How Do You Define Morality?

[Flint]

That sounds just like my response to being put in management, no matter how much it would pay. I don't want to be a baby-sitter.

[DanaC]

This is a pretty insulting statement, and not true. Is it in human nature to desire oppression and dictatorship? Does the individual long to be the pawn and slave of the government? Russia embraced monarchy, as did European countries.

I apologise Orthodoc, I made the point badly: It wasn't the people of Russia that led it to be a totalitarian state. The reason I say it was because it was Russia was because the Russian Empire (and later Soviet Russia) tried to combine a central authority with a vast landmass. That (imo) creates a need either for a significant move of power outwards into more hands, or extreme, central control. Totalitarianism wasn't the only way Russia could go, but with a starting point of a single ruler and vast landmass it was highly likely. I also think there are aspects of Russian culture which lends itself easily to personality cults, due to their seeming fondness for 'Strong Men' leaders. Of course, I am basing that purely on the bits I've read and am happy to accept that may not be the case.

[eta) Orthodoc, you asked if there was anything specific in his writings that stated explicitly that Communism was democratic. I would say that if you look at the theoretical structures its intent is to widen participation rather than delimit it. Also, in terms of the totalitarian question: Marx predicted/warned about the route to dictatorship in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). In the Communist Manifesto, envisoned a system in which all Commune officials were elected and subject to recall.

Also from the Communist Manifesto:

In place of the old bourgois society with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all

Marx was not seeking a totalitarian system, nor were the majority of communists of the day (Many, many people in Europe counted themselves communist at that time) they sought instead to overturn oppression. The problem with Marx's analysis as with many of his contemporaries was the idea of Revolution as the means of achieving this ideal.

With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy for us to see the political and economic progression that brought a society with such extremes of poverty and wealth into an age where even the poor have luxuries that Marx's contemporaries couldn't dream of. In the 19th Century this did not look so clear. We know, because we have the benefit of that hindsight, that the rights, freedoms and higher living standards which we now enjoy, didn't need a revolution to be achieved.

We also have the knowledge of just how devastatingly wrong a system born of revolution can go. What did they have to go on? The Terror in France? Big, but we're not exactly talking the same scale as the Gulags.

That's the other key factor I think, along with the scale of Russia. Violent revolution doesn't build consensus...true communism is absolutely dependant upon the building of consensus.

I would like to see true Communism; however, I do not believe in Revolution, unless there is no other outlet for democratic expression.

[queequeger]

Here's a question for you, not really about whether socialism is good or bad, but along the same lines:

Imagine a society, if you will, where everyone makes the same wage based on 'tiers' so to speak. Based on your experience, and certain evaluations (in which education, job performance, etc are factored), you can move up a 'tier,' and make more money. You make the same money as others in your tier, regardless of birth, raising, skin color etc. Certain jobs would get more money if they're less desirable or are more taxing, but for the most part it's even.

Now, regardless of which tier you're in, EVERYONE in the society gets full health care, money for housing and sustenance based on the cost of living in the surrounding areas, and money based on whether you are single of have dependents, and everyone works.

Two questions about this society:

One, is this a good idea for a society? You DO make more money if you work harder, but no one can live off of the system. You stay in the same job, but you can change jobs if you're up to snuff, it just takes some paperwork.

Two, is there something ironic or even wrong if this society (which is undeniably socialist) has the single job of defending another society who detests socialism? I'm of course, talking about the US military, but I'm starting to think that with some tweaking this could be a system of governance (if you eliminate the whole absolute rank thing).

[xoxoxoBruce]

What if I want to move to Montana and raise dental floss?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What if I want to move to Montana and raise dental floss?

Shush, you're messing with my livelyhood.

[9th Engineer]

You do realize that there are many jobs out there that require so much extra effort and sacrifice that you'd practically need to make public alters to them in order to justify it, right? I could, conceivably, go along with a system that requires everyone to work exactly the same hours, gives everyone exactly the same amount of time off, and requires the same amount of accountability from everyone. So basically I would not be required to work a minute longer to be a doctor then to be a garbageman. This would be fair. However, our life spans are not long enough to get through med school like that. Big oops there, kind of hard to provide universal healthcare if you can't train docs.

[beauregaardhooligan]

Got*da*yum this is some good stuff!
And to think I first came here for the funny pictures and goofy videos. Talk about your mental floss, whew.
Let me throw this in the mix...
Being civilized means to move past our nature.
Communication is the key to civilization,
and the Internet will be our saving grace.

[xoxoxoBruce]

but living in a capitalist society you can't really get by without a job either...

You can't get by without enough wealth to provide for your needs, which usually means a job.

The difference is that you can look for any type job, anywhere you wish. The constraints are only there being a job you're qualified for, where you wish to live.
I'd prefer that to having to live where the government feels I'm (my skills) are needed.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'd prefer that to having to live where the government feels I'm (my skills) are needed.

That raises a good point - that in a communist society people are reduced to a set of skills - the person is not important, just what he/she can bring to the State. Not many people want to be regarded as a moveable, disposable commodity - a pair of hands with particular skills that are to be used to benefit an abstraction.

@Dana - sorry, I've been unable to sit down to answer your posts and likely won't get back to the computer for a couple of days. But thanks for the apology (I appreciate the clarification) and the thoughtful replies.

[DanaC]

If you do not pay management differently?
How do you motivate people to do the job for the same pay?

That's an interesting one. I would do it for the job satisfaction and prestige, I think.

In the society I live in now, I would expect financial reward commensurate with my experience, training and seniority. But that's because I know this is how my society indicates value. If it was the norm that people be paid at the same rate and respect, validation and recognition was expressed in a different way then that'd be fine by me. As long as I have a reasonably comfortable house, enough money to eat reasonably and go out for a drink with my friends a couple of times a week and a basic model TV, radio and Computer I don't really have much need of a large income. If I have those things, it doesn't matter me that someone else has them and had to work less. I have them, that's all I need to know.

Queeq... that is a caste system, or class system.

Originally Posted by DanaC

I would do it for the job satisfaction and prestige

I thought the idea was that the two jobs were equal?
I would not work more, more often and harder for the same, or less, than others. That is ridiculous.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Queeq... that is a caste system, or class system.

It's not a caste system if you're capable of moving freely through the different castes.

And bruce, that is the one main problem with any socialist system is that it does require a job to be had. The life I live (or have lived) is semi-nomadic, so it's a little hard for me to accept... but living in a capitalist society you can't really get by without a job either...

[DanaC]

Serfdom wasn't an integral part of Russian culture

Maybe not, but as an institution it remained in place until 1861. My point wan't that they were still serfs, but that for some at the time of the revolution, serfdom was in living memory.

[DanaC]

I thought the idea was that the two jobs were equal?

The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other?

The skilled person's added value comes from the fact that they are more difficult to replace. Think about it in terms of widgets. Harder to find, more complex widgets cost more than the simplest widgets.