Who gets the good jobs under communism? Who gets the bad jobs under communism...

end your life

nobody need to automate garbage pickup, you'll be fucking shot if you litter. Where I live most of the garbage goes into huge dumps where the garbage truck driver picks it up easily. It only need one person already, and there are plenty of people who would do it anyways, regardless of getting peyed. Communal gargabe bins, that simple.

Which book talks about how scarce and desirable things like top floors of a high rise with a view will be distributed under communism or how production for exchange will be prevented? I will read them.

Who gives a shit about having the top floor? Who the fuck thinks "you know I like all this worker's control of the MoP and shit but I can't get an apartment on the top floor of a high rise that I couldn't afford anyway so fuck you."? If it really is that big an issue, draw lots, or turn it into a club or shit if everyone is fighting over the cool view.
Why would you need to produce for exchange if everyone already has more than they need? Seriously, fam, read Capital. Or just the Communist Manifesto. Or the Conquest of Bread if you want to read a real anarchist.

If the top floor is given randomly people will clamor to exchange something to be able to live there.

Furthermore neither capital or even the communist manifesto address issues of scarcity under communism.

you are dumb as fuck my dude

No you are.

Replace "the slaves," with "the robots" and you have your answer.

Why would they? Seriously fam no one cares about high-rise apartments. What would they even exchange? What does this have to do with production?

That's quite a statement considering you have read neither. Full communism is post-scarcity, and we are already at a point we produce more than enough to fulfill most of our needs and have the productive capacity to fulfill any other needs that arise. You're seriously retarded

Because people like nice(r) things which are fundamentally scarce.

I have read bits and pieces of capital and all of the communist manifesto, it is clear you are the one who has read neither because neither address concerns of scarcity.

holy shit dude you're really fucking dumb

No the person who recommended it that didn't even read it himself clearly is.

You are dumb as shit and prove it with every post.

You saying it doesn't make it true, famalam. Show us how it doesn't address concerns of scarcity.

Again, provide leftist literature that details how a communist system will deal with scarcity and distribute items that are scarce and prevent people from producing for exchange to obtain items that are scarce. You can't.

This sounds really good actually. I would ask the cops local council's worker's militia to go easy on him

Don't bother, this board is full of teenage pseuds that didn't even read the SparkNotes of Das Capital.

"Read a book" == "I can't articulate an argument of my own please read this tome from the 19th century I never even read myself"

Not the user you're talking to but Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed deals with this

Rude

I will unironically look into this, even though it is a work of fiction, only because I find the premise compelling.

It's a good book. It's very "hard" sci-fi so it looks at the problems an anarchist society might encounter from syndicalist and anthropological theory (Le Guin's father was a distinguished anthropologist)

He'll have a fun time making beer for his fellow gulag members.

...

Well, it depends on what is meant by "good". If it is work that is actually desirable to do, everyone who wants to and is able can do it when they're not required to do something else. If it is simply work that is not as taxing as other forms of labor, there'd probably be some extra compensation delivered to those who do the harder work or else a lottery system giving everyone the chance.
As much as possible, robots. Where that's not possible, either people given proportionally more luxuries than others or, again, everyone through cycling between good and bad jobs.
Probably those who do the hard jobs or else are prestigious for having come up with some grand innovation, or lottery. However, it's up to democracy to choose that.
By legally making it so that if you have goods you're not using you can't just prevent people from taking them and using them their self like you would under a system with private property. If you're talking about "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" arrangement where two people agree to make things each other need in advance, that's not actually a problem, and neither is social sanctions against those who fail to follow through; there just aren't legal sanctions that come with them.
Not a damn thing unless the fanatics actually try to install the craftsman and their selves as a ruling class in which case they'll be shot by the rest of society.

unpopular opinions incoming.

The children of the nomenklatura.

Who gets the bad jobs under communism?

Take a wild guess.

Loyal supporters of the revolutionary regime.
Reactionaries.
Whoever the revolutionary vanguard decides needs it the most, in the rare event that such goods would even be available.
He's thrown into the gulag for being a disruptive and reactionary element.

gorillas aren't monkeys

The point is to get rid of the concept of a "job" altogether, but I'll just answer the latter and say that communism isn't a fucking utopia and everything will be perfect and happy. Shit will have to be done and incentives to get it done will be invented as needed. At the same time, we'd probably re-design our society so that less shitty work is needed, rather than try to superimpose our present way of life but with communism and robots instead.
Maybe it's just a matter of perspective but I'd consider being a doctor a crummier job than being a stocking peon under communism. Shit, I already feel that way in capitalism, so long as I have a home and don't starve.
Why should it matter? Only idiots would care about being on the top floor just because. Same with lakefront homes, assuming the community has access to the lake by other means. If someone really feels bad about not having their preferred lot and wants to complain to the Housing Planning Commission or whatever agency exists, they can be told to suck it unless they have an actually valid complaint.
You don't try to police everyone, you just stop enabling them by printing sovereign-backed currency and all it entails, and building your whole production and distribution system around such an unstable basis. If people set up a black market (which will probably happen), we try to contain it and prevent any overtly exploitative practices like capitalistic employment or slavery. But if you're talking about two neighbors setting up a trade for something, no one is going to police that in of itself. The existence of a black market does not negate communism unless it's big enough to present an institutional threat from counter-revolutionaries (who would still need guns and shit to overthrow communism).

the bread book

What does Santa have to say about it?

[..]

Thanks user!

This resolves the distribution of scarce goods, though the definition of who is the most needy might be somewhat hard to agree on. However, how does this apply to jobs? You can hardly give the good jobs to the people who happen to be sick or children, after all.

What defines a "good" job, first of all? "Bad" jobs like street cleaning etc., if not automated, could be done by lot or by periodical rotation.

Our goal is to eliminate the need for labor that is considered a "job".
This however is a ways away, so to answer your question, people will have the "shit" and "good" jobs. The shit jobs will have incentives, and the good one's will naturally be taken.
Depends on what is available to live in.
No private property, no work force, no money, no market.
He can share his recipe and brewing style. Now we all have it. If it's really good, and enough people want it, then it will become the new standard for the collectively owned breweries.
Firstly, no one will be willing to die ==FOR FUCKING BEER==. Secondly, If she refuses to share the idea then,…….okay..cool? Who gives a fuck, she'll grow old and die, and someone else who loves beer will come along and rediscover it, and maybe he will be more cool then that cunt.
If Newton never told anyone about his theories on gravity, would we never know that gravity exists? Of cores not, ideas come from the material world, not from gifted individuals alone.

SAGE for gorilla posting

I too enjoy sunlight but have you considered old and infirm people, or people who don't give a fuck really what floor they are on, or would consider a bottom floor kore convenient. The top floor will be occupied by whoever occupies it, when it becomes vacant someone else will occupy it. You realise for most families this is not the main concern in housing.

If too many people want to do a certain job and too few another, then both will probably be evenly distributed by lot. There would also probably be a cultural change where the workers of unwanted jobs are respected and praised, causing more people to want to do those jobs.

Capital is a critique of capitalism, not a theory of establishing socialism. Marx addresses distribution in Critique of the Gotha Program by advocating for labor vouchers, but Marx isn't the only source on distribution of goods in socialism. Marx's major work was a critique of capitalism, there are other Marxist thinkers that consider socialist economics, including soviet academics who were studying how to make the economy run efficiently but often didn't have their particular suggestions implemented or explored.

exchange and even money wouldnt necesarially complete cease to exist alltogether in all forms.
maybe for some things they'd still be desireable.
Money and exchange have never been nearly as important as they are now in the rest of human history. For most of history, the vast majority of people's lives did not revolve around money, they didnt have much need for it. So it would be under communism.
shared, such that they get done just by pepole doing their chores and taking care of their piece of the world. if sai dbad job requires too much time/training/coordination for that, shared by more people working fewer hours. If too much even for that, automated.
The manifesto was a political program for parties at its specific time, not theory, not an explanation of socialism.