Does Communism make any allowances for the fact that some jobs are harder than others?
I'm not a scholar on the subject, but i'm curious to see if (Ideal, full workers paradise, no stalinism) communism recognises that it's harder to be a doctor or a scientist than a factory worker
Communism is a society in which there is no longer a need for the state so it slowly withers away, you're thinking of socialism. Socialism simply means democratic control of the means of production by the workers and workers receive the value that they create rather than a significantly reduced wage to benefit their boss (obviously the worker does not receive ALL of the value they create as some goes towards production expansion and the government, but wages are still much closer to the value they represent). What this boils down to is different wages for different professions, but appropriate wages regardless of profession. I would also like to take a moment to debunk the meme that statism = socialism, police, libraries, roads, and jails are not socialist institutions, regardless of what that chart your hipster friend posted on facebook says. Publicly owned institutions are a part of the theoretical socialist governments, but they do not define them. Also worth noting Syndicalism > Bolshevism
communism is just you can take whatever you want while doing what you can
some jobs might be harder than others, but of course there's no way to measure how hard a certain job is, the point is that we don't do any more work than we actually need to
See, thats all fine and dandy, but how does socialism deal with the problem of education? If someone is more educated toda, they get payed more, because their job requires them to be educated. If theyre now compensated for the work that they do, instead of how long they took to get there, then where is the incentive for education?
Because people still get compensated more if the work they do is more valuable? I explained that in my post, and in any case education for education's sake outside of economic constraints is a reason enough on its own
not him but I don't get this capitalist logic of everything needing an incentive
people work to get a good standard of living, science and industry greatly improve people's living standards and especially if you include being educated and knowing more as a part of that
People do shit because they want to. In the USSR, I don't think doctors got paid much more than a lot of professions considered far less prestigious than practicing medicine, but people still became doctors.
No. Communism would exist in a world with non-scarce resources, and thus it would have little to no stress. The kind of jobs you're talking about only exist in a Capitalist world where things like efficiency and economies of scale have to be considered.
> Does Communism make any allowances for the fact that some jobs are harder than others?
All jobs in communism will be done by robots and machines anyway and people would just do what they want to do no matter how hard it is.
This isn't 100% true. Think of social workers. Many social workers have master's degrees but they likely make less than the avg person with a B.A./B.S.
Also, income decreases at the very high end of the education spectrum. Those with 18 years of of education (MA/professional degree) are likely to make more than someone with 20 years of education (Ph.D.)
Also, the argument has been made that being in school is more pleasureable than working, so there is no need to pay the educated more. (See Bakunin's God and the State. Note Bakunin was an anarchist not a socialist). This would be a stronger argument if society invested in education/living expenses for students rather than pushing much of the costs on to the individual who is investing in developing skills that may serve a need to benefit society (or a business).
Finally, Rawls's maxi-min idea is pretty clever. (Was Rawls a socialist? We could argue that he was.) He stated we should 1) ensure a minimum standard of living that we all agree on under the veil of ignorance (basically, a spot where we don't know who we are, especailly in relation to others) and then 2) once we decide on a minimum we increase incentives for positions in society that will benefit all of society. So since doctors and nurses are important maybe they get paid a bit more and so on.
But there lies the problem. What happens when someone everyone wants to become a ditch digger and no one wants to be a doctor? There arent going to be enough doctors to fit the market if there isnt a reason to go through all that work. Of course theres helping society and what not, but devoting 8 years of schooling to helping society takes alot from a person. Everyone really needs to be one hell of a good person for that to actually work.
Also, theres this too:
This applies to >>675938
as for >>675932
my problem with this is that, while you and I may agree that education is worth it for the sake of being educated, there are plenty of people who dont think that way.
It wouldn't be much of a problem, but if somebody is being slack, the rest of the association can just ask them to leave. The majority of people will want to live better lives and keep seeing society improve, and once they need to only do the work that's necessary, and the amount of work that is necessary grows smaller and smaller as society does progress, they'll definitely be willing to do it.
AGAIN, to each the value they create, a ditch digger would not earn the same as a doctor, but they would each earn the value they've created. There would still be different wages for different jobs, the difference is people wouldn't be forced into jobs out of economic necessity as they have the economic freedom to pursue something better. If your grievance is with a lack primary and secondary education, it would be idiotic if those weren't enforced the same way they are today
So then let me ask another question:
What about culture? Take a video game designer for instance. Everyone wants to be a video game designer (and if you dont, you can sub whatever top-tier fun job you want here). In this situation I see two outcomes:
A) Video game designers do not contribute much to society and are therefore not payed very well (the value theyve created is not much). Therefore, not many people become video game designers.
2) Video game designers are payed well, or moderately, because video games are considered culture, and therefore contribute to society. As a result, there is an influx of video game designers that no one needs, and people become video game designers instead of the super important jobs like doctors.
Capitalism has brought us SO MUCH CULTURE!
how do you EVEN COMPETE!?
Because in the case of your example, video game design can exist outside of exploitation, if someone creates a video game on their own or in collaboration, they can sell it and the consumer can still ethically consume it. Because creating art/culture is purely an intellectual product rather than the product of exploitation, there is no reason it cannot be marketed or sold within a socialist society.
>Does Communism make any allowances for the fact that some jobs are harder than others?
>I'm not a scholar on the subject, but i'm curious to see if (Ideal, full workers paradise, no stalinism) communism recognises that it's harder to be a doctor or a scientist than a factory worker
Actually existing socialism was a wage labour society with profit, ie: capitalism. They set incentives on some occupations which devalued them, specifically doctors by feminisation.
A communist society wouldn't have wages (or specifically coupled rewards) so the job is the reward in itself.