Egalitarianism?

[AntiLeft]

Is this an ideology that all here subscribe to? if so why?

[Dr Mindbender]

Yes, because we believe that having a society run on the basis of inequality is at once brutal, backward, inhuman, inefficient and unnecessary.

[danyboy27]

Yes, because we believe that having a society run on the basis of inequality is at once brutal, backward, inhuman, inefficient and unnecessary.

i think its important to take in account that egalitaritarism dosnt mean we all have the same tv or the same house.

just wanted to point that out, people get confused quick about that notion.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think its important to take in account that egalitaritarism dosnt mean we all have the same tv or the same house.

just wanted to point that out, people get confused quick about that notion.

Appreciated.

[trivas7]

i think its important to take in account that egalitaritarism dosnt mean we all have the same tv or the same house.

Well, this begs the question of what does egalitarianism mean. Conservatives usually say that they, too, believe in egalitarianism -- meaning equal opportunity.

[Nulono]

i think its important to take in account that egalitaritarism dosnt mean we all have the same tv or the same house.

just wanted to point that out, people get confused quick about that notion.COMMA SP-... Aww, fuck it.

I am also an egalitarian.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, this begs the question of what does egalitarianism mean. Conservatives usually say that they, too, believe in egalitarianism -- meaning equal opportunity.

Equality of opportunity is something all "sides" seem to argue from when discussing their views. "Equality of condition" is a bogeyman - with a few exceptions, I've never met someone who thought it was unethical for one person to own what another person doesn't. Even the most ardent communist recognizes that if someone doesn't work and they have the capacity to, I'm under no obligation to provide for him or her.

Liberals/Social Democrats think a large welfare states allots the most EoO, while conservatives defend small welfarism, right-libertarians defend "laissez-faire" capitalism, and socialists defend an economy of producers.

[RGacky3]

What does egalaterianism mean? Ulatimately EVERYONE believes in egalitarianism, the simple concept that men are born as equals, and have equal innate rights.

[MikeSC]

What does egalaterianism mean? Ulatimately EVERYONE believes in egalitarianism, the simple concept that men are born as equals, and have equal innate rights.

Except for non-whites, gays, women, foreigners (and so on) for a significant amount of people- hell except for "everyone else but myself" if you're a capitalist. Private property is innately unegalitarian- to claim for ones self naturally occuring, material things as your own sole property to do with what you will implies some kind of right to that material above and beyond that of everyone else.

Private property is exactly like denying black people the right to fountains and seats at the front of buses- except instead of "white/black" it's "me/not me".

[trivas7]

^^ MikeSC -- nicely said! :thumbup1:

[mikelepore]

There's an interesting entry on "equality of opportunity" in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, including some conflicting views of what it means.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/

[RGacky3]

Except for non-whites, gays, women, foreigners (and so on) for a significant amount of people- hell except for "everyone else but myself" if you're a capitalist. Private property is innately unegalitarian- to claim for ones self naturally occuring, material things as your own sole property to do with what you will implies some kind of right to that material above and beyond that of everyone else.

Private property is exactly like denying black people the right to fountains and seats at the front of buses- except instead of "white/black" it's "me/not me".

Fundementally, they'll say they are egalitarian, in other words they believe in equality. All those other things they explain away, or rationalize out of ignorance. All men are created equal, they wrote that in the US constitution and they believed it, but clearly they did'nt follow it, not even close.

[couch13]

There's an interesting entry on "equality of opportunity" in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, including some conflicting views of what it means.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/

Equality of opportunity is subserviant to equality of condition. If one is to have equal opportunity, then they must be born into the world with an equal chance to succeed. Yet, if you're born into a rich family, then your opportunity is greater than that of a person born into a poor family. Thus, equality of opportunity requires equality of condition.

[PCommie]

I think the original point of this thread was something we all believe in. Well, we all work for a classless, stateless society. The difference is how you get there. Anarchists would implant this society along with revolution, "communists" would implant a socialist state that "whithers away" into communism. And then, too, there are different forms of such a state.

-PC

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Equality of opportunity is subserviant to equality of condition. If one is to have equal opportunity, then they must be born into the world with an equal chance to succeed. Yet, if you're born into a rich family, then your opportunity is greater than that of a person born into a poor family. Thus, equality of opportunity requires equality of condition.

At the same time, forcing equality of condition is unproductive. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world where we can factor in every variable to project what someone's contributions to society would be if fully engaged in their work. The best we can hope for would be a post-singularity, post-industrial "Eden-esque" civilization where labor obligations - whether from Man or Nature - are archaic.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Yes most here do but a contradiction in communism is for those who believe in the dictatorship of the proletarian phase because during this stage the workers oppress the bourgeois creating an unequal society.

[trivas7]

The best we can hope for would be a post-singularity, post-industrial "Eden-esque" civilization where labor obligations - whether from Man or Nature - are archaic.

But this is a fantasy. By the mid 1850's, even Marx came to realize that even w/ the prospect that much menial work could be mechanized, some form of labor of an unspontaneous and undesirable sort would remain necessary in communist society. In the Grundrisse he wrote: "...the labour time necessary for the satisfaction of absolute needs leaves free time...so that finally material production leaves every person surplus time for other activities."

Presumably this 'labour time necessary for the satisfaction of absolute needs' still has to be allocated and this would require the (re)introduction of principles of rights and the government of men.

[Dejavu]

The only equality I can ever see as 'truly equal' is 'equality of authority.' All other notions of equality necessarily create an inequality of authority.

[Angry Young Man]

Well, this begs the question of what does egalitarianism mean. Conservatives usually say that they, too, believe in egalitarianism -- meaning equal opportunity.
I'm not here very often, but before I read on, I have to give myself a bit of a bleeding on this point (If there's any medieval history gonks'll tell me that blood wasn't the humour that had to do with rage, please correct me).

Equality of opportunity is a rhetorical tool which justifies the laissez-faire economics that conservatives enforce. It glosses over the fact that the poorest in society need aid to maximise their potential. It denies that things for some children are just dropped in their lap, which then brings it all down to accident of birth: I could have been born into a wealthy North London family, been educated at Eton and Oxford; or I could have been born into a Rotherham former mining family, gone to an underfunded secondary school and worked in a shop. So then the equality of opportunity, in the liberal sense, is shown up as the load of arse it is.

[MikeSC]

The only equality I can ever see as 'truly equal' is 'equality of authority.' All other notions of equality necessarily create an inequality of authority.

I'd "thank" you if I could. I don't know if you meant "equality of authority" only concerning other people or if you meant "equality of authority" over the material world that we find ourselves in also, but if it's the latter that's a cool description of communism.

[trivas7]

The only equality I can ever see as 'truly equal' is 'equality of authority.' All other notions of equality necessarily create an inequality of authority.
Surely my authority to login to my laptop is not equal to Obama's authority to tap into the nuclear football. What you mean by equality of authority?

[couch13]

At the same time, forcing equality of condition is unproductive. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world where we can factor in every variable to project what someone's contributions to society would be if fully engaged in their work. The best we can hope for would be a post-singularity, post-industrial "Eden-esque" civilization where labor obligations - whether from Man or Nature - are archaic.


I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out how ridiculous the idea of equality of opportunity is. To me, equality ought to be simply a lack of class. Without differences in class, then all are equal.

[Dejavu]

I'd "thank" you if I could. I don't know if you meant "equality of authority" only concerning other people or if you meant "equality of authority" over the material world that we find ourselves in also, but if it's the latter that's a cool description of communism.


Very simply that people ought not have authority over others, especially on the basis of being 'in the government' or because of how much wealth one holds.

[Dejavu]

Surely my authority to login to my laptop is not equal to Obama's authority to tap into the nuclear football. What you mean by equality of authority?

You nailed it. Obama has access to nukes, you don't. He has power to coerce you , you do not have the same power. Obama and people like him wear suits with pins and call themselves 'presidents' and 'politicians' as if this is some kind of justified authority. He can rob you at gunpoint and you must submit or face the consequences he so 'justly' grants to you.

[Dejavu]

See my blog on Equality. (http://theanarchistman.blogspot.com/2009/04/equality.html)

[trivas7]

See my blog on Equality. (http://theanarchistman.blogspot.com/2009/04/equality.html)
If by equality of authority you mean the prohibition of any subordination or subjection of one person to another, I don't see how modern technological society goes on. IMO technological society in order to function requires hierarchical authority, which means exactly the subordination and subjection of one person to another. Your point of departure is the atomized individual as a locus of agency, instead of the individual as the locus of social relationships that Marx envisions.

OTOH, why can't equality mean basic economic equality? Why is it so difficult to imagine a society that runs efficiently, humanely, and basically economically equal?

[RGacky3]

I don't see how modern technological society goes on. IMO technological society in order to function requires hierarchical authority, which means exactly the subordination and subjection of one person to another.

Why?

[trivas7]

Why?
Why what?

[Kronos]

Ulatimately EVERYONE believes in egalitarianism, the simple concept that men are born as equals, and have equal innate rights.

Speak for yourself. Human beings are certainly not born equal and there are no such things as "innate" rights.

Egalitarianism is anti-natural in so far as it is a reactionary politics- to demand the leveling of all men because one feels impotent, cheated, treated unfairly, is a demand made for the wrong reasons: resentment.

But to approach the matter of politics already "overflowing with power", not needy, not failing, not suffering...this is honesty...and to proceed not so seriously with a slight prankish mood...like one preparing an experiment out of curiosity and not desperation, because he can, not because he has to. Well then, let egalitarianism as such be an option, but only after we affirm that inequality and right-by-might are natural.

Be honest, comrades. Leave the lying to the blue-bottled priests and moralists.


Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: "Man ought to be such and such!" Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms — and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: "No! Man ought to be different." He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall and comments, "Ecce homo!" But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to him, "You ought to be such and such!" he does not cease to make himself ridiculous. The single human being is a piece of fatum from the front and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is yet to come and to be. To say to him, "Change yourself!" is to demand that everything be changed, even retroactively. And indeed there have been consistent moralists who wanted man to be different, that is, virtuous — they wanted him remade in their own image, as a prig: to that end, they negated the world! No small madness! No modest kind of immodesty!


We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers. More and more, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize everything that the holy witlessness of the priest, the diseased reason in the priest, rejects — that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous. What advantage? But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.

[MikeSC]

Speak for yourself. Human beings are certainly not born equal and there are no such things as "innate" rights.

Egalitarianism is anti-natural in so far as it is a reactionary politics- to demand the leveling of all men because one feels impotent, cheated, treated unfairly, is a demand made for the wrong reasons: resentment.

But to approach the matter of politics already "overflowing with power", not needy, not failing, not suffering...this is honesty...and to proceed not so seriously with a slight prankish mood...like one preparing an experiment out of curiosity and not desperation, because he can, not because he has to. Well then, let egalitarianism as such be an option, but only after we affirm that inequality and right-by-might are natural.

Be honest, comrades. Leave the lying to the blue-bottled priests and moralists.

"Anti-natural", ha.

Egalitarianism seeks the, for want of a better term, "natural" equilibrium where no person has any more worldly power than any other. The institutions that disrupt this equilibrium are state institutions built over and above what is (again, for want of a better term) "natural". Like private property. Created and enforced not because of any innate philosophical betterness- created and enforced on the back of either false ideas like Divine Right, or arbitrary ones like the Lockean property myth.

I prefer "equilibriate" or "balanced" over "natural", I always laugh at people who say something is "anti-natural" with a straight face. What is behaviour if not natural? Magic?

[Kronos]

The institutions that disrupt this equilibrium are state institutions built over and above what is (again, for want of a better term) "natural".

The default state of pre-industrialized societies has always been a hierarchy of ranks. The equilibrium of the group was maintained through the subordination of each individual to his rank. So the "institutions" did not "disrupt" such an equilibrium (because in the egalitarian sense it did not exist), but instead invented such an equilibrium.

And I would add that capitalism is an ideology that promotes "equal opportunity" in principle, but cannot realize it in practice.

The disagreeable ethical point one has to accept before attempting any politics is that man is fundamentally selfish. Empathy-altruism is very rare, as generally motives can be traced back to personal gain.

A decent metaphor: the herd appears to be altruistic as it bands together.....but in reality, each individual knows that it increases the odds of being missed by the predator if it joins with all the other individuals. Therefore, the motives of each individual are selfish, but when the actions of these selfish individuals are cooperative....an illusory altruistic system emerges.

[JimmyJazz]

Well, this begs the question of what does egalitarianism mean. Conservatives usually say that they, too, believe in egalitarianism -- meaning equal opportunity.

And they mean it in the way that the Lottery is equal opportunity.

Except that in the financial markets lottery, a ticket costs more than many people will make in a lifetime of hard work.

Fuck the lottery, abolish class society.

[trivas7]

The disagreeable ethical point one has to accept before attempting any politics is that man is fundamentally selfish. Empathy-altruism is very rare, as generally motives can be traced back to personal gain.

Prove it. Prove that man is fundamentally selfish.

This is just the denial that we have ethical obligations towards everything we can possibly make suffer, to the degree that we can make other creatures suffer. One of the most important aspects of human life is the striving to live contentedly together as a society. Finding substantial reasons to treat each other well; seeing the link bt our own happiness and the happiness of others. This is surely a candidate for the most important thing people can be engaged in. Clearly, we get our ethical intuitions from biology on some level. We are born w/ a desire for social gratification; we can further develop an ability to be compassionate towards others and be concerned w/ their suffering.

[MikeSC]

The default state of pre-industrialized societies has always been a hierarchy of ranks. The equilibrium of the group was maintained through the subordination of each individual to his rank. So the "institutions" did not "disrupt" such an equilibrium (because in the egalitarian sense it did not exist), but instead invented such an equilibrium.

And I would add that capitalism is an ideology that promotes "equal opportunity" in principle, but cannot realize it in practice.

The disagreeable ethical point one has to accept before attempting any politics is that man is fundamentally selfish. Empathy-altruism is very rare, as generally motives can be traced back to personal gain.

A decent metaphor: the herd appears to be altruistic as it bands together.....but in reality, each individual knows that it increases the odds of being missed by the predator if it joins with all the other individuals. Therefore, the motives of each individual are selfish, but when the actions of these selfish individuals are cooperative....an illusory altruistic system emerges.

And what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Pre-capitalist statist societies were just as hierarchical as capitalist ones... why are they the baseline? Why ignore pre-statist societies?

And people can be selfish all they want, society isn't there to accomodate that in certain individuals in exchange for stifling it in others. Selfish is fine as long as you're selfish only about things you have a moral right to.

In slave societies, people can be selfish concerning "their" slaves. In property societies, people can be selfish concering "their" materials. Why are we able to get rid of one but not the other? Especially considering that the baseline that humanity built it's self on was primitive communism? Is the early history of humanity impossible and against nature?

[Kronos]

Prove it. Prove that man is fundamentally selfish.

It becomes clear when you observe the behavior of children and have some insight into how behavioral patterns are cultivated and conditioned. Children who have no linguistic conception of mores, principles or virtues operate selfishly, and to the extent that they decline to commit selfish acts...they are doing so only to avoid negative reinforcement (they apply a primitive "consequentialism" in their reasoning)....not because they understand what "immoral" means and have chosen on the basis of that understand to cease such behavior.

May we say that human beings begin as purely selfish, but are taught cultural norms and habits? I think so.

Ah, then linguistic concepts contain the reality of morality....not behavior in itself. Moving further along this line of logic, we could even say that moral behavior, after this fact, is committed for selfish ends; one believes being moral is good, and one wants to be good. That is the original motive....not the welfare of another.

You could also argue that since all behavior is either involuntary or voluntary compulsion to discharge tension and stabilize a kind of neurological symbiosis (the build up of positively charged ions across a membrane until discharged), behavior, as mechanical and hydraulic movement of the body, is motivated after a threshold is crossed.

In lamen's terms, nobody does nothing for no reason. And that reason begins internally as a neurological state of affairs- a system organizing itself for its own sake.

Mental phenomena and language is almost irrelevant to this and is after the fact.

Then of course there is the cultural relativism argument that, say, neighborly love is not universal to all ethical systems. Headhunters find it customary to scalp their neighbors....not have cook-outs with them.

[trivas7]

It becomes clear when you observe the behavior of children and have some insight into how behavioral patterns are cultivated and conditioned. Children who have no linguistic conception of mores, principles or virtues operate selfishly, and to the extent that they decline to commit selfish acts...they are doing so only to avoid negative reinforcement (they apply a primitive "consequentialism" in their reasoning)....not because they understand what "immoral" means and have chosen on the basis of that understand to cease such behavior.

Nonsense. Children also have the desire for social interaction and gratification. They have the ability to empathize w/ the mental states of others very early on and this can further develop into the ability to be compassionate and to prefer the happiness of others if this is encouraged. Nothing in the field of child development supports your claim that people are fundamentally selfish.

[RGacky3]

IMO technological society in order to function requires hierarchical authority, which means exactly the subordination and subjection of one person to another.

Why does technological society require hierarchical authority?

[Kronos]

Children also have the desire for social interaction and gratification. They have the ability to empathize w/ the mental states of others very early on and this can further develop into the ability to be compassionate and to prefer the happiness of others if this is encouraged. Nothing in the field of child development supports your claim that people are fundamentally selfish.

Sure, but they do not begin this way. Compassion and empathy are learned concepts with which a child switches perspectives and presupposes another person is capable of having similar experiences as himself.

For child to be sympathetic to another child who is getting spanked, he has to have some acquaintance with that discordance to know it is undesirable.

A child cannot have sympathy without having first experienced the very thing about a person he is to have sympathy for. This is the only way he can understand, through analogy, the other person's experience which he is to be sympathetic about.

In order for this experience to occur, the child had to do something which resulted in him getting a spanking. Whatever he did was for his own gains and interests.

So any act of compassion, empathy or sympathy is the result of a learned behavior having its origins in the association of one's own acts, and the consequences they bring, to the acts and consequences resulting for another person's acts.

We do not 'start out' with an innate sense of empathy....we learn it. And in order to learn it, we pass through trials and tribulations, as those consequences for our own selfish, disobedient acts we learn to associate with other people who behave the same.

Right? How does a child know that a spanking is painful, or that crying is an indication of distress? Because he has had those experiences himself. Therefore, he must of have originally committed some selfish, disobedient act that warranted such punishment.

[RGacky3]

Sure, but they do not begin this way. Compassion and empathy are learned concepts with which a child switches perspectives and presupposes another person is capable of having similar experiences as himself.

For child to be sympathetic to another child who is getting spanked, he has to have some acquaintance with that discordance to know it is undesirable.

A child cannot have sympathy without having first experienced the very thing about a person he is to have sympathy for. This is the only way he can understand, through analogy, the other person's experience which he is to be sympathetic about.

In order for this experience to occur, the child had to do something which resulted in him getting a spanking. Whatever he did was for his own gains and interests.

So any act of compassion, empathy or sympathy is the result of a learned behavior having its origins in the association of one's own acts, and the consequences they bring, to the acts and consequences resulting for another person's acts.

We do not 'start out' with an innate sense of empathy....we learn it. And in order to learn it, we pass through trials and tribulations, as those consequences for our own selfish, disobedient acts we learn to associate with other people who behave the same.

Right? How does a child know that a spanking is painful, or that crying is an indication of distress? Because he has had those experiences himself. Therefore, he must of have originally committed some selfish, disobedient act that warranted such punishment.

All of what you typed is irrelivent. The fact that after the experience we feel empathy, and sympathy shows that those 2 feelings are innate.

Hunger only comes up when you don't have enough to eat, which means that a child cannot be hungry unless he does'nt have enough to eat, that does'nt proove that hunger is'nt an innate feeling.

Thats like saying that people don't innately react to bright lights being shined in their eye and using blind people as your example.

[Kronos]

Gacky, you are trying to equate two distinct kinds of behavior. Involuntary (reaction to lights, hunger, etc.) and learned, compulsive, voluntary behavior.

I am telling you that you cannot use the term "innate" here when trying to define sympathetic, compassionate behavior.

It is safe for you to consider people as Lockean "blank-slates" when addressing emotional expressions that correspond to language and behavior....from which they acquire their meaning. There is nothing "innate" about this.

[trivas7]

Why does technological society require hierarchical authority?
B/c that's what's required for technology to work.

[MikeSC]

Gacky, you are trying to equate two distinct kinds of behavior. Involuntary (reaction to lights, hunger, etc.) and learned, compulsive, voluntary behavior.

I am telling you that you cannot use the term "innate" here when trying to define sympathetic, compassionate behavior.

It is safe for you to consider people as Lockean "blank-slates" when addressing emotional expressions that correspond to language and behavior....from which they acquire their meaning. There is nothing "innate" about this.

And this has nothing to do with egalitarianism. People learn behaviour..... therefore society should not treat people equally? That makes no sense. Also you've ignored a previous post of mine- you're perfectly free to do so, but why?

[Kronos]

I always laugh at people who say something is "anti-natural" with a straight face. What is behaviour if not natural? Magic? If that was your question, then I should say that I used the term "natural" ambiguously. You are correct- there is nothing "unnatural".

The only point I was trying to make was that human beings are not "inherently" egalitarian. This does not mean egalitarianism isn't a legitimate philosophy. When people try to bolster egalitarianism with arguments like "we are all equal" and "we have equal rights", as if these points are obvious and taken for granted, I feel like I should clear the air of such assumptions.

Anyway, egalitarianism, in the communist sense that equality is expressed in equal property rights, won't work as smoothly as communists assume. When people engage in the material relations of production, they do not perform equally....therefore their value is not the same, economically speaking. If the person who performs better is not awarded by his efforts, that is, is not afforded privileges that inferior workers do not have, he has no incentive to apply his extraordinary effort.

A meritocractic system must exist to remedy this natural conflict. Because people clearly are not equal, a system that imposes no opportunity for advancement is bound to have problems.

"Each according to his need and ability", says Marx. Certainly. And if a democratic process could exist where more valuable workers were given more assets and privileges, this problem would be avoided. Perhaps one might see the "state" as owning all property....but also a state that distributes property among the workers, an amount and quality of which, is according to their democratically decided value in the chain of production.

Communists should be able to learn from observing free-market systems, and try to incorporate certain aspects into the communist system. We have seen human beings express great degrees of incentive in their work in the free market system. This enthusiasm originates from the knowledge that one can own property.

Why would I bother wanting to become a neurosurgeon if I could apply less effort and become a janitor instead....all the while living in the same conditions and owning the same stuff as all the naive neurosurgeons who didn't realize this?

Whatever political system exists, it has to incorporate natural competitive elements in human behavior, and natural desires to own property...or at least "use" it to one's liking....even if it is still owned by the state.

[MikeSC]

Not at all- why are you giving some people the right to decide that these other people aren't worth as much? Seriously where is that coming from? That is not any kind of neutral position.

There's no reason why property has to be an incentive for people to do things, just because that is how it is now (and not for the better either.) Why do people become neurosurgeons when it would be easier and more profitable to become, say, a banker? Could it be that people don't look at the 70 years they get on the planet and decide to fill it up purely with "accumulate"?

You talk about kids- if you ask a kid what they want to be, how many times will it be something like "police officer" or "firefighter"? Even with all of our materialistic consumerist socialisation, a kid will not see their life as merely a tool to make other people recognise that the numbers in their bank accounts are bigger.

And nothing you've said has at all supported this "clearing the air" that you claim to have done. "Kids can be selfish" doesn't address egalitarianism at all. Tell me how "kids can be selfish" transforms into "society should withhold the rights of some but not of others"?

And again, why did you choose pre-capitalist statist societies for your base point, rather than pre-statist primitive communist egalitarian societies?

[Kronos]

why are you giving some people the right to decide that these other people aren't worth as much?To be modest, it would take volumes and volumes of work to describe how such a system would work. But here are some brief basic points:

The "some people" are democratic committees consisting of the working classes. Who gets what is decided by a majority vote. The standard by which they compare and contrast the value of a certain job consists of basically two criteria: the amount of resources necessary to train a person to have that job, and the importance and priority of that job over other jobs (although this involves some contingencies).

The state makes this decision after considering what, and how much it took, during the investment period of the education and training of that job skill.

If it takes eight years to educate a brain surgeon, but one month to educate a janitor, surgeons are a more valuable asset because it takes more resources to make them.

The demand of one job over another doesn't necessarily mean that a job requiring less training becomes more important than a job requiring more training, but which is in less demand, since if a job in high demand requires minimal resources to train....the positions can be filled more rapidly than the higher skilled jobs....even though there isn't a high demand for them.

Pay levels will be set up according to such standards. Person with job X gets X amount of money...so on and so forth..which he can spend at his disposal buying commodities produced and owned by the state.

Now, the trick is to get all members of the voting working class to understand and accept that some jobs are more valuable than others. If they can do this, you get an honest voting process. There will be a minority who defect (I base this on game theory) and who vote against the more valued workers because they, themselves, are assnoids who are jealous...and who are incapable of learning such a skill, and therefore don't want the smart ones to get paid.

To meet this dilemma, the state should provide equal opportunity of all citizens to pursue a job they desire. We let the dice roll as they may. If ever there is a situation where certain jobs are in more demand, the state would encourage citizens to pursue those jobs instead of the bigger paying jobs. The state would use an expedient incentive plan temporarily until the the job was no longer in demand- those who could pursue higher paying jobs, but don't, and instead pursue lower paying jobs that are in a current high demand, will be given bonuses of some sort.

So the only people you have to worry about in this democratic voting system are the dishonest butt dumplings who failed at learning a highly skilled job and want revenge on the comrade next door who owns the two-tone volkswagon ("for the people"...brilliant).

If we can get all the people who are not surgeons to accept that a surgeon deserves more if his education required more resources (teaching, training, field practice, etc), then we can get the people who dig ditches, but expend far more labor effort than the surgeon, to understand that it isn't necessarily brute labor that determines one's economic value.

I'm tellin ya man I could run this planet if I had the power. There are enough brains here to do all the math for me (Rosa would be our quantum computer).


Could it be that people don't look at the 70 years they get on the planet and decide to fill it up purely with "accumulate"?One would like to think that, but experience demonstrates otherwise. Human beings are gregarious, hedonistic creatures. Now of course I would not use the modern day consumer as a model (who is more like a cancerous pack-rat with five TVs and a garage full of useless shit), but I would say that people have aesthetic tastes and like to have the privilege to use technology to accommodate and manipulate the environment in various ways. More especially, people like to be able to "determine the fate" of material commodities, which is basically what "private" property amounts to. Being able to do as one pleases with a commodity.

If the state manufactures guitars, but doesn't have enough for every single person on the planet, I would not take issue with the idea that a better skilled worker than myself could have the privilege to buy one of those guitars, while I didn't.

If you keep in mind that there is no private business in socialism, and that it is possible to produce a process of honest, democratic voting, then no one worker should have a problem with another worker owning more stuff. It is enough to know that we all work for the state, and that nobody is making profit from our labor. That is what we take issue with.....not the fact that another worker might have more stuff.

Are you pickin up what I'ma puttin down?


Tell me how "kids can be selfish" transforms into "society should withhold the rights of some but not of others"?Never mind that argument. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, I don't think you ever will. Let's count our losses and live on to fight another day.

[Kronos]

Listen Smurf, I'm gonna give you a little insight.

Do you know why capitalism was declared by the greatest economists in history to be the only possible system? Because socialism/communism is too fucking complicated to figure out and operate. These economists could only come to the honest conclusion that there had to be a free market system, that economy had to be improvised, that we had to....[gasp]...."take our chances".

So you come up with some kind of intervention plan- Smith's "invisible hand"- to take care of the people you know are going to get fucked in the process- the lower working classes. You install a "safety net" government welfare system, financed by everyone, to take care of these unfortunate souls.

I'm tellin you the sheer mathematical enormity of the economic formulas required to "balance" a socialist/communist system are near impossible to figure out. You can't just seize everything and say "to each according to his need and ability", man. It ain't that simple.

We, the Revolutionaryleft, for the first time in history, are going to figure out how to run a world-wide socialist/communist system.

I need scientists, sociologists, mathematicians, and hairstylists (because many of us will be interviewed on public TV).

Now who's in?

[MikeSC]

The "some people" are democratic committees consisting of the working classes. Who gets what is decided by a majority vote. The standard by which they compare and contrast the value of a certain job consists of basically two criteria: the amount of resources necessary to train a person to have that job, and the importance and priority of that job over other jobs (although this involves some contingencies).

The state makes this decision after considering what, and how much it took, during the investment period of the education and training of that job skill.

If it takes eight years to educate a brain surgeon, but one month to educate a janitor, surgeons are a more valuable asset because it takes more resources to make them.

The demand of one job over another doesn't necessarily mean that a job requiring less training becomes more important than a job requiring more training, but which is in less demand, since if a job in high demand requires minimal resources to train....the positions can be filled more rapidly than the higher skilled jobs....even though there isn't a high demand for them.

Pay levels will be set up according to such standards. Person with job X gets X amount of money...so on and so forth..which he can spend at his disposal buying commodities produced and owned by the state.The training: A society should pay someone more because their training, which society funded, cost more? That's nonsense. When resources needed for such training are allocated democratically, rather than paid for by the trainee- why does he need to be compensated for something he didn't fund (he didn't fund any more than anyone else, at least)? There's only a shred of sense in this if there are still capitalist countries that can compete for the skills he gained from that training, but a capitalist country would still be able to pay individuals more. There's no moral reason, and no strategic one either.

Important and priority: Again, no. Every job contributes to what that society is, if you need more people for one job you vote to fund more training based around that job. When everyone is giving the same amount of their time to society, everyone should be given the same amount of the fruits of society's collective labour. Any distinction made based upon "importance" would be arbitrary and ultimately decided by people who have no right to say that one person's time is not worth as much as anothers. There is no god to point from the sky and say "you have such a percent of my creation, you other one have a smaller percent". All have an equal right to the natural world, and if it's to be used for the benefit of mankind this should be reflected in it.


Now, the trick is to get all members of the voting working class to understand and accept that some jobs are more valuable than others. If they can do this, you get an honest voting process. There will be a minority who defect (I base this on game theory) and who vote against the more valued workers because they, themselves, are assnoids who are jealous...and who are incapable of learning such a skill, and therefore don't want the smart ones to get paid.

To meet this dilemma, the state should provide equal opportunity of all citizens to pursue a job they desire. We let the dice roll as they may. If ever there is a situation where certain jobs are in more demand, the state would encourage citizens to pursue those jobs instead of the bigger paying jobs. The state would use an expedient incentive plan temporarily until the the job was no longer in demand- those who could pursue higher paying jobs, but don't, and instead pursue lower paying jobs that are in a current high demand, will be given bonuses of some sort.

So the only people you have to worry about in this democratic voting system are the dishonest butt dumplings who failed at learning a highly skilled job and want revenge on the comrade next door who owns the two-tone volkswagon ("for the people"...brilliant).

If we can get all the people who are not surgeons to accept that a surgeon deserves more if his education required more resources (teaching, training, field practice, etc), then we can get the people who dig ditches, but expend far more labor effort than the surgeon, to understand that it isn't necessarily brute labor that determines one's economic value.

I'm tellin ya man I could run this planet if I had the power. There are enough brains here to do all the math for me (Rosa would be our quantum computer).You're concerned with tricking people into accepting that they have less right to natural resources than others? Who the fuck do you think you are? This just sounds like fascism except you think you're a deity.


Are you pickin up what I'ma puttin down?No, because that is all bollocks. "Working for the state"- you don't know what communism is, do you? Communism is not state-capitalism. And you say "experience demonstrates otherwise"- and we're supposed to take your word for it? Why are there doctors? Why aren't they all bankers? Or footballers?

And like I said, people can be selfish and hedonistic with things that they have a right to. Society is not there to accomodate the selfishness of some at the expense of others just because that selfishness currently exists, any more than society should accomodate the wish to kill in some people at the expense of others, just because it exists. Another question that you haven't answered- in slave societies people are selfish about slaves. In non-slave societies they aren't. Why is other material property any different?


Never mind that argument. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, I don't think you ever will. Let's count our losses and live on to fight another day.Never mind that argument? That was your whole argument. Look at the thread- it's a thread about egalitarianism. So come tell me- why does people being selfish mean that society should withhold rights from some but not others?




Now who's in?You're not espousing anything close to socialism. You want a statist society where people decide the worth of others by vote- that's not revolutionary left, that's far-right.

And no economist has declared capitalism to be the only possible system, that's just stupid. Primitive communism/slave-despotism/feudalism? None of these ringing a bell?

[Kronos]

A society should pay someone more because their training, which society funded, cost more?

That's right. If you think that better skilled workers will happily apply themselves knowing in advance that they get no compensation for that, you are living a pipe-dream. And if you think that a communist society can successfully force a citizen into a field he would not otherwise choose, because he knows eight years of intense study and a gross majority of his time will get him that same loaf of bread as the trash-man next door, you have simply replaced one problem with another. You will either have a gulag full of subversives or a bunch of disgruntled workers.


why does he need to be compensated for something he didn't fund (he didn't fund any more than anyone else, at least)?

It is the same reciprocal tax system. Everyone is the "state", and the state pays for everyone's education and training. Your complaint is equivalent to a tax payer, who's money goes to paving roads, complaining about being taxed because he doesn't have a license and can't use those roads.

The amount of money paid in taxes to educate and train a surgeon, by the workers who won't end up as surgeons, are hardly substantial. You can apply a 2% tax to seven billion people and pay for everything. Is anyone going to complain about a few pennies in tax? Surely not.

As long as you can create a monetary system that won't inflate, deflate, recede, or depress, the checks and balances will work. As long as there is no free market, these economic problems will not occur. Fiat market fluctuations and world currency values are to blame for this, not money itself.


There's only a shred of sense in this if there are still capitalist countries that can compete for the skills he gained from that training, but a capitalist country would still be able to pay individuals more.

What I'm describing is a world where there are no capitalist countries, so that is not an obstacle.


Every job contributes to what that society is, if you need more people for one job you vote to fund more training based around that job.

Ah, but what if that citizen doesn't want to take that job? You gonna force him? You call this freedom?

That simply won't work. The moment the state has to demand that citizens take up jobs is the moment you have a work force full of discouraged and unsatisfied workers. There has to be incentive. And some utopian crap like "let's all live naked on a farm together, brothers and sisters" won't work. People want to be noticed for their talents and compensated for their efforts.

In my society, the trains will always run on time.

OMG.....did I just quote Mussolini? Wait! I didn't mean it. I meant the train drivers wouldn't slack off because they would be enthusiastic about their work.


When everyone is giving the same amount of their time to society, everyone should be given the same amount of the fruits of society's collective labour.

Again, not that simple. How do you define the value of labor per unit of time? If it takes one man eight hours to do what another man can do in one hour....do you say that that man "gave the same amount of time to society"? If what you say was actually true, we could all stand around for eight hours and tell fishing stories rather than work......and we've all contributed to society the same.


Any distinction made based upon "importance" would be arbitrary and ultimately decided by people who have no right to say that one person's time is not worth as much as anothers.

But it is okay for a society to vote on who should have what job? Why can't that same voting process be used to determine which jobs pay more, while everyone has the equal opportunity to choose what field they work in?

The "importance" of material production and services is anything but arbitrary, because "value" is anything but a vague, moral concept. Despite how an inefficient worker "feels", his performance is still has very real effects on the means and relations of production. The point is to get rid of these fortune-cookie communist slogans and see the material relations for what they are- determinate activities that require effort and energy...neither of which are indispensable....and which produce very definite material things.


There is no god to point from the sky and say "you have such a percent of my creation, you other one have a smaller percent".

Correct. God is dead, and we have killed him. How will we wash the blood from our hands, we murderers of God?


You're concerned with tricking people into accepting that they have less right to natural resources than others?

It isn't a trick if the people understand the rationale and reasoning behind the process.


Who the fuck do you think you are?

I am a man who once experienced an awkward moment just to see what it was like. I am a man who lives vicariously through himself. I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.


Communism is not state-capitalism.

Right, because the centralized proletarian dictatorship should be on the same payroll. But sometimes those sneaky bastards aren't.


Why are there doctors? Why aren't they all bankers? Or footballers?

I don't know which points of mine you are referencing with this question. I guess because doctors get paid more? If so, doesn't this prove a point- that effort is proportionate to incentive?


in slave societies people are selfish about slaves. In non-slave societies they aren't. Why is other material property any different?


The first part there is redundant- one can't be selfish about having slaves if they don't have slaves. Think about what you are saying and watch your blind spots.

Material property is quite a different ball game. A slave keeper does not apply the same effort in getting/keeping slaves, while a worker applies a great effort in producing the commodities he consumes. This is the origins of the worker's pride and sense of value- this is why he feels entitled to have material possessions. A slave owner experiences a loss only in so far as he no longer has slaves to produce for him, while the worker experiences a direct loss of his own efforts and work. The latter is more disconcerting.


why does people being selfish mean that society should withhold rights from some but not others?

Jesus H. Christ, dude. I never said that. I said that the axioms of the egalitarian argument, as provided in this thread, are false. Man is not "innately unselfish".


Primitive communism/slave-despotism/feudalism? None of these ringing a bell?

Sure, but you are looking backward. Follow the course of historical materialism- as civilizations become increasingly complex, new political/economic ideas evolve. After the industrial revolution, society became far too complex for feudalism....hence the inception of the free market.

You sound like one of those anarchists who thinks that ten billion people will "spontaneously organize" if you just give them a chance.

There is no chance in hell the world will devolve into some agrarian collectivist society, homes.

[MikeSC]

That's right. If you think that better skilled workers will happily apply themselves knowing in advance that they get no compensation for that, you are living a pipe-dream. And if you think that a communist society can successfully force a citizen into a field he would not otherwise choose, because he knows eight years of intense study and a gross majority of his time will get him that same loaf of bread as the trash-man next door, you have simply replaced one problem with another. You will either have a gulag full of subversives or a bunch of disgruntled workers. I didn't talk about forcing anybody to do anything. 8 years of study- again, why do doctors do this now when there are easier professions that pay significantly more? And what is it to the doctor if lots of resources are expended for his training, when they don't come from him any more than anyone else? If a person can, when choosing a profession, be secure in the knowledge that whatever they choose of the professions available they'll be equally comfortable and wouldn't have to worry about funding the training- wouldn't they then choose what they want to do? If a person wants to spend their lives doing something simple, that's up to them. If they want to spend the same amount of time on something complicated that they want to do, then they can. And they would- if they didn't doctors would go into banking or business, rather than becoming doctors.

Again, morally indefensible- a doctor should have no more rights than any other person in their free time, and that includes the right of possession, of custody of society's produce.


It is the same reciprocal tax system. Everyone is the "state", and the state pays for everyone's education and training. Your complaint is equivalent to a tax payer, who's money goes to paving roads, complaining about being taxed because he doesn't have a license and can't use those roads.

The amount of money paid in taxes to educate and train a surgeon, by the workers who won't end up as surgeons, are hardly substantial. You can apply a 2% tax to seven billion people and pay for everything. Is anyone going to complain about a few pennies in tax? Surely not.

As long as you can create a monetary system that won't inflate, deflate, recede, or depress, the checks and balances will work. As long as there is no free market, these economic problems will not occur. Fiat market fluctuations and world currency values are to blame for this, not money itself.
It is nothing like that at all. You're saying to give one person custody of more materials and services in their leisure time than other people who give the same amount of time in labour to society, because it is your opinion that they are better. It's not like having a public service that not everyone uses, not like that at all.


What I'm describing is a world where there are no capitalist countries, so that is not an obstacle.So then there is no shred of sense in it whatsoever. A person who wants to be a doctor would not spend their lives scrubbing toilets just because they can.


Ah, but what if that citizen doesn't want to take that job? You gonna force him? You call this freedom?

That simply won't work. The moment the state has to demand that citizens take up jobs is the moment you have a work force full of discouraged and unsatisfied workers. There has to be incentive. And some utopian crap like "let's all live naked on a farm together, brothers and sisters" won't work. People want to be noticed for their talents and compensated for their efforts.More straw-manning. You make up arguments, attribute them to me, and then argue against them. That's a bullshit way of doing things. I'm saying that socially useful careers would have their training funded, and people can apply and so on- much like it is now, but instead of capitalists "creating jobs" or a state dictating jobs it would a democratic society allocating resources to jobs. You can't let anyone go into just anything on the public purse- denying a person the job of "Titty Squeezer" would not be a despotic act.


Again, not that simple. How do you define the value of labor per unit of time? If it takes one man eight hours to do what another man can do in one hour....do you say that that man "gave the same amount of time to society"? If what you say was actually true, we could all stand around for eight hours and tell fishing stories rather than work......and we've all contributed to society the same.Read Capital- it's like in the first few pages of it. "Socially necessary labour time" is what you're looking for. Basically the idea that, for jobs that can be quantified in that way and assuming all other things are equal people would be paid according to the average, more for above and less for below. Though there are very few jobs that it would be an issue for, on a fixed production line for example it wouldn't. Very few jobs.
And in your fascist dystopia this would actually be an issue, unless you're talking about judging the salaries you deem that individuals deserve, rather than professions. Which is, if anything, even worse.


But it is okay for a society to vote on who should have what job? Why can't that same voting process be used to determine which jobs pay more, while everyone has the equal opportunity to choose what field they work in?

The "importance" of material production and services is anything but arbitrary, because "value" is anything but a vague, moral concept. Despite how an inefficient worker "feels", his performance is still has very real effects on the means and relations of production. The point is to get rid of these fortune-cookie communist slogans and see the material relations for what they are- determinate activities that require effort and energy...neither of which are indispensable....and which produce very definite material things.
More straw-manning. I never said you'd vote individuals into jobs- just that it would be decided democratically which professions resources would be focused in. Which professions to create, in other words. I quite like the idea set out in "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" about having exam applications and the like.

The rest is just blah- it's talk, but it doesn't say anything, and certainly doesn't support any of your anti-egalitarianism. Value can be reflected in the time it takes to create an item or provide a service. The resources would be assigned democratically, they wouldn't have to be bought and wouldn't contribute to the cost, as no one has a right to sell or buy resources, only to provide their own time- which is what is bought, the time of the worker.


It isn't a trick if the people understand the rationale and reasoning behind the process.
You'd have to trick them to make them believe there's anything rational about it.


I don't know which points of mine you are referencing with this question. I guess because doctors get paid more? If so, doesn't this prove a point- that effort is proportionate to incentive?You know full well that most doctors get paid considerably less than bankers, or professional footballers. On top of the added cost that the doctors have to currently shoulder themselves for training and education- you'd have to be a fool to be a doctor if money is your only incentive. So why are there doctors? Why don't those people go into banking, they're obviously capable of it?


The first part there is redundant- one can't be selfish about having slaves if they don't have slaves. Think about what you are saying and watch your blind spots.
Material property is quite a different ball game. A slave keeper does not apply the same effort in getting/keeping slaves, while a worker applies a great effort in producing the commodities he consumes. This is the origins of the worker's pride and sense of value- this is why he feels entitled to have material possessions. A slave owner experiences a loss only in so far as he no longer has slaves to produce for him, while the worker experiences a direct loss of his own efforts and work. The latter is more disconcerting.

How have you accumulated so many posts if you don't know what communism even is? No property under communism, just custody. You can no longer own people but you can "purchase" their time on contract. It would be the same with property- you have it in your custody, for your use, but there is no mystical false-right of ownership.

And where will this pride and sense of value be when Lord Kronos decides he's not good enough to have the same share in society as others?


Jesus H. Christ, dude. I never said that. I said that the axioms of the egalitarian argument, as provided in this thread, are false. Man is not "innately unselfish".I don't know who was arguing that it was an axiom of egalitarianism, but it isn't. Like I said- people can be selfish if they're selfish about things they have a right to, nothing more.


Sure, but you are looking backward. Follow the course of historical materialism- as civilizations become increasingly complex, new political/economic ideas evolve. After the industrial revolution, society became far too complex for feudalism....hence the inception of the free market.

You sound like one of those anarchists who thinks that ten billion people will "spontaneously organize" if you just give them a chance.

There is no chance in hell the world will devolve into some agrarian collectivist society, homes.

Yet more straw-manning. And ridiculous too, it is quite plain that capitalism isn't the only possible form of society- considering all the others that have existed. Did people have a 100% accurate idea of what capitalism would be after a couple of centuries of feudalism? Could they have said with any accuracy that anything other than feudalism was impossible, and how would it have been any different?

[RGacky3]

B/c that's what's required for technology to work.

No its not. If it is you have to explain why!

(Why not answer the question, rather than just repeat your opinion, explain it)

[Kronos]

I didn't talk about forcing anybody to do anything.

I have a hypothetical for you: your economists project that in the next five years, society will require more medical services because people are becoming increasingly sick, while you already lack enough workers in the medical field to begin with. You are short staffed and don't have enough hospitals.

In the following two years, your economists tell you that there isn't an increase in the amount of people wanting/getting education in the medical field. He says that if this doesn't change, there will not be the necessary medical resources to take care of the problem projected to occur in the next three years.

What do you do? Do you a) force the required number of citizens to receive a medical education or b) hope that a required number of citizens will take up a medical education by free choice?

If A, then you are taking away an aspect of their freedom. If B, you are assuming citizens will freely choose to take an education which requires more work and effort than any other, rather than simply taking a career which does not require as much time or effort to learn.

Practically speaking, in scenario B, there will be a natural tendency for citizens to gravitate toward easier jobs precisely because there is no substantial reward for investing that time and effort in learning the more complicated job. The cost/benefit ratio is not balanced- it would cost citizens more than what would be justified by what they got in return.

The only way you can avoid this dilemma would be to create an incentive for workers that would involve greater rewards than what would result in just taking an easier job.

The same dilemma exists for an alternative case: you have a society that requires more resources in its building industries....and although the education required to become a manual laborer is easy...the actual work itself is very hard. What do you do if citizens in your society choose to take up medical professions, to avoid having to do manual labor?

To solve this problem, again you would have to create some incentive. As I mentioned earlier, there would have to be a "bonus" program for those who willingly became manual laborers...rather than medical doctors...which they were very capable of becoming.

The fact is, the "everything will run smoothly" communist theory on paper is one thing....while the realistic practice of it is another.

If you just allow industry to organize itself, you risk becoming short-resourced at any given time. If you control industry, you risk lowering the morale of workers by having to force them to commit to work they would not otherwise choose.


If a person wants to spend their lives doing something simple, that's up to them. If they want to spend the same amount of time on something complicated that they want to do, then they can. And they would- if they didn't doctors would go into banking or business, rather than becoming doctors.

This is all fine and dandy, but without the supply/demand factor given in a capitalist system, jobs that pay higher because of being demanded would, in a communist system, remain short staffed. That is one of the beauties of capitalism- it has a natural mechanism which ensures that whatever industry is needed at a time will also provide competitively higher wages than other industries which are not currently in demand. The growth of industry and the allocation of resources is balanced out by the incentive to work in that industry.

In a communist system, if you need eight hundred doctors in the next five years....chances are you ain't gonna get em because nobody is attracted to a job that requires more time and effort to learn....but pays nothing more than a job more easily learned.

I think you are wearing those rose-colored glasses, again, Smurf.


More straw-manning. You make up arguments, attribute them to me, and then argue against them.

Oh yeah? Well at least I don't beat you over the head with red herrings!

[ humpfh ]

[MikeSC]

I have a hypothetical for you: your economists project that in the next five years, society will require more medical services because people are becoming increasingly sick, while you already lack enough workers in the medical field to begin with. You are short staffed and don't have enough hospitals.

In the following two years, your economists tell you that there isn't an increase in the amount of people wanting/getting education in the medical field. He says that if this doesn't change, there will not be the necessary medical resources to take care of the problem projected to occur in the next three years.

What do you do? Do you a) force the required number of citizens to receive a medical education or b) hope that a required number of citizens will take up a medical education by free choice?For a start I wouldn't presume to be some kind of dictator that can do anything to a society at will. And it's just a silly hypothetical- why would people get more sick as the living standards of the majority rise? As preventative healthcare is open to all? Why would you have five years? If it take 8 years to train doctors, haven't you just made up a hypothetical in which any society would be fucked? And you're assuming that medicine is already understaffed, for the same bullshit reasons you keep clinging to. You keep relying on things that are false-

Again, for the last time, why are people doctors today when they could be doing easier jobs with less hours for more pay? Why are people nurses? Why do people go into anything but the most well paid? When all are comfortable, when people have no concern about funding an education and so on, they would go into what they want to rather than what necessity or greed pushes them into. I'd imagine medicine to be a popular one.



The same dilemma exists for an alternative case: you have a society that requires more resources in its building industries....and although the education required to become a manual laborer is easy...the actual work itself is very hard. What do you do if citizens in your society choose to take up medical professions, to avoid having to do manual labor?I will say this again- people would not just choose a job for themselves and then just have that job. Society would democratically decide the amount of resources to be invested in different areas, and there would in each area be the amount of jobs that those resources can sustain open. People would have to qualify to get into the jobs they apply for, through exams or whatever. It's such a minor point, it is like a feudal peasant arguing over how capitalism would never work because aliens might invade and capitalism wouldn't be prepared for it.


This is all fine and dandy, but without the supply/demand factor given in a capitalist system, jobs that pay higher because of being demanded would, in a communist system, remain short staffed. That is one of the beauties of capitalism- it has a natural mechanism which ensures that whatever industry is needed at a time will also provide competitively higher wages than other industries which are not currently in demand. The growth of industry and the allocation of resources is balanced out by the incentive to work in that industry.

In a communist system, if you need eight hundred doctors in the next five years....chances are you ain't gonna get em because nobody is attracted to a job that requires more time and effort to learn....but pays nothing more than a job more easily learned.

I think you are wearing those rose-colored glasses, again, Smurf. Again, if we need 800 new doctors in five years any system would be fucked. It's lucky it's just a bullshit hypothetical. And the invisible hand nonsense has not proven true at all- did we really need a generation going into finance? What is most profitable is not what is most useful- unless High School Musical is more useful than doctors? Are professional footballers more useful than doctors? Are bankers more useful than doctors?

Why are there doctors if wage is the sole influence on what people spend their lives doing? When now there are easier professions, less time consuming and less training intensive, that pay more- why would having them pay the same make a person decide not to be a doctor, but not having the doctor job pay less?

[Kronos]

And it's just a silly hypothetical- why would people get more sick as the living standards of the majority rise?And that's a silly retort. Here we are in the twenty-first century and people still get the flu. You are trying to dodge the principle of my point. Forget the example I used. Look at the point: there is always the risk of some devastating event in the future that can be predicted by economic strategists, based on probabilities and statistics, which can be prevented rather than dealt with after it has happened. In order to take preventive measures, some amount of direction and control must be maintained by the state...rather than just "hoping things work out".


And you're assuming that medicine is already understaffed, for the same bullshit reasons you keep clinging to. You keep relying on things that are false-No dude. Think. Is it possible that the state might consider investing more resources in the medical industries if, say, they notice that there are enormous lines of patients waiting for service, or, the quality of medical service is poor? Absolutely. This is what "planning" is all about. Figuring out ways to improve economy.

Anyway I made it part of the conditions of the hypothetical scenario that there was a shortage of staff. I wasn't "assuming" anything. It was my hypothetical scenario. I set the conditions.


Again, for the last time, why are people doctors today when they could be doing easier jobs with less hours for more pay?A reasonable question. When explaining why and how this happens we have to consider an almost uncountable number of factors. Some of these factors are:

1. One wants to become a doctor for ethical reasons and is not as concerned with the pay.
2. One wants to become a doctor for ethical reasons but is somewhat concerned with the pay.
3. One wants to become a doctor for the pay and has no ethical interests in the work.
4. One wants to become a doctor for reason 1, 2, or 3, but believes, for other reasons, that they cannot complete the education.

Among these reasons are:

1. They don't have enough money to pay for the education, nor can they get financial aid.
2. The material is too complicated for them to learn.
3. They are smart enough, and have enough money, but have to stay home and take care of grandma.
4. Career advisers say that there will not be a high demand for doctors in eight years, and suggest that they take another career rather than take that risk.
5. The have enough money, are smart enough, don't have to take care of grandma, know that there will be a demand for doctors in eight years, but don't have access to medical schools in their city, and cannot move to a city where there are medical schools.

As you can see there are many, many possible sets of circumstances which affect people's decisions to take up a specific career. It isn't as cut and dried as you want to think it is.


I will say this again- people would not just choose a job for themselves and then just have that job. Society would democratically decide the amount of resources to be invested in different areas, and there would in each area be the amount of jobs that those resources can sustain open. People would have to qualify to get into the jobs they apply for, through exams or whatever. It's such a minor pointHa! This is an enormous point. The fundamental premise, the ever lasting gob-stopper you must realize is that people want to do as little as possible for as much as possible. Society might certainly decide that an industry needs to be developed more, and vote until they are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean citizens will line up to be trained in those professions.


Again, if we need 800 new doctors in five years any system would be fucked.Talk about straw men. Five years, eight years, fifteen years....whatever. You know what I mean.


And the invisible hand nonsense has not proven true at all- did we really need a generation going into finance?I agree completely. The invisible hand has arthritis and the credit system is a fucking racket.


What is most profitable is not what is most useful- unless High School Musical is more useful than doctors? Are professional footballers more useful than doctors? Are bankers more useful than doctors?Agree again. The entertainment industry (aesthetics in general) are the greatest expression of commodity fetishism, so athletes and celebrities are not of any utility whatsoever.

But to determine which is more useful, a banker or doctor, you have to determine which job is more required to maintain an efficient economy. You do not judge the value of the job by the units of time or labor required to complete the job function....which would be impossible anyway because not all workers are equal and do not perform the same (recall my point a few posts up about one worker doing in one hour what another does in eight), but by how the job contributes to the entire organism, the entire system. If at any time there is a demand for medical doctors....being a medical doctor is a more valuable job than flipping burgers. If at any time digging ditches is in demand.....being a laborer is more valuable than being a doctor.

But, the perspective of the state is not the same as the perspective of the citizen- the citizen is not concerned with the "organism". The citizen is concerned with his own well being, his own welfare, his own efforts. He will not be prompted to become a ditch digger just because the state wants to develop that industry at that time. The state has to provide an incentive for the citizens to do what the state wants them to do....in order to maintain the wealth and efficiency of the entire body.

The value of labor to the state is not the same as the value of labor to the citizen. The citizen is a single unit in an organism.

[MikeSC]

And that's a silly retort. Here we are in the twenty-first century and people still get the flu. You are trying to dodge the principle of my point. Forget the example I used. Look at the point: there is always the risk of some devastating event in the future that can be predicted by economic strategists, based on probabilities and statistics, which can be prevented rather than dealt with after it has happened. In order to take preventive measures, some amount of direction and control must be maintained by the state...rather than just "hoping things work out". None of which is anything to do with egalitarianism... sure people still get the flu, but there are a lot of diseases that used to be rampant that the NHS has all but wiped out completely. There is no disaster that can be averted through anti-egalitarianism- explain how withholding rights from some but from others can in any way avert disaster. It's a fucking disaster in it's self.


No dude. Think. Is it possible that the state might consider investing more resources in the medical industries if, say, they notice that there are enormous lines of patients waiting for service, or, the quality of medical service is poor? Absolutely. This is what "planning" is all about. Figuring out ways to improve economy.

Anyway I made it part of the conditions of the hypothetical scenario that there was a shortage of staff. I wasn't "assuming" anything. It was my hypothetical scenario. I set the conditions. You set silly conditions that to be met would have to be met in advance, except you specifically defined it that they couldn't be met in advance, so no society would be able to meet them- your fascist state less than any. And the first part I quoted is nothing to do without anything. If a state, or a council democracy or whatever, can allocate resources- why do you say that only a capitalist society can elsewhere? Why would relying on the investment of a handful of private capitalists as long as it's profitable be more effective than assigning as much as needed democratically?


A reasonable question. When explaining why and how this happens we have to consider an almost uncountable number of factors. Some of these factors are:

1. One wants to become a doctor for ethical reasons and is not as concerned with the pay.
2. One wants to become a doctor for ethical reasons but is somewhat concerned with the pay.
3. One wants to become a doctor for the pay and has no ethical interests in the work.
1. Why would this be any different under egalitarianism?
2. Why would this be any different under egalitarianism, considering that the pay would not be any less than any other career?
3. Why did they go into medicine when a less intensive, less time consuming, quicker-rewarding career can pay more? If that is their only, or primary, concern- why would they fly in the face of it?


4. One wants to become a doctor for reason 1, 2, or 3, but believes, for other reasons, that they cannot complete the education.

Among these reasons are:

1. They don't have enough money to pay for the education, nor can they get financial aid.
2. The material is too complicated for them to learn.
3. They are smart enough, and have enough money, but have to stay home and take care of grandma.
4. Career advisers say that there will not be a high demand for doctors in eight years, and suggest that they take another career rather than take that risk.
5. The have enough money, are smart enough, don't have to take care of grandma, know that there will be a demand for doctors in eight years, but don't have access to medical schools in their city, and cannot move to a city where there are medical schools.These are all reasons why people wouldn't go into medicine under anti-egalitarianism, except for 2 (which they wouldn't anyway) and 4 (which is the same as 2, really. There'll always be doctor positions- if a person has the aptitude they can take their exams and pass. If they don't quite have the aptitude and don't think they'd be able to secure a position when there are relatively few then, also, they wouldn't become a doctor under any system either and this in particular is a hypothetical where there is an abundance of doctors so that isn't a problem for society anyway...) You're arguing against yourself here.




As you can see there are many, many possible sets of circumstances which affect people's decisions to take up a specific career. It isn't as cut and dried as you want to think it is.Your whole argument for an unequal society is that you say people won't go into medicine if it doesn't pay more than less training intensive jobs because financial reward is the deciding factor. What I quoted applies to you, not to me.


Ha! This is an enormous point. The fundamental premise, the ever lasting gob-stopper you must realize is that people want to do as little as possible for as much as possible. Society might certainly decide that an industry needs to be developed more, and vote until they are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean citizens will line up to be trained in those professions.
One more time- why are people doctors? Why are people nurses? If, like you maintain, people always do less for more- why do we have any such professions when they could be doing less for more in one of the careers I keep mentioning? And why do you think that society's job is to let some people live the dream of doing little for lots, while enforcing lots for little on others to make up for it?


Talk about straw men. Five years, eight years, fifteen years....whatever. You know what I mean. Do you even know what a straw man is? How is that a straw man when that is exactly what you said? It's a stupid hypothetical- you've created a specific situation and crafted the rules of it to get to the answer you want to get to, that's not how hypotheticals work. I wouldn't say- in your society- that in X amount of years aliens will invade, but you've spent years neglecting the armed forces, and nobody wants to join the army, what do you do? Because that would be stupid, just like yours is.


I agree completely. The invisible hand has arthritis and the credit system is a fucking racket. Then why were you saying that such a system is the "only possible system"? What was this-


This is all fine and dandy, but without the supply/demand factor given in a capitalist system, jobs that pay higher because of being demanded would, in a communist system, remain short staffed. That is one of the beauties of capitalism- it has a natural mechanism which ensures that whatever industry is needed at a time will also provide competitively higher wages than other industries which are not currently in demand. The growth of industry and the allocation of resources is balanced out by the incentive to work in that industry.?

You say communism won't work because it doesn't have a capitalist supply/demand system that you concede is a complete failure?



But to determine which is more useful, a banker or doctor, you have to determine which job is more required to maintain an efficient economy. You do not judge the value of the job by the units of time or labor required to complete the job function....which would be impossible anyway because not all workers are equal and do not perform the same (recall my point a few posts up about one worker doing in one hour what another does in eight), but by how the job contributes to the entire organism, the entire system. If at any time there is a demand for medical doctors....being a medical doctor is a more valuable job than flipping burgers. If at any time digging ditches is in demand.....being a laborer is more valuable than being a doctor.

But, the perspective of the state is not the same as the perspective of the citizen- the citizen is not concerned with the "organism". The citizen is concerned with his own well being, his own welfare, his own efforts. He will not be prompted to become a ditch digger just because the state wants to develop that industry at that time. The state has to provide an incentive for the citizens to do what the state wants them to do....in order to maintain the wealth and efficiency of the entire body.

The value of labor to the state is not the same as the value of labor to the citizen. The citizen is a single unit in an organism.Usefulness is subjective, but again- why would being any more "useful" grant a person more rights than another person you decide is less useful? Would you give one person one vote and another two because you deem them more "useful"? Why does someone you deem more "useful" have more of a right to the natural, material world in their out of work hours than another?

[Kronos]

Do you even know what a straw man is?

Yes, a straw man can be one of the three: an inanimate human shaped body consisting of stuffed straw into clothing and mounted on a pole in a field, used for warding off pestilent birds from crops, or, a brainless character who accompanies a man made of tin, a half human half lion hybrid creature, and a polite young lady from Kansas, during their journey down a yellow brick road to see a wizard, or, an informal logical fallacy wherein one attacks insignificant points in an argument in order to create a distraction from the main premises.


It's a stupid hypothetical- you've created a specific situation and crafted the rules of it to get to the answer you want to get to, that's not how hypotheticals work.

Indeed, and that is not what I have done. And the word you are looking for is "anecdotal", I believe. Good eye, Smurf. Anecdotal evidence can roughly be classified as an informal fallacy too.

Meanwhile, I offer you a brief term of surrender. But this is only temporary. I have more pressing matters to attend to at this moment than arguing with a smurf.