make sure to keep it running at optimal efficiency.

No, not charity, they just get labor credits without actually having to work. I mean I suppose charity wouldn't be illegal or anything, but no one would expect another person to rely on it(unless they were able to work but chose not to).

Labor credits, which sort of act like a one way currency. For instance, let's say I go to work for 8 hours a day. Since the "company" I work with is part of an anarchist "society" that society has agreed to reward the workers of the company with labor credits.

Who oversees the flow of labor credits though, so that they are interchangeable wherever they go? An elected government agency or some such?

I will give kudos though; since the labor credits are a different variety of currency, people will naturally want to work harder to have more credits.

However, let's say I want a package of Oreos. I go to the Grocery store and exchange an appropriate amount of labor credits for these Oreos. The difference here from money is that the owners of the store do not get to turn around and use the labor credits for something else. It's essentially non-existent once used. They will get paid for providing the Oreos to me with their own labor credits because they are part of this anarchist society.

This actually keeps making more and more sense. I would suggest before trying to implement this, however, you try to find plenty of likeminded individuals, amass as much material and resources as you can, and implement it on a smaller scale. Individuals as a whole are afraid of sudden changes; if you can prove that the system would be better for them however, they would become more accepting. "Communism" as a whole has issue gaining many followers, due to its connotations. With a different name, and proof that your system could work, it's likely many would flock to its banner.

That is actually the ultimate goal of communism, I think: the abolition of labor. In our current capitalist system, with the rise of technology less and less human labor is needed. However, because there are not enough jobs for everyone, some people are left in the dirt, either living as homeless or on some minimum form of welfare. In a communist system this would be embraced and these people will be placed on welfare. Eventually when technology completely takes over and 99% of labor is done by machines everyone will be on welfare effectively and all their wants can be addressed as well.

I thought of this; the current system for sure will be made obsolete as machinery takes over. After all, the whole doctrine of pulling your own weight simply cannot work if there's no way to do it in the first place. Machines will eventually become self-perpetuating, where they can manufacture themselves and thus there are no human workers. I'll avoid tinfoil hat territory with cybernetic rebellion and go into the next part...

I've thought that I'd probably stop being a capitalist the day it gets that far; capitalism as it currently is becomes obsolete then. Especially when you consider all the machines don't have needs of their own and thus capitalists are happy, though their consumer base collapses because nobody is making money but them. At this point, it's best to probably change to mass welfare. And it shouldn't be controversial; welfare would no longer be "taking" someone else's money, since nobody would be making money in the first place. Both capitalist and labor would be obsolete. There would of course be a struggle over who should get how much, but I'm sure that without wages, the overall lifestyle of the lower classes would certainly improve, as they'd no longer be dependent on a minimum wage.

There is an issue with this society however, such as advanced viruses and hackers. That can be covered elsewhere though; overall, the machine-based welfare society appears to be the future of mankind.

As for innovation, it was only a matter of time before you brought this up, as most capitalists do.

Well it is a fair grievance, considering many inventions are made for personal gain and not out of the principle of making people happy through the power of science.

I don't really see this as a problem because the workers involved with the innovation would almost certainly be revered by society and most would agree that they deserve a little extra credits for their new invention. This is actually a better form of incentive I think, because now you are being paid directly for your new idea.

Indeed, it just might be. Many great ideas likely go unrealised in the current system because your employer gets the lion's share of anything you might invent. Therefore, there's no real incentive to keep forwarding your ideas and innovations.

Random question: how many other Communists do you butt heads with over the concept of "giving income inequality a new form"? Since some - mostly the crazy ones in my opinion - want equal wages for all, rather than equal say for all, I'm sure it's happened.

The standards would also be decided by the people collectively. And make no mistake, this is certainly anarchy. All anarchy means is the absence of hierarchy.

So while there are no elected policymakers, there would be elected bureaucrats and other public service workers, responsible for the good order of society? Though all appointments(I imagine actually electing police officers, for example, would be cumbersome, but elected the leadership is not so much) ultimately would reside with the people rather than any legislature.

 

[civver_764]

Touché, provided the workers make sure to keep it running at optimal efficiency.

Why wouldn't they?

Who oversees the flow of labor credits though, so that they are interchangeable wherever they go? An elected government agency or some such?

I will give kudos though; since the labor credits are a different variety of currency, people will naturally want to work harder to have more credits.

I'm not sure exactly. Probably community officials or something. I think that there would be a pre-determined way of dealing them out instead of a case-by-case basis to avoid biases or anything. It could even be done by computers theoretically.

This actually keeps making more and more sense. I would suggest before trying to implement this, however, you try to find plenty of likeminded individuals, amass as much material and resources as you can, and implement it on a smaller scale. Individuals as a whole are afraid of sudden changes; if you can prove that the system would be better for them however, they would become more accepting. "Communism" as a whole has issue gaining many followers, due to its connotations. With a different name, and proof that your system could work, it's likely many would flock to its banner.

Trust me, if our system weren't so bought by the corporations a lot of the smaller parties in this country would have a much larger audience.

Well it is a fair grievance, considering many inventions are made for personal gain and not out of the principle of making people happy through the power of science.

You think people only invented stuff because of the money they would make? I like to think they did it for the money out of the necessity of it and more for the fame of it.

Random question: how many other Communists do you butt heads with over the concept of "giving income inequality a new form"? Since some - mostly the crazy ones in my opinion - want equal wages for all, rather than equal say for all, I'm sure it's happened.

Well I lurk the Revleft forums(not sure if I can link to other forums so you can google it if you want), but I only talk to a few other communists actively. There are some things to be said for income equality. For instance instead of a doctor getting paid more for being a doctor, he would get paid during his time at a university. I still think that would be too inefficient though.

So while there are no elected policymakers, there would be elected bureaucrats and other public service workers, responsible for the good order of society? Though all appointments(I imagine actually electing police officers, for example, would be cumbersome, but elected the leadership is not so much) ultimately would reside with the people rather than any legislature.

I actually don't know how the selection process would take place. Same with any job in this type of society. Would all the workers in a certain business vote on whether or not someone could work there? Would they really be able to make an informed decision without everyone knowing them personally? I dunno, it's a gray area for me.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why wouldn't they?

As they are human, there is always the chance for error. There is the argument that more people improves the chances of new ideas making it into practice, but since many are short-sighted, and there's less room for specialisation over policy in a directly-democratic system, there are plenty of chances for error. It's a trade-off from central control.

Of course, each company could have an "Assembly of Planners" or some such: an elected board(likely with term limits so they aren't afraid to make bold proposals) that can take in all the data and propose solutions; the solutions are then voted on by the workers. There's of course the issue that this can choke out ideas from those outside the Assembly, but surely there's a way to make sure these ideas also make it into discussion, as the "Assembly" merely makes proposals based on information they gather, rather than actual decisions.

Trust me, if our system weren't so bought by the corporations a lot of the smaller parties in this country would have a much larger audience.

The key is to start small, think big. That's the recipe for success, regardless if you are a business owner, a political movement, or even just an individual. I would suggest trying to find a way to take over individual communities, and going from there. The chances of an independent winning at the local levels are obviously far higher.

Alternatively, start your own community with like-minded individuals. If I recall, many communist societies were formed in the United States. I forget whether they all collapsed, but starting a society large enough to be viable under the system is a good way to prove it can work. From there, it can move to county, then to state, and possibly to national. People will give new ideas a try if you can show them that it can work.

There's the issue that sovereignty rests with the states in the US, so any city created could easily be turned capitalist by those who don't want to at least give the idea a try.

You think people only invented stuff because of the money they would make? I like to think they did it for the money out of the necessity of it and more for the fame of it.

I'd say it's likely 50/50. Partly for cash(out of necessity or just desire for more wealth), and partly for fame. The cash part arguably increases if the invention was made by a business owner(i.e. the assembly line with Henry Ford).

Well I lurk the Revleft forums(not sure if I can link to other forums so you can google it if you want), but I only talk to a few other communists actively.

I believe you can provided the content would be CFC-safe.

There are some things to be said for income equality. For instance instead of a doctor getting paid more for being a doctor, he would get paid during his time at a university. I still think that would be too inefficient though.

Likewise. There's the incentive to learn to be a doctor, yes, but where's the incentive to keep being one after you've collected your payment for the education? The doctor'd likely move to another society as they all tend to do for fiscal purposes.

I actually don't know how the selection process would take place. Same with any job in this type of society.

Well then, if you're going to work toward this, it'd be best to work on that. You don't have to do it alone; I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent Communists who'd be willing to assist you with ideas. One idea behind workers' management is that there's less chance for error across more individuals; if this is true, then working together with others to try and plan for any hypothetical society is a good idea.

Would all the workers in a certain business vote on whether or not someone could work there? Would they really be able to make an informed decision without everyone knowing them personally? I dunno, it's a gray area for me.

That would be cumbersome, I imagine, as collecting all individuals to say "yes" or "no" could be time-consuming. Now if we're merely talking for a certain branch, it becomes more possible since there'd be far less workers.

The "Assembly of Planners," mentioned far above, likely could be useful here, as they could relay the information on what types of employees the branch needs to operate at optimal efficiency. They could prove quite useful, being like a non-voting delegate; they provide plenty of input, but the actual vote based on that input resides with another group, in this case the workers themselves.

It's said democracy is inefficient because of the number of people involved and the fact so many are ill-informed. We can't really address the numbers issue without resorting to mass electronics(never mind that like administrative divisions, each branch would have its own interests), but we can address the ill-informed part quite easily: you have an elected body that conducts research and presents it, and possible proposals/remedies for issues, to the voters at large. The equality of the vote and empowerment of the people is still kept, but they are now more-informed and more capable of making the best decision.

 

[Murky]

You're misrepresenting Bill, I think. Picture a guy who really loved engineering, and it was the highest paid job he could get. Well clearly he would try to be an engineer, right? But what if he was pretty bad at it? Sure, he might not expect to make a career out of it, but he really wants to do it. And, there's always gotta be somebody at the bottom of the skill scale, right? Even if you only hired the best of the best, there's always (well, usually) variance within a group.

Very few people are bad at something that they love doing. There is a very simple reason; practice makes perfect. If you love something, then you don't need extra motivation to do it and the more you do it the better you get.

There are people that take a profession only for the money. They go through all the motions but they don't really enjoy it and so aren't as good as it as others are. Had they took up a profession they enjoyed then it wouldn't be such a chore and they would probably be a lot better at it.

Course, there's the third case where they enjoy doing something but never really get an opportunity to shine. These tend to be the "givers' who take on whatever task they get regardless of its appeal to them at the time. They would rather be doing what they like but are too often saddled with tedious/boring tasks instead. They are often the people who get passed over for raises/promotions because they never really appear to perform as well as others do. It's easy to fall into this trap if you're not careful.

 

[aelf]

First, sorry for the late response. I was on vacation and therefore kept my involvement in the forum to a minimum.

It seems to be a rough stab at the difference principle.

That is to say, societal rules should be in place such that they benefit every single person in society; no one is disadvantaged by them. That is to say, a material distribution which disadvantages a small fraction of the population for the sake of the great majority would be unjust. The clear contrast is utilitarianism; rules should be put in place such that they promote average utility.

I wouldn't say Rawls was unconcerned with equality of outcome here; this is entirely to do with outcomes! He was more concerned with equality of rights and opportunity given, but he felt that an equal distribution of material wealth should be our conceptual starting point. He justifies the difference principle on the grounds that it is senseless for everyone to be 'equally poor'. That every member of society will prefer being richer, even if some become richer than others. But he starts with the presumption that an equal distribution is maximally just.

Well, yes, Rawls was concerned with more equal distribution of outcomes. But your presumption that he took the equality of outcome as a point of reference misses the point I think. If that were so, he needn't have introduced the concept of legitimate expectations, which is closely related to effort. If people were entitled to equal outcomes regardless of effort, that would in fact be contrary to what he believed by the notion of legitimate expectations.

The difference principle has more to do with respect for each other as free and equal beings, the implications of which can be grasped by the thought experiment of the original position. In short, Rawls argued that we must be able to see and understand the valid claims of others as claims that we would ourselves make if our particular situations do not interfere with our judgement.

Again, this is far from saying that equality of outcome is maximally just. Indeed, to Rawls it would be unjust to ignore people's legitimate expectations (and we can take the fulfilment of legitimate expectations as a valid claim that people make) if we equalise outcomes regardless of what individuals invest into achieving the different outcomes they achieved.

It's that notion which I think requires some radical similarity between otherwise different different people, and dualistic assumptions seem to provide such similarity. Certainly I'd argue that Rawl's 'original position' requires something of the sort; he strips people of all their attributes and still thinks they can be the same people. I don't see how this is possible unless one assumes some sort of immaterial soul.

Rawls certainly adopts a Kantian view that seems to assume that persons are distinct from their paticular situations (i.e. that it is possible to separate the person from the particular situations that make up his life). But I don't know if this implies the existence of an immaterial soul. I think it would suffice to simply say that persons have enough in common with each other for us to establish some sort of a mean - the average non-particular individual who decides what society would be like in the original position thought experiment. This mean would therefore serve as the reference point, a person as separated from particular situations, without there being a need to posit the existence of an immaterial soul.

So whilst his conclusions aren't prima facie indicative of equality of outcome, they are built on said equality. Such is their foundation, and he has yet to provide some sort of radical similarity to support this.

I think this similarity is provided by freedom and equality as persons (which is admittedly an assumption, but one that is supported by good reasons nonetheless). In addition, I can also think of quite a few things that individuals have in common, mainly their physical needs and natural instincts. As I mentioned, I don't think therefore that it's unreasonable to posit a mean as our starting point for discussing what the valid claims of people are. Certainly there are people who don't even want to live, but I'm sure it's safe to say that these are not the norm!

 

[GhostWriter16]

So with all these communism threads here lately. I want to dig a little deeper into the root of it all.

Is equality among members of Homo Sapiens an absurd notion?

Nature did not create individuals of our species to be equal. We are not genetic photocopies of each other. Some are just in a natural sense "superior" to other in terms of intelligence, physical prowess, or whatever.

Why should we even try to make everyone equal? To each according to their own ability.

Almost every primate(our closest relatives) has established systems of dominance in their societies. Why do people think we are different. Do they really think just because they have heightened intelligence, we have somehow gone outside of nature's and evolution's bounds for us? How absurd!

Bonobos are the only primate that I can think of that lack this system of dominance. Unlike every other type of primate, females dominate their society and not males.

So is trying to achieve equality among humans even the right thing to do?

Define "Equal."

Under the law, yes, everyone is equal. Wealthy or poor, your rights to be able to own a gun, to habeus corpus, freedom of speech, exc, can, should, and must apply to all citizens.

Equal result, AKA socialism, is not ok. Even though I'm against evolution, I sort of see your point. Whoever does better should earn more cash, that's the way it is.

 

[Airstrike92]

No, it's right.