[Torus34]

[Begin disclaimer]

First, I distinguish between ignorant and stupid. Ignorance is absence of information. Stupidity is the inability to understand even when given information. I profess ignorance with regard to some aspects of communism. Thus, the question.

[End disclaimer]

[Begin preamble]

One of the crowning achievements of Capitalism has been its ability, within limits, to harness the very human trait of a drive to amass wealth and power so as to benefit society as a whole. Whether it be through an industrialist's conscience picking his pocket [Carnegie's libraries,] or through governmentally-imposed constraints isn't at issue. The fact remains that good obtained from greed. Again, whether the books were balanced isn't an issue here either.

[Exit preamble]

My question: How, in theory and, possibly in practice, does Communism channel the 'greed' drive?

[mikema63]

Aside from not being the only drive available to use, Greed is used in communism.

Nobody seriously suggests that doctors have the same income as a janitor for instance.

[redcarpet]

There might be a maximum wage. People don't need to be millionaires, and certainly not billionaires, to live a fulfilling life.

[Decky]

My question: How, in theory and, possibly in practice, does Communism channel the 'greed' drive?

By giving people what they want and bringing up living standards for the working class, how else?

[voxlashi]

There's always a point at which monetary incentives stop being effective, and the maximum wage should be drawn as close to that limit as possible. Some jobs require more responsibility, time, and/or effort than others, so in that sense a certain difference of income is perfectly reasonable. However, such differences must only be established as a compensation for time and effort invested in work, and must never be based solely on silly things like prestige, rank, titles etc.

[Torus34]

Thank you for your responses.

@ mikema63 & redcarpet: On differential wages, I would appreciate an explanation on how they are to be set and, ultimately, restrained to avoid the capitalist CEO excesses we see in the US. See below.

@ Decky: I'm not sure your response helps me much. 'Giving people what they want' implies a 'giver' and some people want more and more without end.

@ voxlashi: You've begun to explore the problem. Let's go further.

I'm not interested, btw, in either praising nor deriding communism.

OK. So wages are to be different for different occupations. I get that. In a capitalist society the awarding of income is based to some extent on supply and demand,* though some [corporate CEO's, etc.,] have learned to game the system. How are wages to be arrived at under a communist system? And are there to be differences in wages depending on, say, length of time in a job or in superior [compared to the average,] ability to perform the function?

* Supply and demand's but a part of it. Chances are there are about as many professional paleontologists as there are professional baseball players in the US. The average salary levels are different. Muy different. The value of the worker to the employer [as opposed to the society at large,] plays a big part sometimes.

[SolarCross]

* Supply and demand's but a part of it. Chances are there are about as many professional paleontologists as there are professional baseball players in the US. The average salary levels are different. Muy different. The value of the worker to the employer [as opposed to the society at large,] plays a big part sometimes.

The supply might be the same but the demand isn't. Millions of people are willing to throw down their money to receive the product professional baseball players serve up, that's demand. Very few people are interested in the product of paleontologists.

[Decky]

@ Decky: I'm not sure your response helps me much. 'Giving people what they want' implies a 'giver' and some people want more and more without end.

Well I don't see the issue, if they want more they can work more, what's odd about that?

Socialism is about the people who work enjoying the fruits of their labour, it isn't like capitalism where he welath produced by work gets given the bosses and shareholders who do nothing. Capitalism has a something for nothing culture where the rich feel entiled to take money that is produced by a worker without having contributed anything themself (we call these stolen wages profits).

[redcarpet]

False. They're called the surplus value of profits.

[Decky]

Oh well excuse me. Next time someone asks a question I'll just post a few pages of Das Kapital, that is sure to not leave people skipping over the post.

[redcarpet]

Yes, it's called substantiation. If you can't handle it then leave the forum and start reading things

[KlassWar]

Liberals will be liberals, Decky... And New Liebour social-fascists are nothing but liberal con artists and demagogues, it is known .

[Decky]

[Drlee]

Money does not motivate anyone. It is what the person acquiring the money wants to do with it that motivates the person.

First, I distinguish between ignorant and stupid.

You are not be a libertarian, I find.

[Torus34]

@ taxizen:

Continuing my paleo wonk vs. pro jock contrast, it's the profit motive that accounts for the very large difference in pay, not necessarily the benefit to the society at large.* That comes about through a capitalist economic structure. It's difficult for me to see how an equal disparity in income could obtain in a communist society.

Even more complicated, incidentally, is a society based in 'socialism', that bugaboo of US Republicans. The parceling out of rewards in a socialist structure is unclear at best.

Undergirding all such discussions is the difficulty in finding any 'pure' examples in actual societies. Even in the US, that modern bastion of Tally-ho! capitalism, we can find worker-owned businesses all over the place. 'Mom and Pop' stores and PC's are just one example. There are many much larger organizations, including some under the label of 'co-operatives'.

* Yes, a good case can be made for professional sports as a benefit to society for both those who take part as paid employees and owners or as unpaid fans. I'm constantly amused by a fan referring to his favorite team with the word 'we'. That's brand loyalty raised to a very high level.

[redcarpet]

Karl Marx didn't get into detail on how socialist & communist societies would function internally. Apart from fascism, I know of no ideology that goes beyond the fundamental structure of society.

So it's left to the worker's movements to decide the specifics on their own. Which is agreeable, given the different needs of each society and balance of resources.

[Torus34]

@ redcarpet:

Aye, there's the rub, as Willy Shakespeare said.

Leaving the 'workings' of a social system to 'the people' is fraught with all sorts of possible mischief-making. We can see how it has worked out here and there. History's replete with concrete examples. It tends to terminate in a ruling elite, be it monarchical, dictatorial or oligarchical based on accumulated power/wealth.

It's the attempt to balance the good of the many with the greed of the few that makes all the difference. To leave that to chance is to unleash the dogs of human nature. And human nature isn't all the Pollyanna-ists would have us believe. [cf: Candide, Voltaire.]

We've circled back to my initial question and, if your response is definitive, my query is answered thusly: communism has no in-built controls to avoid power-grabs within the structure of the society.

[redcarpet]

Oh there is one, the chief tool of class warfare is abolished, the State. But then there are many ways to oppress people. Using the government's legal authority is only one. And it's a big assumption on Marx's part that that'd be enough and human political evolution would end here. It never ends.

[The Immortal Goon]

Private property itself is abolished. This is, to note, different than personal property. But without private property, the notion of cash itself is considerably different.

Marx famously said the end of capitalism will be, "the end of history," because history has been the movements of classes. That is to say nothing else will happen, but the study of it-in the marxist sense-will be different.

To go further, this would mean the beginning of history was the end of what Marx and Engels called, "primitive communism," something that ended when what, Childe called, "The Agricultural Revolution."

Something we now call the Paleolithic, the vast majority of human existence in which we have no reliable history. And, further, a time when for the vast majority there was no sense of property as we would recognize it.

These people lived from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

These were cavemen. We have a gigantic amount of production per individual that is staggering compared to that of the cavemen. Yet we have starvation and want.

All we ask is that we take control of our own productive values and use it the way mankind had for most of its history.

Or, as James Connolly wrote: "Our demands are most moderate: We only want the Earth."

[lucky]

Continuing my paleo wonk vs. pro jock contrast, it's the profit motive that accounts for the very large difference in pay, not necessarily the benefit to the society at large.*

* Yes, a good case can be made for professional sports as a benefit to society for both those who take part as paid employees and owners or as unpaid fans.

Well, exactly. Don't you think those fans derive the full benefit of the money they throw down to watch the games, i.e. that money does represent a benefit to the society?

On the other hand, professional paleontologists are in an extremely specialized sub-field. People who are not professional paleontologists also do research in paleontology. If you were to look at the whole of biology or geology, there is a lot more money spent on that research than there is on baseball players.

Even in the US, that modern bastion of Tally-ho! capitalism, we can find worker-owned businesses all over the place. 'Mom and Pop' stores and PC's are just one example. There are many much larger organizations, including some under the label of 'co-operatives'.

Worker-owned companies are allowed under capitalism. There is no need for a revolution if that's what you're after.