[ckaihatsu]

This is conflating *workplace logistics* with *civil society*.

Also:

'Workplace logistics' is congruent with the meta-category of 'logistics', while 'civil society' is congruent with the meta-category of 'lifestyle':


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

[Wellsy]

Also the goal of efficiency is strange to assume outside of capitalist production as the goal most certainly isn’t to reduce labour time compared to other capitalists to outcompete them for profit.

I think to even utopian commune examples where the focus on producing as much as possible simply isn’t the value underpinning work.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1910/lih/chap11.htm

That no member be expected to perform any service or work but such as is agreeable to his or her feelings, or they are able to perform; but if any member thinks that any other member is not usefully employing his or her time, it is his or her duty to report it to the committee, whose duty it will be to bring that member’s conduct before a general meeting, who shall have power, if necessary, to expel that useless member.

And in the case kf that commune they produced enough and then some but were destroyed by the reality of a surrounding capitalist system and powers.

[Agent Steel]

Capitalism often provides incentive for working harder, more efficiently, smartly, more innovation etc. while providing disincentive for the doing the opposite. How would socialism/communism reward people who work harder, more efficiently etc and punish those who work slower, work less, work less efficiently etc?

My thoughts about this is that there are plenty of ways to achieve greatness aside from getting richer. You're right if your dream is to get rich you will have a harder time doing it in a communist world, but you will still be able to better yourself in all kinds of ways through hard work. You can exercise, practice an instrument, study, etc. You can work very hard at all kinds of things even if you don't get paid for it, there is still an incentive to do those things which better yourself.

[Senter]

I have spent time on more than a dozen forums for the discussion of socialism and communism and I consider this one, “The Politics Forum”, to have the best-informed, most intelligent participants. The crap that is out there is amazing when it’s not shocking.

And yet there is one issue that plagues this and every forum that tries to discuss communism, and that is the problem of failing to make clear distinctions. What do I mean? I mean there are two entirely different things that are meant whenever anyone says or types the word “communism”. And posters normally flip back and forth between the two with no consciousness of what they’re doing. And even in the same sentence, often!

Two meanings:
1. “Communism” meaning communist ideology, like that if Marx, Lenin, Stalin even, or whomever.
2. “Communism” meaning communist society which Marx says will emerge some hundreds of generations in the future as classes and the state “wither away”.

So I have a suggestion. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER say “communism”. ALWAYS say either “communist ideology” or “communist society”. Qualify it. Be clear. And a quick review of the above posts will sufficiently illustrate this.

Make sense?