This is the part that I don't understand. Are the farmers farming for fun? I've done a little farm work and in my experience, most if it isn't much fun, it's a lot of long hours and hard work. Why would the farmer care if he maximizes his output? If he makes enough food for himself and his family to survive, why bother working harder? Who makes the equipment that you are discussing? Certainly there will be some jobs at those factories that aren't fun at all, who will do those?

I actually like my job most of the time, and without any other incentives I might do it "for fun" maybe once or twice a month. As it is, I get out of bed and get my butt to work everyday to put food on the table. But that's not entirely accurate. If I just wanted enough to survive on, I could probably find a part-time job that would just barely support my family in the least-expensive shelter I could find and eating the food that would give us the minimum nutrition required to get by on. And then I could spend all that extra time with my family or sleeping in, or doing all those other jobs that I would do just "for fun".

The truth is, I don't work like that and I don't think most other people do either. I want to drive a nice car, live in a comfortable house, and have a steak once in a while. But maybe you don't like steak, maybe you like fine chocolate. If there is no money, how do I direct the results of my efforts towards steak and you direct the results of your efforts towards chocolate? Let's be honest, there aren't enough good steaks and fine chocolate for everyone. Does that mean nobody gets them? Is there no saving for larger items either? Like the nice car. There aren't enough nice cars to go around, am I just assigned a car and I get whatever I get? Maybe I don't even get that unless I can prove that I have sufficient need?

If I can't own things, then what's the incentive for me to maintain and improve my house? And what if I wanted to do something totally unproductive like drive a race car? I assume that no one is going to be assigning race cars to people for any reason, so how can I direct the results of my efforts towards something like that?

There are lots of things in this world that we don't really need or could get by with less, but wanting nice things and superfluous experiences isn't really that different from craving foods that are high in fat, sugar, and salt. It's in our nature. How do you change that?

Getting everyone the basics they need to survive is an admirable goal, but what if I want more than the bare minimum? How do I get that without money or property? And how can you prevent lazy people who could provide for themselves from "milking the system" and becoming a burden on the those who are producing?

OK, I guess that makes sense.

I don't know. If I understand correctly, the surplus is to be divided amongst everyone else, but I still don't understand why the farmer would care what happens to the surplus, therefore, I don't understand why the farmer would bother to produce any. I'm sorry that I'm having a hard time visualizing this.

No I do not.

But is this work voluntary? I can see how designing a tractor might be an interesting challenge, but from my experience most of the other jobs involved can be tedious, exhausting, or even dangerous. I can't see myself welding tractor chassis all day long if I don't have to. Perhaps there are others out there that would like to operate a welder all day long and I'm just ignorant of them. If there is no incentive for taking one job over another then I think you'll end up with a surplus of the "easy" jobs and a deficiency in the more difficult or less desirable jobs. If money and property isn't the incentive, then how do you create incentives that get people to volunteer to do the jobs nobody wants. That's the real question I was asking.

I'm not sure I would say it "sucks". I should mention that based on the next part, I actually do drive a nice car and I do live in nice house, both of which I own. I worked hard to get the things that I have and I am proud of them. I've put a lot of effort into my house in particular. I bought a "fixer-upper" and invested a lot of my own time and money (and blood) into making it better. This isn't purely for my own comfort, but to increase its value if I should decide to sell it someday.

Looking back at what I posted, there were an awful lot of question marks in there. It was sort of a stream-of-consciousness thing and I should have probably edited myself a little better.

I don't know. Ideally none because that is wastefull in any economic system I would think. My point was that if there was no money, I don't see how you would be able to choose which luxuries you would have, or if you would even have any at all.

Can't say I disagree with you. I suppose this is pretty subjective. To some, a clean older Hyundai is a "nice" car and to others it's a Bentley. But like the chocolate and steak issue, I don't see how I could ever have a Bentley without money, specifically more money than I need for day-to-day survival, and even if I did I couldn't own it anyway. It's very difficult for me to picture how this would work.

Lets say my toilet is leaking. I am perfectly capable of repairing it myself, but if there are plumbers out there that simply work everyday doing their thing, I guess I'd call them and get them to do it. And I need gutters. And the paint is peeling. And there is a leak in the basement. And...and...and...It sounds like you're saying that I can just make a call and someone will show up and do the work that needs to be done. But there must be a limit at some point and I don't understand how that limit is determined.

Maintaining housing can be very expensive and not everything I do on my house is something I would have done if not for the economic incentives. Better insulation for example. It would have been far far easier to just turn up the thermostat than to replace the insulation in my house and the inefficient doors and windows.

Uh, sure. But the problem is that I am stupid.

A racetrack itself generates nothing. Without collecting money from patrons, I do not see how it could be constructed or maintained. Even if I donated my time to help with the construction, it requires some hefty raw materials and they are not in unlimited supply. They have value and it is quite possible that another project will need them (such as the parking lot for the tractor factory). Even if the racetrack were built, how can I have a car to race if I cannot own property. I do like the idea of my food, housing, and medical expenses being covered since then I could devote myself entirely to racing, but I don't think we can all be race car drivers.

I don't know. It's sort of sounding like you've at least considered a violent revolution, at least that's what I'm gathering by listing your stats. And if that were to happen, I think you should know that I am also 6'3" ~265lbs, an OK marksman in mediocre shape with a strong incentive to defend the fine chocolate I've got . But I don't want to arm wrestle you over it and I don't think you do either. Although if you asked nicely I might share it with you.

OK, I think this is where I need some clarity. I think that I should get the surplus of what I am producing so that I earn more than I need. That's what allows me to have the meager luxuries I was talking about earlier, and that's what my incentive is to keep trying harder and get up everday and shave. Many jobs could be made easier with increased manpower, but then the productivity of each person is then decreased so there is less profit to go around, right?

I would not consider myself wealthy, but I do think I've made a pretty decent middle-class life for myself. So you see, I have something invested in the current system and if you really want me to "buy into" something else you've got to "sell" me on it a little bit (sorry for the puns, couldn't help it). I apologize if my previous message upset you. I meant no disrespect. I thought this thread was about clarifying how a system such as you are advocating might work. I guess I should probably research this more deeply elsewhere if I have more questions.

Was this meant as a joke, or do you think that such a fantasy land could exist? People don't want to work on hot race car tracks or replace their neighbors' insulation. People will do those things for money, but I doubt there are any volunteering tar sealers. Some jobs are genuinely unpleasant (working with hot tar or clearing blockages in sewers). The fact that such jobs are necessary does not make people want to volunteer to do them. I'm really hoping that you meant what you said as a joke about what some sort of utopia was like.

I maintain my own place. And when I can't I have others do it for me (for money). So no, I don't sit in a leaky place with bad plumbing. Everything here is dry and working well. I accidentally gouged a tiny hole in one of my walls recently, should I fix it myself or should I find some volunteer to do it for me? Unless someone is physically incapable of maintaining their place or a good friend of mine who needs some help, I could not imagine helping them take care of it.

Again: are you joking? I'm I supposed to be insulted? Did I ever say that no one should ever cooperate and we should all be fending for ourselves? If you could show me where I said that in my post that would be helpful. I like cooperation, but it is a fantasy to imagine a world where people just show up to voluntarily re-tar roads and voluntarily re-insulate their neighbors' homes. If I want to live in a warm place then I will insulate it. If others don't value warmth as much as I do then they can sit in the cold. But then I live in a warm location so insulation is just an abstract example to me. If a good friend needs help replacing his insulation I'll pitch in. If someone who is crippled or so elderly that they can not physically change insulation needs help then I'll help them. Everyone else should not look to me for handouts.

I would be creeped out if a friend of mine dug through shit to get a toy my kid had lost (not that I have kids). If a friend of mine ever has a child that looses a toy in a sewer then that toy is lost for good. If that friend feels otherwise then they can dig in and retrieve it.

Those were examples. I have had genuinely unpleasant and/or boring jobs that I can not envision people volunteering for: cleaning up garbage and removing dead mice from behind movie theater screams (unpleasant), counting the number of people who walk in and out of movie theaters (boring, eight hours of that at a time, five days a week), stocking and cleaning a Vons supermarket (boring), applying adhesive to microwave absorbing foam panels (boring and unpleasant). Are you going to volunteer to handle all those dead mice or are you going to volunteer to spend your evening cleaning a supermaket?

Nope. I don't think you are. You like envisioning fantasy lands, but that doesn't make you ignorant or hickish. Perhaps a world filled with people who loved to volunteer would be nice, that just isn't the real world.

I think you are talking about blogging. I never got blogging and it is a hobby. Re-taring roads isn't a hobby that I know of.

I don't remember claiming that we live in the ideal society. We certainly don't, but that doesn't change the fact that your are envisioning a fantasy land in which people spend their free time re-tarring roads and other such unpleasant jobs. What part of my not liking your seemingly utopic imaginings means that I think we live in an ideal society that could not be better?

I think this is one of my biggest disagreements. I can certainly say that I've done jobs that I never would have done without getting paid. Jobs that I can't imagine anyone would volunteer to do. Sure, I'd help out a friend, but I don't think of that as entirely altruistic either since I know my friends will help me when I need them. Now you could very well be right and there might be people out there willing to do every job that needs doing. I would accept that there may be some, but my guess is that there will be a lot more tedious, dirty, or dangerous positions to be filled than volunteers to fill them.

I can't know for sure that I am correct, but if I am then how do you "inspire" people to fill those roles without paying them?

 I would say most of what I have done was for my own comfort in the present, but the added justification for the effort was the potential for future returns (although with the housing market in trouble I'd have to wait a few years to see any). There were some real economic incentives though (like insulation windows and doors) and I did not have unlimited raw materials to work with. I've put nicer materials in the areas that were more visible or I spent more time in, and I could afford to do this by saving money on lesser materials in areas I cared less about.

Given that there is not an unlimited supply of raw materials (and lets forget about labor for the moment) I do not understand how the raw materials that exist get distributed. There is a good economic reason right now why my laundry room does not have marble floors and isn't wallpapered in gold foil. This might be a silly exaggeration, but I think it illustrates the point. These raw materials are scarce and that gives them value. I really have a difficult time reconciling that with a system in which there is no money.

That's cool. I just didn't want you to think I was trying to start something. A lot of posts get pretty heated on here and I was not trying to fan the flames, so to speak.

I see where you are coming from, but it kind of sounds to me like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

My view is that the laws of supply and demand are universal. There will always be not enough of certain things for everyone to have their fill and therefore these things will have more value. I don't see any economic system preventing this, so in my mind it must be addressed in some fashion. Otherwise I don't see how you could prevent capitalism from eventually happening again.

 That's not to say that I see no issues with the way things are. Unless some big changes are made, I think we'll be facing another economic crisis in 20 years. Maybe even a bigger one. I'm all for "fixing the system", I just want to make sure that the fix solves more problems than it causes.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me.

You do realize that movie was an indictment of the soviets specifically Stalin, not marxism?

Just curious since you casually referred to movies... How many sci-fi 'future' movies in which despots are defeated or exposed do they show the new world say five years later and it's utopic?

Soylent Green? Star Wars? Aeon Flux? Demolition Man? The Road Warrior? Waterworld? Wall-E?

yes, this is why i always laugh when right-wingers quote orwell with such self-satisfaction.  orwell was a revolutionary.  it's unclear whether or not he was a communist, but he was definitely a militant socialist with trotskyist sympathies.  snowball in animal farm is very obviously trotsky.  orwell fought with POUM in the spanish civil war.  the POUM was condemned as trotskyist by the soviets but trotsky himself considered it too centrist.

Ragdish,

Since the 'slippery slope' has been applied to the precept already, I'd like for you to answer the question of: "Where does the socializing of capitalism stop?"

From what I read Old Major was meant to represent Marx - remember he died before the revolution. Others I remember:

The farmer that previously owned it but fucked it up due to bad management represented the Czar and his family

The well run nearbly farm they defeated in the war represented Nazi Germany

The messy farm the pigs later talked to represented the US and England

The dogs represented the NKVD.

Benjamin the donkey represented cynical intellectuals

The horse that kept working harder (forget name) represented the working class.

The bird that always told the animals about "sugar candy mountain" represented the Eastern Orthodox Church

Also note at the end of the book how Orwell noted it became hard to tell the difference between the pigs and humans - this is just my observation but that sounds like he was saying the Soviets in power wound up being just as greedy as the capitalists. There was also an argument over a card game there which represented the beginning of the cold war.

Be interesting if someone wrote a sequel where Napoleon dies and the pigs that run the farm later make more and more reforms until the animals other than pigs wind up involved in governing it too - have to have some animals represent the criminal element becoming powerful, animals doing poorly that wis Napoleon would come back, the farm having severe problems, but becoming more friendly with the nearby farms, only to have another pig (Putin) gain power while not eliminating democracy completely and then have some things fall backward.

BTW an interesting bit of trivia  apparently in France "Napoleon" has a different name. I guess the real Napoleon is still somewhat a French hero and that would offend them.

I honestly don't know what the happy medium between socialism and capitalism is. I think it depends on the era and culture you are in. American social security based on collective taxation made sense in the early part of the 20th century when the proportion of retirees was relatively smaller. But now with an aging population and therefore retirees living longer, the only way to sustain social security would be to raise taxes, extend the retirement age or rely on individual personal investments (eg. 401 Ks). Now, paradoxically, in the Marxist state of Kerala, India (where I was born) there is no government sponsored taxation for retirees. The responsibility is goes to the retirees children to support them until they pass away. So, where does socializing of capitalism stop? It depends on where and when you live.

Also throw into the mix that economies are far too unpredictable over the long term to absolutely decide that x dose of socialism is needed for this capitalist economy. With the current economic downturn in the US, should we opt for more intense regulation of banks and mortgage lenders or less restraints on the free market in the long run?

Here is an excellent essay on Animalism Vs Marxism:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm

Orwell is described as a moderate Marxist with elements contrasting what I labelled as "orthodox" Marxism. In the essay, you will note Orwell's criticisms of Marx and Old Major. If anything, I see Orwell as a kind of pragmatic Marxist based on this reading. The author referred to him as a moderate Marxist. Even though I have my criticisms of Orwell and may not fully agree with his socialist ideals (because of innate negative parts of human nature eg. greed, selfishness, etc..), I would want his ideals nonetheless put forth on the table in shaping any democratic society for the betterment of workers.

ROFLMAO

And so I see what others see me as.

Store brand milk. $3.38 per gallon at Wal-mart. $2.99 at Aldi's.

A full $0.62 more than last year.

The wal-mart night security guard and I have decided to incorporate and declare ourselves a banking institution to get some TARP money. lol.