CyanideChrist said:
How do you think they got into the position of CEO in the first place? By sitting on their ass? Please..
Quite frankly I don't give a shit how anyone got anywhere or how hard there job is, that does not justify my, or my fellow workers exploitation!
CyanideChrist said:
Fine. You dodged the question. Who will run the communist world?
No I didn't dodge the question. It has been answered, you yourself are repeating the answer. The world will be "run" by the working people themselves.
CyanideChrist said:
You can make claims all day, but that won't improve the efficiency of a system run by billions of people.
Likewise, you can criticise an immaterial world all day, calling it efficient or unworkable or whatever you like, but that doesn't stop the class struggle or it's inevitable (if one may use the word) outcomes.
CyanideChrist said:
Nope, but the solution sure ain't a system run by billions of people...
Well CC, I want you to do something for me. Please, take your obsession with efficiency and carry it to it's logical conclusion. Whenever you have a problem with your teacher, do not object as you will be creating inefficiency. When you are working and your boss forces you to perform dangerous and illegal work, do not object because you will be creating inefficiency. When the government decides to go to war and reintroduce conscription and you are called up to die, do not object because you will be creating inefficiency.
I on the other hand, do not give a fuck how much inefficiency I create for my boss or "my" government. I want a say and I will have it at any cost.
CyanideChrist said:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, I still think a reward proportional to effort is an important factor is persuading people to work.
The incentive will lie in improvements in their own life, improvements in their own living conditions and the living conditions of others achievable through collective, free participatory labour.
I was making the point that labour is not forced to work. You make it sound as though employers are driving employees with whips!
Which is not far from the reality considering practices such as intimidation, physical abuse, forced overtime, lay-off and other threats to whistle blowers and organisers. When you have a family to feed and need work, tell me then what is and isn't forced labour.
CyanideChrist said:
They won't, because of the reward they receive from their labour. If they work harder, they receive a greater income, unlike in a communist system.
You have no idea do you? Does it not occur to you that if everyone where to lay down in a communist society the social pool of consumption would try up. People would be compelled to work for their own good and the good of society.
CyanideChrist said:
What are those arguments, pray tell? I'm not going to read through 20 pages (yet), so you could link me to some of the highlights/important points, if you want.
Or you could just look for them yourself. I've answered these same questions before and I am not sifting through pages of stupidity in order to find the interesting titbits for you.
CyanideChrist said:
The working class are compensated for their labour in the form of wages.
Please refer to "Untouchablecuz'" reply to this above. He has presents a very simplified example to disprove this.
CyanideChrist said:
I'm not. You asked for no jargon and that's what I'm giving. Most people aren't familiar with the terms "surplus-value" and "surplus-labour". Chris, you try to do the decent thing and people are never happy...
So they benefit from their wealth being taken away from them and given to those who work less hard?
You sound surprised! This is the argument made by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists in favour of sweat-shops
.
In all seriousness, yes and no. To put it very simply, collective, social labour is very efficient. By engaging in it people are able to raise overall productivity, providing more not only from themselves but also the entire community. It's a win-win situation (Just like for example when moose will form a circle to protect against wolfs. You might argue that the individual moose might not want to form the circle, but it benefits himself and the herd as a whole to do so for their own protection).
I assume you are talking about the fact that most (if not all) land originally belonged to indigenous people?
No I'm not actually. Matter of fact you will find many indigenous people from across the world knew no concept of ownership or property (particularly of land), as demonstrated in the excerpt from Rosa Luxemburg a few pages back.
CyanideChrist said:
Nonetheless, taking property from a thief is still stealing if you don't give it back to the rightful owner.
And what if I recognise no concept of a "rightful owner"?
For your sake I will repost and argument here I made in another thread:
Your right to property ownership directly impinges upon my own. By owning property you are in effect restricting my own ability to own property as well. Not only this but by your right to property ownership you are able to coerce me under physical necessity to labour for your own profit so that I may live even if it is at a mere sustenance level necessary for the reproduction of my labour power. Property is theft.
CyanideChrist said:
Employers take the labour offered by employees, turn it into something useful, and give wages as compensation.
By giving wages to their employees the employer is "short-selling" the worker. Note the example above. This is the origin of profit, that is, the under-compensation in the form of wages of the labour-power sold to the employee.
CyanideChrist said:
Communism, on the other hand, takes the land and means of production without compensation (this is theft, no?).
It is theft in so far as you continue to recognise bourgeois "property rights"
CyanideChrist said:
It also takes the varying amounts of labour given by individuals and compensates them all equally, even if they did not contribute equal amounts of work.
1. This is a misrepresentation, distribution will be based on "need" and not on equality for the sake of equality
2. Meanwhile, capitalist distribution may pay me $20 less for an 8hr shift than a 19 year old because I am a cheaper commodity (see labour-power) despite the fact that I may labour with greater intensity or be more productive.
Now, let me say this once and for all: I am at the end of my tether with these questions. I have made 60 posts in this thread alone and it has run on in the form of a 20 v 1 pissing contest for 21 pages. I think I have been polite enough with my answering of these same juvenile questions posed again and again in an aggressive and couldn't-care-less manner. If any one has serious questions and discussion (such as
KFunk and
yBmL) I will be delighted to answer them, however everyone else you wants to maintain these childish non-sense questions, please flick back through the thread, get you answers and if they aren't satisfying please remember the point I have been emphasising that we do not and can not work out every detail of the "workability" of communism.
I am not interested in dictating the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow!