Under capitalism, a lot of the time, highly dangerous jobs are also highly paid. Kind of a balance that the individual decides to engage with. Same idea behind getting an advanced degree in STEM or law. I think of my job by example, I’m a power plant operator at a large combined cycle plant. No fucking shot I’d be doing this if the pay wasn’t good. I’m around explosive and deadly hot shit all day.
Same for people who maintain septic systems, like diving in lakes of feces. I’m not sure how that would look
None. But highly dangerous and specialized fields were always something the creative explored regardless of the ideology.
Pioneers will always exist whether capitalism or communism.
So the creative pioneers are going to work in the steel mills, okay.
Without subversive profit incentives, the incentives become to make necessary-but-undesirable jobs more safe/pleasant/automated. Without worrying about their next paycheque, people can spend time on the issue.
This requires a post-scarcity society that is fairly well developed, before they try to convert to communism.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that capitalism pays dangerous or unpleasant jobs well, though. Some do, but lots don’t.
For advanced STEM degrees, there are people who just enjoy learning that sort of thing and applying their knowledge.
In the same vein, some folks are just attracted to dangerous and difficult jobs because they get a sense of purpose or identity from it.
Others it’s community. I knew a guy who did 20 years active duty military, then joined the national guard, then took a job for the same national guard unit as a DoD civilian and stayed on until they forced him to retire. They had practically drag the guy out. He never did anything but bitch and complain about the work he spent more than 40 years doing, he sounded like kinda hated his job, but he liked being a part of the military.
You get more stuff, more status, etc. Or alternatively, penalized, threatened, etc. Whatever it takes to motivate people to do the job. Even if paper money isn’t a thing in communist societies (which it still is), money’s just a symbol for debt. You’re going to get something, somehow, for a job people greatly desire to be done without enough doers and they’ll become “indebted” to you disproportionately for doing it.
In Soviet society for instance, you might be provided a nice apartment in central Moscow if you were doing something “important”. This assignment would be via your government-controlled employer and their agreements with some other government bureau that officially managed the buildings to dole them out to select people.
So, same deal as anywhere else, just a different mechanism. Higher ration, bigger dacha, jump to the front of the line to get a car, etc.
Compensation is usually not much about how dangerous a job is, though. It’s more about how many people are willing to do it for any number of reasons. Some people are just not very risk-adverse, and figure they’re going to be fine at a job that is more dangerous. And they’ll be compensated at a normal level as long as there are enough such people to fill the need.
Under Maoism or Stalinism, aka the dictatorship of the dictator pretending to act for the proletariat? You are ordered to do it, for your own good and the good of the Party. If you don’t follow orders, you just get shot; and your family is put in a prison camp, your children raped and beaten and forced to labor.
Under real stateless, classless communism? Nobody knows, because that hasn’t existed yet. Anyone claiming to know exactly how it might operate is talking out of their hat. Marx is pretty clear on that.
“Dictatorship of the dictator” lol anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
This is a caricature of how socialism has functioned. In socialist states, people were compensated for their labor, and necessities were heavily subsized or otherwise free.
To the contrary of your depiction, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union. This expansion in humanitarianism actually carried onto the judicial system, documented by Mary Stevenson Callcott in Russian Justice, written in 1935.
Reducing the tremendous gains made by socialist countries to the whims of Stalin or Mao is extremely reductive. It means every single victory gained by the working classes, such as free healthcare and education, massive literacy campaigns, huge increases in equality among the sexes, and more were in fact the exclusive whims of their leadership. It also reduces all of their problems, struggles, and flaws to personal failings of their leadership.
This kind of analysis is very flawed, and gets in the way of analyzing what went right and what went wrong in existing socialism. Simply painting a prettier picture of socialism in our heads and rejecting all existing socialist projects for not measuring up to that picture means we will be hopeless when we run into similar problems when we ourselves begin building socialism.
I was talking about Maoist and Stalinist dictatorships, not socialism.
“Communism” was the brand name that these dictatorships used for their artificially red-dyed flavor of fascist mass murder. This name was stolen from the original Communists, and falsely & deceptively used by the fascist mass-murderers. Neither Stalin nor Mao had any intention of ever living in a classless society. Like all fascist leaders, they demanded obedience beyond that accorded to feudal kings, and erected new forms of hierarchy and class for their servants to populate — while they murdered the common people in whose name they claimed to rule.
The “dictatorship of the dictator pretending to care about the proletariat” murdered the proletariat by millions.
However, when people today say “Communism” — as in the title of this post — they are often referring to those dictatorships, and not to the earlier Communism of Marx and Engels, whose name the fascists misappropriated.
Hence my response, which distinguished Maoist and Stalinist fascist dictatorships from the theoretical communism of Marx and Engels.
Do not bother making excuses for fascist mass-murderers. There are none.
I was talking about Maoist and Stalinist dictatorships, not socialism.
Marxist-Leninist countries, such as the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, etc. are all examples of socialism, and have robust systems of democracy. Again, Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance goes in-depth in many of these countries, explaining the intricacies of socialist democracy, as well as what’s been general across all socialist states and also particular to each.
These are all definitely socialism. The large firms and key industries, at a minimum, are publicly owned and run. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies, and the working classes in charge of the state. This is what the “dictatorship of the proletariat” means, the control of the state by the proletariat.
“Communism” was the brand name that these dictatorships used for their artificially red-dyed flavor of fascist mass murder. This name was stolen from the original Communists, and falsely & deceptively used by the fascist mass-murderers.
This is easily verified as false, though. Fascism is a violent protection of private property rights and capitalism, and happens in decaying capitalist countries. From Spain to Germany to every other fascist state, capitalists were entrenched by the state and communists murdered. Meanwhile, in socialist states, the working classes gained control, oppressing the fascists, capitalists, Tsarists, slavers, etc, and collectivized production and distribution.
Neither Stalin nor Mao had any intention of ever living in a classless society. Like all fascist leaders, they demanded obedience beyond that accorded to feudal kings, and erected new forms of hierarchy and class for their servants to populate — while they murdered the common people in whose name they claimed to rule.
This is more Orwellian fan-fiction than reality, though. With the advent of socialism, socialist states brought tremendous democratization. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
The PCUSA made a handy graphic, here (though I’m not a member of the PCUSA):
Further, on top of the dramatic democratization, socialism has been tremendously uplifting. When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
Healthcare was dramatically expanded, made free and high quality. Housing rates skyrocketed, jobs were assured, education was free and high quality, women’s rights dramatically expanded. Literacy rates jumped from 20-30% to 99.9%. Life expectancies doubled:
The “dictatorship of the dictator pretending to care about the proletariat” murdered the proletariat by millions.
They didn’t, though, unless you’re counting deaths from unintentional famine as “murders.”
However, when people today say “Communism” — as in the title of this post — they are often referring to those dictatorships, and not to the earlier Communism of Marx and Engels, whose name the fascists misappropriated.
When people say “communism,” they refer to Actually Existing Socialism, such as the socialist states we are talking about, and to the societies Marx and Engels wrote theory to arm the proletariat to fight for. I already explained why calling communists “fascist” is wrong, so I won’t retread old ground.
When Marx and Engels spoke of the beginnings of communism, the transitional stage of socialism, they spoke of the working classes siezing control of the state, replacing it with a socialist one, and gradually collectivizing production and distribution. This requires violently oppressing the fascists, Tsarists, capitalists, kulaks, slavers, etc. The transition to the communism spoken of by Marx and Engels begins with socialism, as exists in real life.
Hence my response, which distinguished Maoist and Stalinist fascist dictatorships from the theoretical communism of Marx and Engels.
Your response didn’t have much of Marx or Engels, nor much respect for historical fact, though. When I gave clear sources showing how you were under the wrong impression about existing socialism, you ignored them and just re-asserted your original, incorrect claims. Marxism-Leninism is a genuine continuation of the work of Marx and Engels today, and has successfully established socialism in real life.
Do not bother making excuses for fascist mass-murderers. There are none.
I’m not making excuses, I’m correcting the record. Socialist states and socialist leaders have all been flawed, and have all made mistakes, including major ones. They’ve done so because they are real, not imaginary, perfect ideas of communism. It’s very common among westerners to use this ideal picture of socialism in our heads as a club against existing, real socialism for not being as perfect as our fantasies, but this works against us. If we in the west established socialism, we would too make mistakes, errors, and face struggles, because like presently existing socialism, we would be building it in real life, not just in our heads.
Socialism in real life is genuinely real, flawed, and progressive. It’s impefect, under constant siege, and blemished. It also has been tremendously uplfiting for billions of workers and peasants, and to fight against that and continue spreading debunked, outdated Red Scare mythos prevents us from meaningfully building solidarity with the global south, and sets ourselves up for failure when we refuse to learn from our comrades.
Short answer: We don’t know
Longer answer: We hope technology will be fully developed by then to do that stuff for us
One of my favorite answers so far, thank you!
Communism doesn’t mean no money, undesirable labor will always have to be incentivized. I think most people would prefer to be incentivized with the promise of access to luxuries, higher pay, more vacation time, recognized status in the community, rather than the threat of your survival, housing, healthcare, education, etc. You would still have taxes, but critical infrastructure would be owned by the laborers and the state.
Ideally, because there would be no individual ownership of infrastructure or the means of production. So, again ideally, the profits are equitably distributed through labor instead of shareholders. One of the goals of this kind of system would be the elimination of class. Not because people can’t make more money and have more luxuries, but because everyone has the same opportunities. Whereas most of the world today you can just pay for those opportunities.
Now, how exactly do you pull this off? Idk, other than a massive cultural shift. I’m sure someone with a reply telling me what I got wrong will have that answer.
This isn’t entirely accurate. What you described is a ‘socialist’ community, the so-called ‘lower stage of communism’. In this stage, there would still remain incentive based structures for labour. It employs a policy of “from each according to his ability to each according to his works”. Inequality still exists as explained by Marx here:
This equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation… one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another… Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another. — Critique of the Gotha Programme
It is during this lower stage that the transformation of social relations and productive forces gradually alters the motivations for labor to a more virtue-based one.
The problem most communism skeptic people have with communism is that they reason within the current modes of subsistence and assume it is impossible.
“What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” — Critique of the Gotha Programme
Marx also stated that he expected us to remain in the lower stage of communism for centuries, but it is during this stage that we prepare the productive forces to sustain communism and start producing goods for their use-value rather than for their exchange value, so that we can achieve the higher stage of communism which employs 'from each according to their ability to each according to his needs. This higher stage is truly classless because we would supposedly have solved scarcity, it would be stateless because people would organize communally to meet their needs, and it would be moneyless because the means of production and means of subsistence would be free for all to access.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor… has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want… only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’ — Critique of the Gotha Programme
the highly dangerous jobs usually are done by red states people: crab fishing in alaska, Oil drilling, fracking, lumber, because the lack of Economy and jobs in thier own state, which is probably on purpose. it all pads the pockets of the elites.
assuming this isnt the case with communist top down RULE, it should be STEM fields, including psychology, environmental conservation, social sciences is a priority.
Not to pry but what do you consider “good pay” for those conditions?
Around 55 an hour on average in my field but lots of fluctuation based on location.
So you evaluated that 114k a year is worth a chance at your life? What’s the lowest you’d go?
The biggest problem is that’s not really a considerable sum of value compared to what the upper 1% makes. There’s ALOT of wealth to go around that has been systematically stolen from you. I wouldn’t doubt a socialist society could provide you, and most people actually, the same level of luxury you are afforded today.
I don’t care what other people make though, millions of people work significantly more dangerous gigs for significantly less and millions of people work completely safe gigs for way more. I do this because I love it AND it pays well.
Isnt this a little contradictory to your earlier statement? Your income is what everyone has to make to live comfortably, a state which could easily be provided by many systems, and now you say you love it even though the luxury it affords you is around the same as an experienced flight attendant. Would that mean you’d work the same job for any system that provided for you? Considering your affinity for the job?
So I guess that answers your questions. In a socialist society you’d probably have the same material wealth and could work the same job
Fair enough
Easy answer, you want your kids to be raped? No? you will do it then.
There’s definitely motivation outside of pay. People can value doing jobs that are critical for society knowing that they’re helping
deleted by creator
Why do people do things like rock climbing and other activities that have a high risk of injury or death when mistakes are made without being paid? Some people find dangerous stuff to be more enjoyable than less dangerous stuff.
Most dangerous jobs under capitalism are NOT well paid. People will do dangerous jobs for many reasons, but pay is rarely one of them.
Im speaking from my anecdotal experience of working a dangerous job. I do it 1. Because I genuinely find it interesting 2. Because it pays better than most jobs. If the pay part wasn’t there I’d find something equally interesting in engineering that paid well.
Your job isn’t dangerous. It’s potentially dangerous…but well-regulated and rated as very safe by employment standards.
Resource extraction jobs, for example, are statistically the least safe and tend to not pay well.
3 times higher than national average for fatalities… based on the bureau of labor statistics, but sure, tell me again I have a safe job. You recognize not being the MOST dangerous doesnt make it not dangerous right?
Your job remains statistically safe. Calling it “dangerous” isn’t accurate.
Your argument is like saying flying is more dangerous than other travel because you die more often when there’s an accident.
You’re trolling or genuinely a very stupid person.
My statements are accurate and please miss me with the ad hominem attacks…they’re not a substitute for an argument.
In the US around 30 people a year die from chainsaws. Because that number is small compared to other hazards, chainsaws are safe and not dangerous. This is your argument, do you see that, at all?
Because it provides for the family and they enjoy it.
But how would it provide for the family. You really think an iron foundry worker would do that gig because its enjoyable?
There are those who do enjoy a day of hard work.
Alright.
even if it shorten your life? i don’t think there are many people like that without getting paid more
