A Brief Description of my Views

[Phased Out]

The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.



There's a real freedom in not having to think for a living. Mike Judge's movie Office Space touched on this with Ron Livingston's character happy to be wielding a shovel for a living at the end.


What many Marxists don't seem to understand is that capitalists do a lot of thinking, which is hard. They don't just magically end up owning the means of production. They think hard about which means of production to buy, how to get the funds to buy it, how to run it, etc. That's not only real work, it's the work that has the greatest economic impact.



A good example of this is the career of the Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal. He took over the Karmet Steel Works in Kazakhstan. Here I'll quote an article about him:



"The company had stopped paying its workforce because it was bleeding red inck and had no cash. The plant was on the verge of closure with its Soviet-era managers forced to barter steel for food for its workers. The Kazakh government was glad to had Mr. Mittal the keys to the plant for nothing. Not only did Mr. Mittal retain the entire workforce and run the plant, he paid all the outstanding wages and within five years had turned it into a thriving business that was gushing cash. The workers and townsfolk literally worship Mittal as the person who saved their town from collapse."




The traditional class struggle USED TO involve the workers against the capitalists. The leftists supported the workers, the people who did the real work. The other class in the Marxist scheme was the non-working capitalist class, who profited merely from owning the means of production.



Leftism has evolved since those days, and the modern left no longer idolizes the working class. The left now idolizes the non-working leisure class, and the left-right struggle has now come down to whether you support one of the two types of leisure classes. There is the intelligentsia/creative/artist class supported by the left, which includes college professors, activists, artists, writers, television people, and the like.



And there's the traditional capitalist class. Both of these classes have in common that they don't have to do disgusting things like shovel coal in order to earn a living. The modern leftist would now look down upon the coal worker for eating disgusting food like McDonalds and having vulgar tastes in entertainment like watching NASCAR. It serves him right for not going to college (unless, of course, the coal worker is black, in which case the white racist society prevented him from going to college).



Somewhere in between are people like computer programmers. They are doing real work that produces value, so they are not part of the leisure class, but they are way better off than the people shoveling coal for a living.

And why a communist revolution will be IMPOSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is primarily because the classes have entirely different values. For instance, the reason why it sucks to be poor IN THE USA is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values.

But, what would happen if poor people had the same civilized values as everyone else? Well, if that were the case, a major motivation for not being poor would be removed. People wouldn’t be motivated to work extra hard in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

This explains why Europe is different than the United States.

A poor person in Norway is living next to other Norwegians who are part of the same Norwegian culture and whose values aren’t that much worse than wealthier Norwegians. In contrast, living in a housing project in an American city or a poor, rural small town is a scary proposition for a person with civilized values.

In Europe, there is less of a penalty for being poor, therefore there is less motivation to work hard to move up a notch. This is why Europeans enjoy shorter working hours and get many more weeks of vacation AND TEND TO BE MORE LEFTIST IN THEIR VIEWS. They don’t have to work their asses off in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

[eyedrop]

The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.



There's a real freedom in not having to think for a living. Mike Judge's movie Office Space touched on this with Ron Livingston's character happy to be wielding a shovel for a living at the end.


What many Marxists don't seem to understand is that capitalists do a lot of thinking, which is hard. They don't just magically end up owning the means of production. They think hard about which means of production to buy, how to get the funds to buy it, how to run it, etc. That's not only real work, it's the work that has the greatest economic impact. Much of that hard thinking is socially unnecessary labour, anyway it doesn't really make a point about why ownership of property should give profits.




A good example of this is the career of the Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal. He took over the Karmet Steel Works in Kazakhstan. Here I'll quote an article about him:



"The company had stopped paying its workforce because it was bleeding red inck and had no cash. The plant was on the verge of closure with its Soviet-era managers forced to barter steel for food for its workers. The Kazakh government was glad to had Mr. Mittal the keys to the plant for nothing. Not only did Mr. Mittal retain the entire workforce and run the plant, he paid all the outstanding wages and within five years had turned it into a thriving business that was gushing cash. The workers and townsfolk literally worship Mittal as the person who saved their town from collapse." Mr. Mittal had the the capital to run the plant, so he should get all the profits. We propose different methods of deciding where resources necessary to run things.





The traditional class struggle USED TO involve the workers against the capitalists. The leftists supported the workers, the people who did the real work. The other class in the Marxist scheme was the non-working capitalist class, who profited merely from owning the means of production.



Leftism has evolved since those days, and the modern left no longer idolizes the working class. The left now idolizes the non-working leisure class, and the left-right struggle has now come down to whether you support one of the two types of leisure classes. There is the intelligentsia/creative/artist class supported by the left, which includes college professors, activists, artists, writers, television people, and the like.



And there's the traditional capitalist class. Both of these classes have in common that they don't have to do disgusting things like shovel coal in order to earn a living. The modern leftist would now look down upon the coal worker for eating disgusting food like McDonalds and having vulgar tastes in entertainment like watching NASCAR. It serves him right for not going to college (unless, of course, the coal worker is black, in which case the white racist society prevented him from going to college).


Somewhere in between are people like computer programmers. They are doing real work that produces value, so they are not part of the leisure class, but they are way better off than the people shoveling coal for a living. Bla bla misrepresenting...


And why a communist revolution will be IMPOSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is primarily because the classes have entirely different values. For instance, the reason why it sucks to be poor IN THE USA is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values. I see you have never been poor since you think the only thing that suck with it is the other poor people.


But, what would happen if poor people had the same civilized values as everyone else? Well, if that were the case, a major motivation for not being poor would be removed. People wouldn’t be motivated to work extra hard in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

This explains why Europe is different than the United States.

A poor person in Norway is living next to other Norwegians who are part of the same Norwegian culture and whose values aren’t that much worse than wealthier Norwegians. In contrast, living in a housing project in an American city or a poor, rural small town is a scary proposition for a person with civilized values.

In Europe, there is less of a penalty for being poor, therefore there is less motivation to work hard to move up a notch. This is why Europeans enjoy shorter working hours and get many more weeks of vacation AND TEND TO BE MORE LEFTIST IN THEIR VIEWS. They don’t have to work their asses off in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

Sorry, but it sucks plenty enough to be relatively poor here in Norway too.

I'm sure a bright fella like yourself can figure out some reasons why it sucks being poor/working besides other people. (Hints; Constant worry about cash, having basically zero control over your workplace)

[Axle]

Vauge, generalized classist bullshit. Have a nice restriction, OP.

[Demogorgon]

This is one of these vague sort of arguments that has very little to do with what it is supposed to be justifying. To be sure thinking is important and in fact most jobs require it. Thing is level of thinking or whatever does not correspond to income or wealth or whatever. The capitalists aren't the people that do the most thinking, they are the ones who own/control the majority of capital resources, an entirely different thing.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, at least he's trying. His justification of the free-market is better than the "Misean axioms," (talk about vague) I'll give him that. He believes that people have to be "pushed" to do work, and that motivation is stimulated by the chance to get into the "higher classes."

The problem is that's not exactly what capitalism is about. He completely misrepresents even Office Space, for example.


That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.

There's a real freedom in not having to think for a living.Mike Judge's movie Office Space touched on this with Ron Livingston's character happy to be wielding a shovel for a living at the end.

Peter Gibbons, Michael Bolton, and Samir Nagheenanajar are NOT bad programs who don't have the mental capacity for programming. In fact, they are all GOOD programmers, and Michael Bolton even alludes to this fact in the movie:

Michael Bolton: "Samir and I are the best programmers they got at that place. You haven't been showing up and you get to keep your job."

Peter Gibbons: "Actually, I'm being promoted.."

Ironically, they feel they aren't being motivated enough. They're treated like crap, don't get pay raises, and see hardly any rewards for their labor. They're also constantly harassed by managmeent, who perhaps don't have anything better to do than request meaningless and usefull TPS reports. The company is actually going to FIRE these good programmers in order to bring in some low wage workers so the quality of the products will suffer but management will make more money. Peter Gibbons makes this clear in this scene:

GOJzpeCMJzs

This is true for Office Space, but many jobs. You can work your ass off to get those fries piping hot at McDonald's, but ultimately your place in the company depends upon how much you kiss ass and internal office politics, rather than office work. Do you really see people excited to work when they go into Burger King hoping they might get stock options or better pay? No, because they can just bring in new low wage temps when these people quit and move on. So it's a never ending cycle of low quality.

So, basically, Peter Gibbons ONLY moves up in the company when it's decided that he has something to offer management, not because of the quality of his programming or ideas, which irks Peter even more. That's why he stays in construction, because at least he doesn't have people harrassing him and playing unfair office politics, but his true talent still goes to waste.

Imagine what would happen if everybody could follow their own interests, how productive they could be, and the people who are unable to make contributions will perform necessary functions for society for rewards, and then some, since there would be an abundance of products due to real productivity and efficiency.

If he can't even get anecdotal evidence from a movie right, what chance does he have of using REAL WORLD empirical evidence.

[Bud Struggle]

OK. Big suprise--I like a bit of what this guy wrote.


The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.



There's a real freedom in not having to think for a living. Mike Judge's movie Office Space touched on this with Ron Livingston's character happy to be wielding a shovel for a living at the end.


What many Marxists don't seem to understand is that capitalists do a lot of thinking, which is hard. They don't just magically end up owning the means of production. They think hard about which means of production to buy, how to get the funds to buy it, how to run it, etc. That's not only real work, it's the work that has the greatest economic impact. I agree with this. I can easily say that lots of guys that work for me are either smarter or just as smart as me. But very few people that I know are constantly thinking of the best way to make a deal or find a profit in something or to corner an idea--and those are the guys that make the money. My successful businessman friends are almost annoying in this reguard--but they are constantly thinking about how to make a buck.


The traditional class struggle USED TO involve the workers against the capitalists. The leftists supported the workers, the people who did the real work. The other class in the Marxist scheme was the non-working capitalist class, who profited merely from owning the means of production. Also pretty true. The days of the workers against the bosses with unions and strikes and bad blood between all parties is over. For the most part. A company where everybody works together tobe successful and everybody shares (tho' unequally) in the profits is the new management model.


And there's the traditional capitalist class. Both of these classes have in common that they don't have to do disgusting things like shovel coal in order to earn a living. The modern leftist would now look down upon the coal worker for eating disgusting food like McDonalds and having vulgar tastes in entertainment like watching NASCAR. It serves him right for not going to college (unless, of course, the coal worker is black, in which case the white racist society prevented him from going to college). I tend to agree--the Leftists here on RevLeft tend to be of the intellectual class. I doubt many coal miners tune into Communist websites.


And why a communist revolution will be IMPOSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is primarily because the classes have entirely different values. For instance, the reason why it sucks to be poor IN THE USA is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values. I'm not sure what this means.

OK--the rest kind of goes off into ranting. But there were some good ideas expressed in the beginning.

[Scary Monster]

And why a communist revolution will be IMPOSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is primarily because the classes have entirely different values. For instance, the reason why it sucks to be poor IN THE USA is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values.

But, what would happen if poor people had the same civilized values as everyone else? Well, if that were the case, a major motivation for not being poor would be removed. People wouldn’t be motivated to work extra hard in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

lol
It's pretty obvious you live in your own little world and you have never once had to worry about money. You either dont live here in the US, or you just dont get out much. I guess youre just beginning to form your political identity, but still, being condescending and making generalizations about a whole group of people that im assuming you know nothing about, judging by your post here, is the WRONG path to take. Poor people dont have civilized values? :lol::lol: Where do you come off with saying stupid shit like that?

[Zanthorus]

I tend to agree--the Leftists here on RevLeft tend to be of the intellectual class. I doubt many coal miners tune into Communist websites.

Oh yes, because we can read and right we must all be university professors. God forbid any working class person should ever attempt to educate themselves :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Oh yes, because we can read and right we must all be university professors. God forbid any working class person should ever attempt to educate themselves :rolleyes:


That was NOT my point. I've been here for a while and there are few real industrial workers here on this site. I won't go as far as to say the "Communist Workers" on this site are all a bunch of posers--but they come close.

[Drace]

the real work is thinking. I think people should produce food. BAM IM RICH! AND NOW EVERYONE GETS FOOD! CuZ I THOUGHT ITTT

[John_Jordan]

What are you talking about OP? I got that you say "thinking" is work, (And I partially agree, it's a bit vague because only certain sorts of thinking is productive in a workplace) but after that, what in the world?

[Phased Out]

Sorry, but it sucks plenty enough to be relatively poor here in Norway too.Why? Because you don't have cable TV? The poor in the USA have cable TV and probably a dependable car. Problem is that they have to live in a neighborhood full of poor people. People would be flocking to SE Washington DC for its low rent and proximity to downtown DC if it weren't for the fact that they would have vile neighbors. Living in a cheap neighborhood wouldn't be such a terrible thing if you lived with people who have nice values and with a similar mindset as you. Why aren't people living in SE DC?

As people drop in class, their civility severly decreases. I always hate hearing the typical libertarian cliche about how it's better to be poor today than to be rich 100 years ago. That is nonsense. Care to guess why?

Check out this excerpt from this NY TIMES article about the difficulty of getting into a good kindergarten: (I can't post the link)

If their kid doesn't get into the private kindergarten, it means he or she will get beaten up by the poor kids at the free public kindergarten in New York City.

Also, especially around election time, you always hear parents about "safe schools". What does that mean exactly? Working class families want to be able to send their children to a "safe" school. "Safe," of course, is a politically correct euphemism for a school that doesn't have a lot of...well you know?

People labor hard in the economy because they don't necessarily care about "buying nice things" but rather they want to hang out with a "better class of people" and not people who act like cast members of the awful show "Roseanne" from the 1990s. Yes, there are annoying people in the middle-class and maybe even "boring" and yes, there are out of control rich kids. But where in the country would you find the most civilized people?

It's in the middle class.



(Hints; Constant worry about cash, having basically zero control over your workplace)Of course. I didn't want to state the obvious as I'm sure we've all heard those before and looking for a different perspective on class society.


I see you have never been poor since you think the only thing that suck with it is the other poor people.Well, I would say low level prole. There's a reason why I took out massive amounts of student loans to study computer programming. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because I was interested in the stuff.


Mr. Mittal had the the capital to run the plant, so he should get all the profits. We propose different methods of deciding where resources necessary to run things.If the workers had the capital, then they could get all of the profits. And you're acting as if wealth is a zero sum game. Why do managers have to hire the workers? Why can't workers hire the managers?

And how do you allocate resources without markets?


The capitalists aren't the people that do the most thinking, they are the ones who own/control the majority of capital resources, an entirely different thing.Which requires thinking. But there's also the value creators of society: architects, computer programmers, electricians, garbage collectors, etc. Who earn more than your AVERAGE entrepreneur. In today's economy, those that "transfer value" are the ones that are rewarded financially.

If one guy makes a lot more money than someone else, there's a good chance that the wage differential does not mean the higher paid guy is contributing more to the economy--it just means the higher paid guy is in a cartel. Look at investment bankers.

Investment bankers have created huge barriers to entry to their profession, and at the same time they have a gentleman's agreement to never compete on price. If there weren't any barriers to entry into the profession, then more people would obtain the knowledge to compete in the industry, thus driving down salaries.

Like the slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” Marx’s ideal of communism. There is one positive thing to say about this slogan, which is the implication that people are born with different abilities. Modern leftists have the crazy belief that everyone is born exactly the same and that all differences in people’s salaries are due entirely to class issues.

Marx did understand that people become rich by possessing capital, which in the 19th century meant owning factories. The factory owners didn’t invent the industrial processes used by the factory, and they don’t personally provide the labor for the factories, but they make all the money from the factory. Thus they transfer value from the scientists and the laborers to themselves.

The more money a person makes, the more likely it is that he’s involved in value transference and not value creation. This is because there is only so much value that a single human being is capable of creating. The salary paid to the best engineers or computer programmers, about $150,000/year, is probably close to the upper limit of how much value a person can create. It’s extremely unlikely that a person making more than $200,000/year is doing it purely through value creation.



He believes that people have to be "pushed" to do work, and that motivation is stimulated by the chance to get into the "higher classes."Only in the United States. Did you not read my excerpt on why Europe and Japan are different than the USA in regards to their working lives and government policies?


Ironically, they feel they aren't being motivated enough.That's an entirely different point and completely unrelated as to my original point. My original point was that even if Peter were to be more rewarded and given more independence (like he did in the movie) he'd still prefer to wield a shovel. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened. Samir and Michael Bolton even offered to get him a job at Intertrode (?) for which Peter pleasantly declined.


This is true for Office Space, but many jobs. You can work your ass off to get those fries piping hot at McDonald's, but ultimately your place in the company depends upon how much you kiss ass and internal office politics, rather than office work. Do you really see people excited to work when they go into Burger King hoping they might get stock options or better pay? No, because they can just bring in new low wage temps when these people quit and move on. So it's a never ending cycle of low quality.

So, basically, Peter Gibbons ONLY moves up in the company when it's decided that he has something to offer management, not because of the quality of his programming or ideas, which irks Peter even more. That's why he stays in construction, because at least he doesn't have people harrassing him and playing unfair office politics, but his true talent still goes to waste.

Imagine what would happen if everybody could follow their own interests, how productive they could be, and the people who are unable to make contributions will perform necessary functions for society for rewards, and then some, since there would be an abundance of products due to real productivity and efficiency.

If he can't even get anecdotal evidence from a movie right, what chance does he have of using REAL WORLD empirical evidence. Sounds to me you're advocating better paid "wage slaves" rather than communism? Or what is the true definition of communism? That there should be a ruling class but ultimately comprised of people who do valuable work? What about workers who aren't as skilled as somebody else? Would they be apart of the lower class of workers in a communist society? Would people still down on one another based on what type of work they do?

[John_Jordan]

Ah I see.

Now, please define exactly what you mean when you talk about "civility" and explain to me how lower class people "lack" it.

[Phased Out]

Ah I see.

Now, please define exactly what you mean when you talk about "civility" and explain to me how lower class people "lack" it.


Google (since I can't post links): 25 most dangerous places to live in the USA.

Those are all poor neighborhoods.

It should be pointed out that the real reason it sucks to be poor is that you have to live next to other poor people, a reason which is too politically incorrect for the America's government to acknowledge. As if some strange geographical or geological phenomenon causes crime and not other poor people. Nearly all of the failings of poor neighborhoods can be explained by the simple fact that they are full of poor people.

Please note that poor people in Japan and mainland Europe have values that are no different than your average Japanese or European (among others).

[John_Jordan]

That didn't answer my questions at all.

Unless you're trying to equate "civility" with a lack of "danger", then you'd need to tell me what you mean by "dangerous."

[Phased Out]

That didn't answer my questions at all.

Unless you're trying to equate "civility" with a lack of "danger", then you'd need to tell me what you mean by "dangerous."

Of course it did. You're just turning this debate into a "you f'n Nazi while I paint myself as the underdog."

Why do people want to leave poor neighborhoods? The rent is cheap so you'll have more money in your pocket. Why move? I already told you why.

[whore]

That was NOT my point. I've been here for a while and there are few real industrial workers here on this site. I won't go as far as to say the "Communist Workers" on this site are all a bunch of posers--but they come close.
not all of us feel the need to justify our ideas by reference to our professions. i would suggest that you wouldn't know what most of the people on this site do for a living.
you claim to be a factory owner or something similar. i suggest that, being the internet, you have created a persona that fits what you would like to thinkabout yourself. when, in reality, you are probably a slob who works in an office.
besides, most "communist" theoreticians these days suggest that a person doesn't need to be actually producing something tangible to be a member of the exploited proletarian class. considering that most jobs in the developed countries are not manafactoriing jobs, i would be surprised if most of our western members were not office workers of some description. (and those from less developed countries are even more likely to be).

but, it does not mean that their ideas are any less valid! we are all still being exploited!

[Drace]

People labor hard in the economy because they don't necessarily care about "buying nice things" but rather they want to hang out with a "better class of people" and not people who act like cast members of the awful show "Roseanne" from the 1990s. Yes, there are annoying people in the middle-class and maybe even "boring" and yes, there are out of control rich kids. But where in the country would you find the most civilized people?

Ridiculous. The motive of anyone to earn more is simply to live around other people with better "social values"?
Wtf.



If one guy makes a lot more money than someone else, there's a good chance that the wage differential does not mean the higher paid guy is contributing more to the economy--it just means the higher paid guy is in a cartel. Look at investment bankers.

Interesting study on that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8410489.stm

[Phased Out]

Ridiculous. The motive of anyone to earn more is simply to live around other people with better "social values"?
Wtf.


Of course. Why do people choose to go to university where they'll plunge deeply into debt as opposed to getting a job where they can earn money and buy things?

[John_Jordan]

Of course it did. You're just turning this debate into a "you f'n Nazi while I paint myself as the underdog."

Why do people want to leave poor neighborhoods? The rent is cheap so you'll have more money in your pocket. Why move? I already told you why.

I have no interest in painting you as a Nazi. I just want you to answer the question.

You can tell me things all you want, but you don't get anything meaningful across if you don't define your words.

On another different note, we do know there are throngs of poor people who, during their life, stayed in the poor neighborhood in order to save money. Irish immigrants during the 19th century did this all the time.

[Drace]

You must be living in a cave.


Of course. Why do people choose to go to university where they'll plunge deeply into debt as opposed to getting a job where they can earn money and buy things?

So they can get a job and earn themselves some money?

Going to work with a high school degree is going to make you poor.

[Bud Struggle]

not all of us feel the need to justify our ideas by reference to our professions. i would suggest that you wouldn't know what most of the people on this site do for a living. Yup--students or ex-students of some sort.


you claim to be a factory owner or something similar. i suggest that, being the internet, you have created a persona that fits what you would like to thinkabout yourself. when, in reality, you are probably a slob who works in an office. I'll accept that if you accept that you have never even seen a factory let alone worked in one.


besides, most "communist" theoreticians these days suggest that a person doesn't need to be actually producing something tangible to be a member of the exploited proletarian class. Comrade--if you don't produce something how the hell are you going to be alienated from the thing you (didn't) produce?


considering that most jobs in the developed countries are not manafactoriing jobs, i would be surprised if most of our western members were not office workers of some description. (and those from less developed countries are even more likely to be). That's why there is no revolution going on. The Manifesto is willing but the Proletarians are few.


but, it does not mean that their ideas as are any less valid! we are all still being exploited! Poser.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.
Different people have different skills. No kind of work is harder than another in an absolute sense. What is hard for you may be easy for me, and vice versa.

For example, right now I have a "thinking job." I consider it to be a reasonably easy job. Meanwhile, physical work is very hard for me. I am not strong at all. If you took me and made me shovel coal for 8 hours a day, I would beg you to let me go back to my office.


Somewhere in between are people like computer programmers. They are doing real work that produces value, so they are not part of the leisure class, but they are way better off than the people shoveling coal for a living.
Yes, but the working class (in the Marxist sense) includes all the people who sell their labour power to capitalists and earn a wage for a living, without having control over the company they work for.

Computer programmers fit that description perfectly. They are not in between. They are workers. Sure, they may be a particularly privileged section of the working class, but they are workers nonetheless.


But, what would happen if poor people had the same civilized values as everyone else?
If you think poor people are "uncivilized", no wonder you don't think they can change society! With that sort of attitude, you'll never persuade any of them to support any kind of political project, so you will make yourself believe that there is no revolutionary potential in the US.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It should be pointed out that the real reason it sucks to be poor is that you have to live next to other poor people, a reason which is too politically incorrect for the America's government to acknowledge. As if some strange geographical or geological phenomenon causes crime and not other poor people. Nearly all of the failings of poor neighborhoods can be explained by the simple fact that they are full of poor people.

Please note that poor people in Japan and mainland Europe have values that are no different than your average Japanese or European (among others).
So tell me then, where do "values" come from? Why do poor people in the US act the way they do?

You have not offered an explanation for why poverty is a problem in the US - you've only replaced one question with another.

[Phased Out]

So tell me then, where do "values" come from? Why do poor people in the US act the way they do?

You have not offered an explanation for why poverty is a problem in the US - you've only replaced one question with another.

They're suppose to come from responsible parents but since many fail to instill proper values, the school system can act as a fail safe.

Where do those responsible parents get their values? Well, from their parents who then got them from their parents and so forth. The origin of these values come from common sense.

How to speak properly, how to dress properly, how to behave, don’t steal, don’t behave in a violent manner or get into fights, resolving conflicts peacefully, respect other people’s property, the importance of saving for the future, not buying stuff on credit, delaying gratification, doing well in school is very important, you shouldn’t have children until you get married, etc.

Unless you're a rich piece of shit whose mommy and daddy can clean up after your mess, failing to follow these simple values will lead to poverty or perpetuate it.

(next, you'll call me some sort of puritanical derogatory name who doesn't know what fun is)


ou have not offered an explanation for why poverty is a problem in the US - you've only replaced one question with another.

See above.

[Invincible Summer]

The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.

There's a real freedom in not having to think for a living. Mike Judge's movie Office Space touched on this with Ron Livingston's character happy to be wielding a shovel for a living at the end.


I think if you took anyone and made them do math problems for 8 hours straight they'd dislike it. Not even my father, who's a physics researcher, does math problems for 8 hours straight.

Besides, everyone thinks.

And trying to make references to a movie... Office Space no less... that's a terrible way to argue a point.



What many Marxists don't seem to understand is that capitalists do a lot of thinking, which is hard. They don't just magically end up owning the means of production. They think hard about which means of production to buy, how to get the funds to buy it, how to run it, etc. That's not only real work, it's the work that has the greatest economic impact.
So they think hard about how best to earn money for themselves. Ooooohh real admirable.

And if we're talking about greatest economic impact, then it's still in favour of the working class. So what if the capitalist "thought hard" about buying shit. It's still the employees who are doing the actual work to make him money, to make the business look good, etc.



A good example of this is the career of the Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal. He took over the Karmet Steel Works in Kazakhstan. Here I'll quote an article about him:

"The company had stopped paying its workforce because it was bleeding red inck and had no cash. The plant was on the verge of closure with its Soviet-era managers forced to barter steel for food for its workers. The Kazakh government was glad to had Mr. Mittal the keys to the plant for nothing. Not only did Mr. Mittal retain the entire workforce and run the plant, he paid all the outstanding wages and within five years had turned it into a thriving business that was gushing cash. The workers and townsfolk literally worship Mittal as the person who saved their town from collapse."
Cool story, bro.



The traditional class struggle USED TO involve the workers against the capitalists. The leftists supported the workers, the people who did the real work. The other class in the Marxist scheme was the non-working capitalist class, who profited merely from owning the means of production.


Leftism has evolved since those days, and the modern left no longer idolizes the working class. The left now idolizes the non-working leisure class, and the left-right struggle has now come down to whether you support one of the two types of leisure classes. There is the intelligentsia/creative/artist class supported by the left, which includes college professors, activists, artists, writers, television people, and the like.

And there's the traditional capitalist class. Both of these classes have in common that they don't have to do disgusting things like shovel coal in order to earn a living. Uh, what? Provide evidence that "the left idolizes the non-working leisure class." It sounds like a lot of baseless conjecture to me. Besides, how are professors, writers, etc, not working class? Just because they do not shovel coal doesn't mean they are some new class category.

I think your conception of Marxist class schema is incorrect.


The modern leftist would now look down upon the coal worker for eating disgusting food like McDonalds and having vulgar tastes in entertainment like watching NASCAR. It serves him right for not going to college (unless, of course, the coal worker is black, in which case the white racist society prevented him from going to college). If any modern "leftist" did that, I doubt anyone would consider them a leftist, since socialists/communists are supposed to value the labour and contribution of all members of the working class.


Somewhere in between are people like computer programmers. They are doing real work that produces value, so they are not part of the leisure class, but they are way better off than the people shoveling coal for a living.So professors, writers, artists, etc do not produce anything of value? I'd say that the computer data that programmers "produce" is just as abstract as the education, editing, etc that writers and teachers "produce."



And why a communist revolution will be IMPOSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is primarily because the classes have entirely different values. For instance, the reason why it sucks to be poor IN THE USA is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values.

But, what would happen if poor people had the same civilized values as everyone else? Well, if that were the case, a major motivation for not being poor would be removed. People wouldn’t be motivated to work extra hard in order to insulate themselves from poor people. Yes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have different values. What does this have to do with a revolution being impossible in the USA?

And your comment on "underclass values" and "civility" reeks of elitism and classism. It's disgusting. That's all that needs to be said.




A poor person in Norway is living next to other Norwegians who are part of the same Norwegian culture and whose values aren’t that much worse than wealthier Norwegians. In contrast, living in a housing project in an American city or a poor, rural small town is a scary proposition for a person with civilized values. Okay, you sound like a fascist.





As people drop in class, their civility severly decreases. I always hate hearing the typical libertarian cliche about how it's better to be poor today than to be rich 100 years ago. That is nonsense. Care to guess why?

Check out this excerpt from this NY TIMES article about the difficulty of getting into a good kindergarten: (I can't post the link)

If their kid doesn't get into the private kindergarten, it means he or she will get beaten up by the poor kids at the free public kindergarten in New York City.
Yes, I'm sure this is the standard rule.


Also, especially around election time, you always hear parents about "safe schools". What does that mean exactly? Working class families want to be able to send their children to a "safe" school. "Safe," of course, is a politically correct euphemism for a school that doesn't have a lot of...well you know?Guns? Knives? Irresponsible drug and alcohol use? All of these things that are prevalent in inner-city schools are symptoms of an economic and political system that is bankrupt, not "uncivilized poor people."


People labor hard in the economy because they don't necessarily care about "buying nice things" but rather they want to hang out with a "better class of people" and not people who act like cast members of the awful show "Roseanne" from the 1990s. Yes, there are annoying people in the middle-class and maybe even "boring" and yes, there are out of control rich kids. But where in the country would you find the most civilized people?

It's in the middle class. What you seem to be touching on here is social mobility, which is partially true. It's not necessarily because of a classist "I hate poor people they are so dirty" mentality, but rather the glorification of the upper class lifestyle. It's so glamorized and normalized through the media, that people who are "middle class" and even "lower class" will feel the need to emulate it. It's almost like if you're not living that kind of a life, you're not normal.




Modern leftists have the crazy belief that everyone is born exactly the same and that all differences in people’s salaries are due entirely to class issues. Where the hell did you get this idea from? Take one good read around this site and you'll find that this is absolutely untrue.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They're suppose to come from responsible parents but since many fail to instill proper values, the school system can act as a fail safe.

Where do those responsible parents get their values? Well, from their parents who then got them from their parents and so forth. The origin of these values come from common sense.
No. There is no such thing as universal "common sense". Different societies have radically different ideas of what constitutes "common sense." In Ancient Greece, it was common sense that a well-behaved young man of the upper classes should perform sexual favours for his (much older) professor.

"Common sense" values change over time. They don't change overnight, but they can change drastically in just two or three generations. This shows that the transmission of values from parents to children never works very well. In most places, children have slightly different values from their parents, significantly different values from their grandparents, and completely different values from their great-grandparents.

Communists have a theory about the driving force behind this constant change in values. We don't believe that children just randomly pick some changes to apply to the values received from their parents. We believe that values - like all social norms in general - are shaped by class relations and the economic base of society. What that means under capitalism is that behavior which benefits the capitalists is rewarded and behavior which hurts capitalist interests is punished. So, over time, people's behavior slowly changes to fit better with the requirements of capitalism.

Let me give you a few examples about how "common sense" behavior was different in the past:


How to speak properly...
The English language itself, never mind "proper speech", is constantly changing. You don't sound like Shakespeare.


...how to dress properly...
Wear a clean toga, you mean? Or a top hat and monocle, perhaps? Or long robes and a corset? You see the point.


...don’t behave in a violent manner or get into fights...
But when someone insults your family, honour demands that you challenge him to a duel! That used to be proper behavior once.


...respect other people’s property...
What counts as "property"? In some societies, this rule was invoked to punish people who liberated ("stole") other people's slaves.


...the importance of saving for the future, not buying stuff on credit, delaying gratification...
Ah, the old "Protestant work ethic." Unfortunately, that is no longer compatible with modern capitalism, so it was swept aside. If you buy stuff on credit, that is more profitable for capitalists than if you save for the future - so people are encouraged to buy stuff on credit.

[ChrisK]

That was NOT my point. I've been here for a while and there are few real industrial workers here on this site. I won't go as far as to say the "Communist Workers" on this site are all a bunch of posers--but they come close.

I deliver pizzas. Does that count?

[Invincible Summer]

Seriously, Phased Out, is your name a reference to the fact that you are actually an aristocrat from the 19th Century that unwittingly found himself activating an astute scientist's time-travel device? Your values and outlook make it appear as such.




And what's the deal with all these people saying that communists who aren't industrial workers are posers? In the West, industrial labour is being replaced by a service-oriented labour market. So just because some communists aren't stereotypical hammer-toting, overall-wearing workers doesn't mean they are "posers." They're just the working class of the 21st century West.

[ChrisK]

Yes, there are annoying people in the middle-class and maybe even "boring" and yes, there are out of control rich kids. But where in the country would you find the most civilized people?

It's in the middle class.


Bullshit. When I deliever, middle class people are more often than not pretensious douches who treat me like garbage.

[RGacky3]

Comrade--if you don't produce something how the hell are you going to be alienated from the thing you (didn't) produce?

Alienated from your labor, which everyone, who is a wage worker is, because whatever they do, they are don't doing it under their own terms, they don't see the benefit of what they do, whatever service or product they produce, someone else is calling the shots and taking the benefit. So yeah, thats what proletariate means, working class.

YOu know this Bud.


That's why there is no revolution going on. The Manifesto is willing but the Proletarians are few.

No, the reason there is no revolution going on is many-fold.
1. The multi billion dollar propeganda campain in every part of society
2. The strong repression of ANY socialist ideas of movements
3. Massiave amounts of corporate power.

As far as Proletarians? How much of the US are wage workers? The vast vast vast majority, how much of the world? Even more. So lets get that statement back in your ass.


Poser.

I've been both an industrial worker, blue collar, and a white collar worker, and I'll tell you, its the same thing, its you doing wage work for someone elses profit.



As to anyone that claims that bosses and Capitalists have to ... think, so they deserve their pay, put it to a democratic vote in the work place, see what happens.

[Zanthorus]

I've been here for a while and there are few real industrial workers here on this site.

How exactly do you know what everyone on here does IRL again...

Oh that's right, you're just making assertions and hoping that people won't try and challenge you.


Yup--students or ex-students of some sort.

Wow, well done for making a prediction that's almost certain to be true on an internet board dominated by people from western countries with free education...


Comrade--if you don't produce something how the hell are you going to be alienated from the thing you (didn't) produce?

This is massive fail. You don't even understand one of the most basic theses of Marxism (that the labour process under capitalism causes alienation). It's not that you don't control what you produce, it's that you have to perform mindless drone work for some fat arse CEO under the compulsion of starvation and the type of work you do is dictated by the higher ups so it becomes menial and meaningless.

[Bud Struggle]

Alienated from your labor, which everyone, who is a wage worker is, because whatever they do, they are don't doing it under their own terms, they don't see the benefit of what they do, whatever service or product they produce, someone else is calling the shots and taking the benefit. So yeah, thats what proletariate means, working class.
And as I have said before there is very little "working class" left. We are all "middle class." And to proove the point--factory workers organize and form unions--there are almost no unions for white collor workers--the work they do is so unspecific and the authority they hold in a corporation is so diverse that it would be very difficult or even impossible to organize them in any meaningful way in a union let alone have them become part of a Revolution.


No, the reason there is no revolution going on is many-fold.
1. The multi billion dollar propeganda campain in every part of society
2. The strong repression of ANY socialist ideas of movements
3. Massiave amounts of corporate power. I don't see it--the Communist Manifesto is out there so anyone could read it. It's taught in schools (my kid read it in HS) and it just doesn't click. As I said before Communism is a good idea and there are parts of it's theory that definitely can be used to form a better world--but that whole "Revolution-workers taking over the workplace-no bosses thing just isn't going to fly.


As far as Proletarians? How much of the US are wage workers? The vast vast vast majority, how much of the world? Even more. So lets get that statement back in your ass. Lots of people in the US are wage workers--and a lot of them are "managers" of some sort. And that little perk that $1 an hour mre than the next guy virtually assures that they will be on the side of the Capitalist if anyone ever tries to start a Revolution. And the rest of the world--it doesn't work in factories for the most part. They are small entreprenaurs--lots of buying and selling, makingthings in their bback yoar or cooking things in some stall. Go to Africa (for example.) There are no offices, no factories, no nothing, Just people getting by with whatever they could to live--who are they going to revolt against--Exxon? They don't even know what it is.


I've been both an industrial worker, blue collar, and a white collar worker, and I'll tell you, its the same thing, its you doing wage work for someone elses profit. I can't agree more. I think you are right on principal with just about everything you say--but in the real world things just play out differently. And it's the real world that counts.

[Robert]

I've been both an industrial worker, blue collar, and a white collar worker, and I'll tell you, its the same thing, its you doing wage work for someone else's profit.

Right, but the percentage of people who see that arrangement as intolerable is minuscule. Indeed, I'd bet that a survey of most people would indicate that they find it not only tolerable but appropriate, so long as they have the right (if not the means) to try and strike off on their own.

To the extent they do see it as intolerable, what they appear to want is for "government" to do something about it. They don't want a revolution.

You also must recognize that the wage is due and payable, and given priority over many other debts of the company, whether the capitalist is making a profit or not. Are the workers against this principle too?

[Phased Out]

Bullshit. When I deliever, middle class people are more often than not pretensious douches who treat me like garbage.

And when I worked in a fast food restaurant, the mostly poor kids were mean, obnoxious, aggressive, didn't value education and had no purpose in life other than to find constant thrills and cheap entertainment. And not to mention, the constant drama about how screwed up their families are for which I would hear while they were screaming on their cell phones.


In Ancient Greece, it was common sense that a well-behaved young man of the upper classes should perform sexual favours for his (much older) professor.

Ok? Upper class behavior is just as out of control as low class behavior.


"Common sense" values change over time.

Yes, values can change for the worse or the better. The values I listed are common sense and if people don't want to follow them, then OK. You'll have to accept the consequences, most likely poverty and constant interaction with people who have lower class values.


Communists have a theory about the driving force behind this constant change in values. We don't believe that children just randomly pick some changes to apply to the values received from their parents. We believe that values - like all social norms in general - are shaped by class relations and the economic base of society.

OK? What's your point? If you have a low class standing in society, you'll pick up low class behaviors and values?


The English language itself, never mind "proper speech", is constantly changing. You don't sound like Shakespeare.

What's your argument here? That low class speech patterns (ex: swearing in every sentence and having a limited vocabulary) will eventually become the norm and people who are practicing it ought to get a "head start"?

Yes, things evolve. Men living in civilizations evolved to become more civilized (smarter, better behaved, more future time orientation) while men living in primitive hunter-gatherer societies remained more primitive.

And now, the modern welfare state, is causing an even more rapid devolution because the people with the lowest IQs, least civilized behavior, and lowest future time orientation, are having the most children.

You should see the movie (even though it's pretty bad but the message was clear) Idiocracy.

And you are correct in that a person’s view of other people’s motives is based nearly entirely on environment. If the people you know are bad people, you will have a negative view of others. If the people you know are civil and well mannered, then you will have a positive view of others.

As a person’s class increases (based on verbal IQ, and educational attainment), he tends to hang with a better class of people, so he develops a more positive view of others.



Despite sympathy for poor people (minimum wage needs to be higher and universal healthcare), I have to acknowledge the fact that as people drop in class, their level of civility severely decreases. If you live in a housing project where people are being shot at, mugged, and the building is constantly vandalized and spray painted with graffiti, you’re going to develop a pretty negative view of people.



If you work at a truck stop and your co-workers constantly talk about how they hate non-whites, women, gays, etc..and are just generally loud and obnoxious, then' you're going to develop a pretty negative view of people.



One of the primary reasons that people work so hard in the rat race to raise their income a bit is so they don’t have to live with the poor people who are pretty despicable neighbors.



Someone once said:


"Smart people don't fully appreciate how mean poor people are because they don't hang with them"


The man has a point. Growing up in Baltimore taught me that the poor are dangerous and the rich are obnoxious.


Sarah Palin is low class even though she's in a high position:

Brother-in-law who threatens her father with a gun.
Pregnant teenage daughter.
Got pregnant herself before she was married
Flies on plane flight after amniotic sac ruptures instead of going to hospital.




Uh, what? Provide evidence that "the left idolizes the non-working leisure class."

I'm not talking about communists when I say "the modern left". I'm pointing out the fact that there isn't a true labor party in the USA.


I think if you took anyone and made them do math problems for 8 hours straight they'd dislike it. Not even my father, who's a physics researcher, does math problems for 8 hours straight.

You missed my point entirely.


So professors, writers, artists, etc do not produce anything of value?

They're value transferers.


If you think poor people are "uncivilized", no wonder you don't think they can change society! With that sort of attitude, you'll never persuade any of them to support any kind of political project, so you will make yourself believe that there is no revolutionary potential in the US

I think communism will only be possible in Europe and maybe in certain areas of the United States.

[Belisarius]

Leftism has evolved since those days, and the modern left no longer idolizes the working class. The left now idolizes the non-working leisure class, and the left-right struggle has now come down to whether you support one of the two types of leisure classes. There is the intelligentsia/creative/artist class supported by the left, which includes college professors, activists, artists, writers, television people, and the like.

this is just wrong. it's not because many communists have been writers, professors, singers or the like, that we idolize these professions per se. we still don't defend liesure classes, as you call them (allthough i wouldn't agree that professorship equals liesure (thinking is hard, you remember?)).

[graffic]

In Europe, there is less of a penalty for being poor, therefore there is less motivation to work hard to move up a notch. This is why Europeans enjoy shorter working hours and get many more weeks of vacation AND TEND TO BE MORE LEFTIST IN THEIR VIEWS. They don’t have to work their asses off in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

Your probably not one of the 10% of Americans reported to hold passports. That's a stupid thing to say that there is less of a penalty for being poor in Europe. You need to get out of the US and experience other parts of the world, it will open your mind.

[Scary Monster]

And when I worked in a fast food restaurant, the mostly poor kids were mean, obnoxious, aggressive, didn't value education and had no purpose in life other than to find constant thrills and cheap entertainment. And not to mention, the constant drama about how screwed up their families are for which I would hear while they were screaming on their cell phones.



Ok? Upper class behavior is just as out of control as low class behavior.



Yes, values can change for the worse or the better. The values I listed are common sense and if people don't want to follow them, then OK. You'll have to accept the consequences, most likely poverty and constant interaction with people who have lower class values.



OK? What's your point? If you have a low class standing in society, you'll pick up low class behaviors and values?



What's your argument here? That low class speech patterns (ex: swearing in every sentence and having a limited vocabulary) will eventually become the norm and people who are practicing it ought to get a "head start"?

Yes, things evolve. Men living in civilizations evolved to become more civilized (smarter, better behaved, more future time orientation) while men living in primitive hunter-gatherer societies remained more primitive.

And now, the modern welfare state, is causing an even more rapid devolution because the people with the lowest IQs, least civilized behavior, and lowest future time orientation, are having the most children.

You should see the movie (even though it's pretty bad but the message was clear) Idiocracy.

And you are correct in that a person’s view of other people’s motives is based nearly entirely on environment. If the people you know are bad people, you will have a negative view of others. If the people you know are civil and well mannered, then you will have a positive view of others.

As a person’s class increases (based on verbal IQ, and educational attainment), he tends to hang with a better class of people, so he develops a more positive view of others.



Despite sympathy for poor people (minimum wage needs to be higher and universal healthcare), I have to acknowledge the fact that as people drop in class, their level of civility severely decreases. If you live in a housing project where people are being shot at, mugged, and the building is constantly vandalized and spray painted with graffiti, you’re going to develop a pretty negative view of people.



If you work at a truck stop and your co-workers constantly talk about how they hate non-whites, women, gays, etc..and are just generally loud and obnoxious, then' you're going to develop a pretty negative view of people.



One of the primary reasons that people work so hard in the rat race to raise their income a bit is so they don’t have to live with the poor people who are pretty despicable neighbors.



Someone once said:


"Smart people don't fully appreciate how mean poor people are because they don't hang with them"


The man has a point. Growing up in Baltimore taught me that the poor are dangerous and the rich are obnoxious.


Sarah Palin is low class even though she's in a high position:

Brother-in-law who threatens her father with a gun.
Pregnant teenage daughter.
Got pregnant herself before she was married
Flies on plane flight after amniotic sac ruptures instead of going to hospital.




I'm not talking about communists when I say "the modern left". I'm pointing out the fact that there isn't a true labor party in the USA.



You missed my point entirely.



They're value transferers.



I think communism will only be possible in Europe and maybe in certain areas of the United States.

omg :lol::lol: This guy is such a moron. You keep spewing absolute nonsense, something to the effect of "poor people are animals!". I dont see how anyone here can argue with someone who has beliefs like this. He obviously isnt willing to learn.

[Axle]

And when I worked in a fast food restaurant, the mostly poor kids were mean, obnoxious, aggressive, didn't value education and had no purpose in life other than to find constant thrills and cheap entertainment. And not to mention, the constant drama about how screwed up their families are for which I would hear while they were screaming on their cell phones.

I used to work at a market in Flint, Michigan, and probably about 80% of our customers were poor or working class. They weren't "mean, obnoxious, aggressive...blah, blah, blah". Most were quite the opposite, really. You apparently haven't thought of the fact that kids (I'm guessing teenagers) you dealt with do tend to be quite the rowdy bunch...but no, I'm sure those kids were acting like kids because they were poor.



Yes, values can change for the worse or the better. The values I listed are common sense and if people don't want to follow them, then OK. You'll have to accept the consequences, most likely poverty and constant interaction with people who have lower class values.

I wouldn't be talking about "values" when you're parading around the idea that "bad values" equal poverty.


And now, the modern welfare state, is causing an even more rapid devolution because the people with the lowest IQs, least civilized behavior, and lowest future time orientation, are having the most children.

You sound like a fucking fascist.


You should see the movie (even though it's pretty bad but the message was clear) Idiocracy.

You brought up Office Space and Idiocracy. You must be a Mike Judge fan. Do you think heavy metal is "low class" because of Beavis and Butthead?


blah blah blah, more elitist bullshit. Poor people are mean spirited and dangerous because they're low class. blah, blah, blah...

[Dimentio]

If "bad values" are prevalent in a culture, they are caused by poverty more likely than causing it. In a capitalist system, a significant part of the population must necessarily be poor in order to keep the profit margin, so that people could be threatened to stay in line.

It is so 19th century to blame the poors for their own condition.

What is the next step? Glorification of poverty a'la Middle Ages?

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not talking about communists when I say "the modern left". I'm pointing out the fact that there isn't a true labor party in the USA.


1) What do you mean by "the modern left" then?
2) You still didn't answer my question. How does "the modern left idolize the leisure class?"

[Dimentio]

1) What do you mean by "the modern left" then?
2) You still didn't answer my question. How does "the modern left idolize the leisure class?"

*HINT*

I think he's talking about the Democrats...

[ChrisK]

And when I worked in a fast food restaurant, the mostly poor kids were mean, obnoxious, aggressive, didn't value education and had no purpose in life other than to find constant thrills and cheap entertainment. And not to mention, the constant drama about how screwed up their families are for which I would hear while they were screaming on their cell phones.


Were these customers or people you worked with?

Also, why do you think they look for thrills and entertainment? There life sucks so fucking much its about all they can do to not be in a shitty situation.

Also, when I worked at Taco Bell, middle class business guys were a bunch of assholes who got mad if there food was out in two minutes when we had lines going out the fucking door and cars lining the drive through.

The construction workers on the other hand were cool, laid back and okay when things didn't go perfect. They also had the kindness to (when I wasn't looking) remop the area of floor they had dirtied that I had just mopped.

[#FF0000]

Man, phased out, you're an elitist douche bag.

[Dr Mindbender]

why is this arsehat still unrestricted?

also, working in customer service myself, i greatly empathise with comrade christofer. When comparing classes, i would far rather deal with working class people. The middle class and above customers are the most insufferable, obnoxious and argumentative creatures you could imagine, with their irritating nasally posh tones, their open ended demands to 'speak to a manager' and their general self centred sense of entitlement when things don't go their way.

If anything, i thank my stars i'm not among them.

[Invincible Summer]

Phased Out is now restricted, btw. Just thought I'd let y'all know.

But yeah, middle-class and upper-class people seem to have a sense of entitlement to being waited on hand and foot, whereas working class people seem to be able to sympathize with other workers.

[Belisarius]

Phased Out is now restricted, btw. Just thought I'd let y'all know.

But yeah, middle-class and upper-class people seem to have a sense of entitlement to being waited on hand and foot, whereas working class people seem to be able to sympathize with other workers.
i see a tendency to do away with this sympathizing, especially in cooking. noweadays everyone needs to be a masterchef (at least in belgium) and if you're not you will get criticized. i blame mostly television like "komen eten" (=having diner) in which regular people need to judge other regular people's food in order to win a prize (the one who got the most, and thus gave the least, wins)

[Drace]

You sound worse than a fascist...You sound like a 19th century British wealthy elite who thinks the Indians, Africans and Chinese were savages that needed to be civilized.

[Patchd]

The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.
I always thought it was because I was being made to do something I didn't actually want to do. I was fine reading history books, but when I wanted to.

[Belisarius]

I always thought it was because I was being made to do something I didn't actually want to do. I was fine reading history books, but when I wanted to.
another problem with homework is that it is most of the time very monotonous work (remember learning the multiplication table, hardly anything surprising there).

[LeftSideDown]

I always thought it was because I was being made to do something I didn't actually want to do. I was fine reading history books, but when I wanted to.

SO, I suppose in communist, people would only have to work when they wanted to... at the job/task they wanted?

[LeftSideDown]

why is this arsehat still unrestricted?

also, working in customer service myself, i greatly empathise with comrade christofer. When comparing classes, i would far rather deal with working class people. The middle class and above customers are the most insufferable, obnoxious and argumentative creatures you could imagine, with their irritating nasally posh tones, their open ended demands to 'speak to a manager' and their general self centred sense of entitlement when things don't go their way.

If anything, i thank my stars i'm not among them.

Doesn't being a communist mean you believe that you are "entitled" to the full-product of your labor (whatever that is)?

[ChrisK]

SO, I suppose in communist, people would only have to work when they wanted to... at the job/task they wanted?

Pretty much. Automation will be able to take care of the rest (as it already does/can).

[ChrisK]

Doesn't being a communist mean you believe that you are "entitled" to the full-product of your labor (whatever that is)?

Your using entitled in a different context. The entitlement he speaks of is that right to be an asshole attitude of the middle class that places you below them because they have money.

[LeftSideDown]

Your using entitled in a different context. The entitlement he speaks of is that right to be an asshole attitude of the middle class that places you below them because they have money.

Oh, sorry. So he is not entitled to the service he deems is valued to him at the price he is paying?

[LeftSideDown]

Pretty much. Automation will be able to take care of the rest (as it already does/can).

Is there any proof of this, or am I to take it as self evident?

[ChrisK]

Oh, sorry. So he is not entitled to the service he deems is valued to him at the price he is paying?

He's not entitled to scream "I PAID MY FUCKING MONEY FOR THIS PIZZA! I DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE IT GOT FUCKED! FIX THIS NOW!" The best part is that it never looks bad, except for that one piece of fucking crust that got cut funny.

[ChrisK]

Is there any proof of this, or am I to take it as self evident?

Proof of what? That this is how it will be under communism?

[LeftSideDown]

He's not entitled to scream "I PAID MY FUCKING MONEY FOR THIS PIZZA! I DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE IT GOT FUCKED! FIX THIS NOW!" The best part is that it never looks bad, except for that one piece of fucking crust that got cut funny.

You're right, he is not entitled to this behavior. He is infringing on other people's rights to enjoy the food they also payed for. His rights are no stronger than theres. He is entitled to petition the manager for a redress of grievances, and the manager is entitled to not oblige him or to oblige him. So, I guess I do agree with you, in that it is wrong for people to infringe upon others rights, but I think he does have the right to seek all that he is entitled to, but not that he is entitled to succeed.


Proof of what? That this is how it will be under communism?

Yes, that under communism suddenly robots will spring from the earth and start shoveling manure and sifting through trash. Honestly, if this was possible, why don't the capitalist just stop hiring workers and use these machines? Doubtless they'd be cheaper (if what you're saying is true) and they could let the "proletariat" starve. This would be exploitation to the max.

[ChrisK]

Yes, that under communism suddenly robots will spring from the earth and start shoveling manure and sifting through trash. Honestly, if this was possible, why don't the capitalist just stop hiring workers and use these machines? Doubtless they'd be cheaper (if what you're saying is true) and they could let the "proletariat" starve. This would be exploitation to the max.

We don't have to shovel manure, thats a nice fertilzer there.

And sure, there would be a few job still there that require people that aren't terribly fun. But people aren't stupid, they know that that shit needs done. The people will figure out how they want to deal with that.

[LeftSideDown]

We don't have to shovel manure, thats a nice fertilzer there.

And sure, there would be a few job still there that require people that aren't terribly fun. But people aren't stupid, they know that that shit needs done. The people will figure out how they want to deal with that.

So the majority will decide to make someone do a shitty job? What if this majority prescribes to a form of racism? What if they just don't like that person? I hardly see this as fair, which granted is far from the point of this debate, but you've yet to prove we have the means to mechanize most forms of labour.

[ChrisK]

So the majority will decide to make someone do a shitty job? What if this majority prescribes to a form of racism? What if they just don't like that person? I hardly see this as fair, which granted is far from the point of this debate, but you've yet to prove we have the means to mechanize most forms of labour.

I didn't say that. I said people will figure it out. How they do so, its up to them, they'll know better then than we do now.

Look at actual production, its done by mostly machine. Cars are made by automated machines putting them together.

[Invincible Summer]

Yes, that under communism suddenly robots will spring from the earth and start shoveling manure and sifting through trash. Honestly, if this was possible, why don't the capitalist just stop hiring workers and use these machines? Doubtless they'd be cheaper (if what you're saying is true) and they could let the "proletariat" starve. This would be exploitation to the max.

No one is saying that robots will "spring from the ground." Automation already occurs in many facets of production. Many Communists support the idea of increasing automation to the point where redundant manual labour is handled by machines, to allow more free time for humans.

Technology is influenced by the system in which it is created in - therefore, technologies developed by capitalism only really benefit the capitalist economy; i.e. they are used to increase profits, not benefit society. Communist society would utilize existing technology (as well as create new technology which is too capital-intensive/would not bring about enough profit to create under capitalism) to benefit everyone and run society in a highly efficient, egalitarian manner.

If capitalists just suddenly scrapped all human workers for machines, you'd have a massive uprising. Obviously the ruling class can't have that. Instead, they gradually phase out human labour.

And I don't think it would be exploitation if humans aren't even employees anymore.

[LeftSideDown]

I didn't say that. I said people will figure it out. How they do so, its up to them, they'll know better then than we do now.

Look at actual production, its done by mostly machine. Cars are made by automated machines putting them together.

So, according to the labor theory of value, cars have no value.

[LeftSideDown]

No one is saying that robots will "spring from the ground." Automation already occurs in many facets of production. Many Communists support the idea of increasing automation to the point where redundant manual labour is handled by machines, to allow more free time for humans.

Technology is influenced by the system in which it is created in - therefore, technologies developed by capitalism only really benefit the capitalist economy; i.e. they are used to increase profits, not benefit society. Communist society would utilize existing technology (as well as create new technology which is too capital-intensive/would not bring about enough profit to create under capitalism) to benefit everyone and run society in a highly efficient, egalitarian manner.

If capitalists just suddenly scrapped all human workers for machines, you'd have a massive uprising. Obviously the ruling class can't have that. Instead, they gradually phase out human labour.

And I don't think it would be exploitation if humans aren't even employees anymore.

"they are used to increase profits, not benefit society." These things are one in the same. I do not understand your argument. And, please sir explain, how would you foster innovation? Who would decide who the scientists are? Who would decide what is WORTH investing capital in and what is not worth it?

And please, the excuse "the future" will know how to handle it hardly speaks well of your reasoning.

And I do not think there is exploitation right now, except by the government of its people.

[ChrisK]

So, according to the labor theory of value, cars have no value.

Thats a very strong distortion of the Labor Theory of Value.

Marx claims that two things give things value, nature and labor.

Cars are made of materials that cost money, people mine the metal, mix the metal, design the car, ship parts, etc etc. Thats how they get their value.

[ChrisK]

"they are used to increase profits, not benefit society." These things are one in the same. I do not understand your argument. And, please sir explain, how would you foster innovation? Who would decide who the scientists are? Who would decide what is WORTH investing capital in and what is not worth it?

What scientists? Without a division of labor there will be no clear line as to who scientists are. Innovation comes from people who truly enjoy coming up with things. Einstein came up with his theories out of joy, not monetary motivation. What captial? People will make things they want to, it won't have to do with "investment"[/QUOTE]


And I do not think there is exploitation right now, except by the government of its people.

Exploitation = Value that Labor has Produced - Actual Wage

Thats a simplified formula.

[LeftSideDown]

Thats a very strong distortion of the Labor Theory of Value.

Marx claims that two things give things value, nature and labor.

Cars are made of materials that cost money, people mine the metal, mix the metal, design the car, ship parts, etc etc. Thats how they get their value.

First, although this is semantics, how are nature and labor the same thing? For instance, a crystal found on the ground is formed by the forces of nature, but by picking it up (acquiring it, turning it into my property, provided no one else has a claim on that) I have put labor into it. Those are two entirely different processes. This also means that the diamond I picked up, if I identical to another diamond that someone spend years making a mine to obtain and spent tons of money on labor to acquire is somehow worth more even if the two are identical. This is clearly false.

And those parts don't give its value. For instance, I could take all the materials that it took to make a car, use all the people that labor to make it into a car, and then make something that has no value because it is useless. I could've just thrown random pieces of rubber and upholstery onto a twisted piece of steel, and this, according to the labor theory of value, has all the value of a car.

I don't see how you can see this as anything but wrong.

[LeftSideDown]

What scientists? Without a division of labor there will be no clear line as to who scientists are. Innovation comes from people who truly enjoy coming up with things. Einstein came up with his theories out of joy, not monetary motivation. What captial? People will make things they want to, it won't have to do with "investment"



Exploitation = Value that Labor has Produced - Actual Wage

Thats a simplified formula.[/QUOTE]

Well, presumably, people would be forced to do something they don't like. You said yourself, or maybe your friend said, that there would be still be undesireable jobs. What if the person who is inclined to create something is working in this job and cannot? And you cannot create without capital. Who is to say an invention is good or worth giving to society? How do you know that its worth it to start manufacturing this invention. Assuming that everyone in communism has suddenly shed their human nature (something I find very difficult to believe) and all just want to help out each other, then who will decide what inventions are "worth" it? These are questions that need answering. Doesn't matter how many inventions a society thinks up if it doesn't implement them.

And since I just disproved, in my eyes, the labor theory of value, what determines value?

[ChrisK]

First, although this is semantics, how are nature and labor the same thing? For instance, a crystal found on the ground is formed by the forces of nature, but by picking it up (acquiring it, turning it into my property, provided no one else has a claim on that) I have put labor into it. Those are two entirely different processes. This also means that the diamond I picked up, if I identical to another diamond that someone spend years making a mine to obtain and spent tons of money on labor to acquire is somehow worth more even if the two are identical. This is clearly false.

Semantics as you say. Nature means things like scarcity. Such as diamonds are more valuable than iron because there's alot more iron than there are diamonds. Also, diamonds are more expensive because they're often harder to get to and thus cost more to mine.

Your example is obviously false with you using improper definitions of things like labor.


And those parts don't give its value. For instance, I could take all the materials that it took to make a car, use all the people that labor to make it into a car, and then make something that has no value because it is useless. I could've just thrown random pieces of rubber and upholstery onto a twisted piece of steel, and this, according to the labor theory of value, has all the value of a car.

I don't see how you can see this as anything but wrong.

Value is what the item is worth based on its cost to produce. Your talking about use-value, which is important because it determines whether people will purchase it. You keep using a different definition of value than that of the theory you debate.

[LeftSideDown]

Exploitation = Value that Labor has Produced - Actual Wage

Thats a simplified formula.

Also, to expound upon this. Lets say there are two people. One of them makes axes and lends them out, another is a lumber jack. The lumberjack, without an axe, can hardly cut down trees (at least not very well, assuming axes are the only thing available for the cutting down of trees) and the axe-maker is hardly able to make money without renting axes to lumberjacks. When the axe-maker lends out the axe how much of the work is done by the axe? How much is done by the laborer? How do you decide this for every procedure of production in which labor is mixed with capital?

[LeftSideDown]

Semantics as you say. Nature means things like scarcity. Such as diamonds are more valuable than iron because there's alot more iron than there are diamonds. Also, diamonds are more expensive because they're often harder to get to and thus cost more to mine.

Your example is obviously false with you using improper definitions of things like labor.

Value is what the item is worth based on its cost to produce. Your talking about use-value, which is important because it determines whether people will purchase it. You keep using a different definition of value than that of the theory you debate.

But what determines costs of production? Is it only scarcity of resources? Is it use-value? Is it labor theory of value?

And how is my example false? What definition do you give to labor?

[ChrisK]

Well, presumably, people would be forced to do something they don't like. You said yourself, or maybe your friend said, that there would be still be undesireable jobs. What if the person who is inclined to create something is working in this job and cannot? And you cannot create without capital. Who is to say an invention is good or worth giving to society? How do you know that its worth it to start manufacturing this invention. Assuming that everyone in communism has suddenly shed their human nature (something I find very difficult to believe) and all just want to help out each other, then who will decide what inventions are "worth" it? These are questions that need answering. Doesn't matter how many inventions a society thinks up if it doesn't implement them.

I never said they'd be forced. You said that because you seem to think that if a majority decide that something needs to be done, they'll make the minority do it. Thats stupid, the majority who want it done will do it. They'll decide how they want to go about it and do it.

We can't? How was the wheel invented? Some invested capital?

What human nature? Look into band level societies, they exist entirely on co-operation.


And since I just disproved, in my eyes, the labor theory of value, what determines value?

Your eyes are blind and your arguments false. The labor theory of value works just fine.

[ChrisK]

But what determines costs of production? Is it only scarcity of resources? Is it use-value? Is it labor theory of value?

Cost of production depends on a combiniation of labor cost and the scarcity of resources. Its not black and white.


And how is my example false? What definition do you give to labor?

My counter example dealt with it. Labor, under capitalism, is the paid work of individuals.

[LeftSideDown]

I never said they'd be forced. You said that because you seem to think that if a majority decide that something needs to be done, they'll make the minority do it. Thats stupid, the majority who want it done will do it. They'll decide how they want to go about it and do it.

We can't? How was the wheel invented? Some invested capital?

What human nature? Look into band level societies, they exist entirely on co-operation.

Your eyes are blind and your arguments false. The labor theory of value works just fine.

Anyone who is made to a job that they do not want to do is "forced" to do that job. So no matter what, if someone is doing something that they do not want to do because a majority decrees it he is being subjected to coercion.

So if you can't decide how a country invests limited capital how will a country progress? The will of the majority isn't always the way of progress, and how do you decide when to STOP investing in something? Without profit/loss how can you determine whether the country's limited is returning something positive to the society?

So, ultimately, communism wants to devolve us to band-level communities? It seems only on this micro scale that communism is possible and the loss of today's amenities to achieve your definition of fair seems to me a major loss for society as a whole.

I'd like if we'd not resort to ad hominem attacks, just yet, and the labor theory of value does not work fine as the diamond example illustrates.

[ChrisK]

Also, to expound upon this. Lets say there are two people. One of them makes axes and lends them out, another is a lumber jack. The lumberjack, without an axe, can hardly cut down trees (at least not very well, assuming axes are the only thing available for the cutting down of trees) and the axe-maker is hardly able to make money without renting axes to lumberjacks. When the axe-maker lends out the axe how much of the work is done by the axe? How much is done by the laborer? How do you decide this for every procedure of production in which labor is mixed with capital?

Axe's don't do work. They're a tool to make laborers more effiecent. Also, axe makers and chainsaw makers don't rent their shit, they sell it, and its not one maker its many, with a guy who owns the company making money off others labor. So your example is flawed.

[LeftSideDown]

Cost of production depends on a combiniation of labor cost and the scarcity of resources. Its not black and white.

My counter example dealt with it. Labor, under capitalism, is the paid work of individuals.

You're right, its not black and white. In fact its so grey you cannot do economic calculations on the scale that socialism requires to determine costs of production.

And costs of production also depends on the COST of resources, which you cannot base entirely off of scarcity. In fact, scarcity, by itself, is no determination of the value of something as all things are scarce, and some things are just as scarce as others BUT more valuable, and not because of use-value but because of subjective valuation.

Under your definition, entrepreneurs and capitalists are laborers because they are paid to decide WHERE capital should be invested. Thus there is no class conflict: all labor.

[LeftSideDown]

Axe's don't do work. They're a tool to make laborers more effiecent. Also, axe makers and chainsaw makers don't rent their shit, they sell it, and its not one maker its many, with a guy who owns the company making money off others labor. So your example is flawed.

I can make a theoretical example that doesn't have to follow the standards of today. I mean, I said there are only two people, so it is false in that way. It however demonstrates the calculation problem in a socialist society. I assumed they rented it, and that there were axe-makers and lumberjacks. These were all assumptions. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with them, because they're only there to make a point.

Axe's don't do work. You're right. But lets assume that tree is useless as long as its still standing. Without the axes (previously invested capital) the lumberjack would be unable to cut down the tree. So the axes make something useless useful that would otherwise be useless. How much is due to the axemaker? How much is due to the labor of the lumberjack? How do you decide this?

[ChrisK]

Anyone who is made to a job that they do not want to do is "forced" to do that job. So no matter what, if someone is doing something that they do not want to do because a majority decrees it he is being subjected to coercion.

Can you read? Read my post and actually read it.


So if you can't decide how a country invests limited capital how will a country progress? The will of the majority isn't always the way of progress, and how do you decide when to STOP investing in something? Without profit/loss how can you determine whether the country's limited is returning something positive to the society?

There are very few finite resources anymore. There is a reason why capitalist engage in "creating scarcity".


So, ultimately, communism wants to devolve us to band-level communities? It seems only on this micro scale that communism is possible and the loss of today's amenities to achieve your definition of fair seems to me a major loss for society as a whole.

You have trouble with the whole reading comphrension thing don't you? You say human nature is competition and greed. I point out that band level socities don't function that way. This means that human nature is not a static thing.


I'd like if we'd not resort to ad hominem attacks, just yet, and the labor theory of value does not work fine as the diamond example illustrates.

That was an example of the labor theory of value. Good job. And these aren't ad hominem's I'm still responding to you.

[ChrisK]

I can make a theoretical example that doesn't have to follow the standards of today. I mean, I said there are only two people, so it is false in that way. It however demonstrates the calculation problem in a socialist society. I assumed they rented it, and that there were axe-makers and lumberjacks. These were all assumptions. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with them, because they're only there to make a point.

Axe's don't do work. You're right. But lets assume that tree is useless as long as its still standing. Without the axes (previously invested capital) the lumberjack would be unable to cut down the tree. So the axes make something useless useful that would otherwise be useless. How much is due to the axemaker? How much is due to the labor of the lumberjack? How do you decide this?

Your whole example is completely flawed. This decision doesn't exist. At the point of purchase, the axe maker is the producer and the lumberjack is the customer. Later, his labor must cover the cost of the axe which raises the price of the lumber.

And yes, your example absolutely must apply to capitalism and how things are because the labor theory of value ONLY applies to capitalism.

[LeftSideDown]

Can you read? Read my post and actually read it.



There are very few finite resources anymore. There is a reason why capitalist engage in "creating scarcity".



You have trouble with the whole reading comphrension thing don't you? You say human nature is competition and greed. I point out that band level socities don't function that way. This means that human nature is not a static thing.



That was an example of the labor theory of value. Good job. And these aren't ad hominem's I'm still responding to you.

I can read, obviously, as I can type. Perhaps you can restate it in a different manner to see where I'm misinterpreting. This person could've been part of the majority and then been made by the majority do this task.

And everything is scarce. I don't care if its less scarce than before everything is scarce. There is some physics law... kind of important, like the "Law of Conservation of Mass" or something. Kinda says there is a set amount of "stuff" in the universe and more stuff cannot be created. So there is scarcity, even if we controlled the entire universe. You cannot "create scarcity" for this same reason... its already there... you cannot add to it because you also cannot destroy "stuff".

And, how far, may I ask, have these band level societies progressed? Obviously not far if they are still "band-level" societies, because they're level of advancement cannot support a higher population. And human nature is pretty much static. Take all these people, lets say 50, and give them only enough sustenance to feed 20 do you really think all of them would die? This is what your "human nature" entails: that all of these people are selfless and care more about the community than themselves. Well, I guess one would live because when all the rest died he'd be the community, so he could eat I guess.

[LeftSideDown]

Your whole example is completely flawed. This decision doesn't exist. At the point of purchase, the axe maker is the producer and the lumberjack is the customer. Later, his labor must cover the cost of the axe which raises the price of the lumber.

And yes, your example absolutely must apply to capitalism and how things are because the labor theory of value ONLY applies to capitalism.

IN this hypothetical situation, how much does the axe cost? What is the "rent" on that axe? You're essentially avoiding the question, the answer to which has already been provided by Austrians.

And assuming the labor theory of value only applies to capitalism, as you assert, what determines value in a communist society? And to go further, how does it apply to capitalistic society when you can sell goods for so much more than you pay for labor? Obviously value is NOT based on labor, or a combination of labor and capital in any set way that can be calculated.

[Invincible Summer]

"they are used to increase profits, not benefit society." These things are one in the same. I do not understand your argument. And, please sir explain, how would you foster innovation? Who would decide who the scientists are? Who would decide what is WORTH investing capital in and what is not worth it?
One in the same? Being on RevLeft, you should know that that argument goes nowhere, and should very well know what my argument is.

But I'll humour you.

If "trickle-down" economics worked, then why are there millions of people living in abject poverty? I'm not just talking about in the developing world, but in our own Western back alleys and shelters. When this is pointed out, the "oh well they don't work hard enough" argument is attempted. But many of these people work full-time, possibly even multiple jobs in order to try and make ends meet. But they still aren't able to have a decent life... and yet the CEOs and CFOs of mega corporations earn 7-figure salaries. Where is the money trickling down to? Employees aren't getting more benefits... in fact they are getting laid off.

Profit =/= betterment of society. Corporate executives have said it themselves... their goal is to make money. That's all they are responsible for.

Innovation comes from inspired individuals. If you've talk to any scientist, philosopher, inventor, professor, researcher, then it becomes apparent quite quickly that they aren't in it for the money. They just love the subject that they've pursued. They are doing research for research's sake.

And who said anything about delineating jobs to people in the way you're suggesting? Scientists are scientists by nature... these people are inclined to that thinking.

In terms of investing capital... you obviously don't know a thing about socialism and communism if you're asking these questions. In terms of the allocation of resources (e.g. lab space, use of equipment, etc) however, I'd think that it would go about in a similar way as it is today - a researcher would put forward a proposal, and a committee would consider it and decide whether or not it's worth allocating resources for.



And please, the excuse "the future" will know how to handle it hardly speaks well of your reasoning.
This coming from someone who believes that an invisible force in a market makes things all fair and just for everybody.


And I do not think there is exploitation right now, except by the government of its people.
You implicitly acknowledged that capitalists exploit employees when you said that wholly replacing the workforce with machines would be "mega exploitation."

What is your definition of "exploitation," anyway?

[ChrisK]

You're right, its not black and white. In fact its so grey you cannot do economic calculations on the scale that socialism requires to determine costs of production.

As I said before, the labor theory of value only applies to capitalism.


And costs of production also depends on the COST of resources, which you cannot base entirely off of scarcity. In fact, scarcity, by itself, is no determination of the value of something as all things are scarce, and some things are just as scarce as others BUT more valuable, and not because of use-value but because of subjective valuation.

Such as? And no labor increases its cost more than anything.


Under your definition, entrepreneurs and capitalists are laborers because they are paid to decide WHERE capital should be invested. Thus there is no class conflict: all labor.

Capitalists aren't paid, that implies someone is above them, paying their salaries. Captialists take expoited money.

[ChrisK]

I can read, obviously, as I can type. Perhaps you can restate it in a different manner to see where I'm misinterpreting. This person could've been part of the majority and then been made by the majority do this task.

They aren't making anyone do anything. They might ask them to do it, or end up in a general agreement about who will do it when, but there is no forcing involved.


And everything is scarce. I don't care if its less scarce than before everything is scarce. There is some physics law... kind of important, like the "Law of Conservation of Mass" or something. Kinda says there is a set amount of "stuff" in the universe and more stuff cannot be created. So there is scarcity, even if we controlled the entire universe. You cannot "create scarcity" for this same reason... its already there... you cannot add to it because you also cannot destroy "stuff".

Not at present time. Scarcity means a lack of or little. Abundence means plenty. Most resources are abundent, with certain exceptions.


And, how far, may I ask, have these band level societies progressed? Obviously not far if they are still "band-level" societies, because they're level of advancement cannot support a higher population. And human nature is pretty much static. Take all these people, lets say 50, and give them only enough sustenance to feed 20 do you really think all of them would die? This is what your "human nature" entails: that all of these people are selfless and care more about the community than themselves. Well, I guess one would live because when all the rest died he'd be the community, so he could eat I guess.

No, strangely enough, they have rules and customs for those very situations. The elderly and sick voluntarily starve so that the rest will survive. Prove human nature. Have fucking fun with that one. Human nature necessarily changes from social form to social form due to different needs to survive.

Also, what does it matter how far they've progressed? They're human and therefore, have human nature. Strangely they act very differently than from capitalistic countries.

[ChrisK]

IN this hypothetical situation, how much does the axe cost? What is the "rent" on that axe? You're essentially avoiding the question, the answer to which has already been provided by Austrians.

I didn't avoid the question. I showed that there isn't one.


And assuming the labor theory of value only applies to capitalism, as you assert, what determines value in a communist society? And to go further, how does it apply to capitalistic society when you can sell goods for so much more than you pay for labor? Obviously value is NOT based on labor, or a combination of labor and capital in any set way that can be calculated.

Without money, value isn't important to calculate.

Strangely enough, you can't sell something for less than you paid your laborers to produce it and however much the materials cost. If you don't know that, then your an idiot.

Now for the fun common sense part, the labor theory of value calculates the lowest price that an item can be sold for and have the capitalists break even. Marx goes on to say that at the market, the value goes up to increase profits. Also, profits are increased by the exploitation of labor (paying laborers less than their labor is actually worth).

Funny how the Austrians are the laughing stock of the economics world.

[LeftSideDown]

Capitalists aren't paid, that implies someone is above them, paying their salaries. Captialists take expoited money.

They are getting paid because their investment is profitable, not because they are "exploiting".

[LeftSideDown]

They aren't making anyone do anything. They might ask them to do it, or end up in a general agreement about who will do it when, but there is no forcing involved.

Not at present time. Scarcity means a lack of or little. Abundence means plenty. Most resources are abundent, with certain exceptions.

No, strangely enough, they have rules and customs for those very situations. The elderly and sick voluntarily starve so that the rest will survive. Prove human nature. Have fucking fun with that one. Human nature necessarily changes from social form to social form due to different needs to survive.

Also, what does it matter how far they've progressed? They're human and therefore, have human nature. Strangely they act very differently than from capitalistic countries.

I mean, its all well and good that you say there will be no forcing, but it seems to me I at least have history on my side that in a communist regime forcing is all that gets done.

And there is still scarcity. Is it possible for all of us to live in 1 Million Dollar homes? No, there are not enough resources, yet, for us to do this. Strangely, when we all do live in 1 million dollar homes you will still be fighting for the "poor" because the rich have 1 billion dollar homes and you find this difference in income to somehow prove exploitation when there really is none.

Why does it matter how far they progressed? Well if your model of communism is one of a primitive society seems to me that any gains you make in equality of income are offset by a stagnation or deevolution. They act differently from capitalist countries because they seem unable to postpone present income for future, higher-order goods, thus they cannot progress.

[LeftSideDown]

I didn't avoid the question. I showed that there isn't one.

Without money, value isn't important to calculate.

Strangely enough, you can't sell something for less than you paid your laborers to produce it and however much the materials cost. If you don't know that, then your an idiot.

Now for the fun common sense part, the labor theory of value calculates the lowest price that an item can be sold for and have the capitalists break even. Marx goes on to say that at the market, the value goes up to increase profits. Also, profits are increased by the exploitation of labor (paying laborers less than their labor is actually worth).

Funny how the Austrians are the laughing stock of the economics world.

No you didn't, you "proved" that the hypothetical didn't describe reality. Well the point of a hypothetical is to illustrate a point simplifying things to a point where you can relate what you're telling even to a 4 year old.

Value is impossible to calculate. Tell me how much I value a sandwich right now. Everyone has different valuations, and dollars do a lot to simplify this, but have shortcomings. Money just represents all goods and services produced in a society. To say "value" isn't important to calculate means that that a communist society can/should just produce whatever (Anything and everything) because if value doesn't matter it doesn't matter what you produce because everybody will somehow be silly. If you think the problem of economic calculation isn't a problem, I assert that you are an idiot.

And you can sell things for less than you paid your workers, you'll just go out of business :cool:.

And does it matter what the labor theory of value calculates if its proven to be wrong? Bohm-Bawerk disproved it over a century ago and I find it hard to believe some people still think its plausible. I was trying to make this a learning experience, gradually leading up to showing how the subjective theory of value is true. You've never told me what determines the price of factors of production. You've never told me what determines the price of inputs. The labor theory of value gives no answer to these things. How can you calculate what labor is worth at something at, like, a retail job where they are not producing they are selling. What is the labor value of being a waitress? These are all impossible. The theory has so many flaws.

The Axe hypothetical was meant to illustrate that workers (the lumberjack) had to pay "rent" on the means of production (the axe) to the capitalist (the axe maker) because the axe-maker owns the axe, was able to predict the demand for his product, and is responsible for the lumberjack's increased production (he is now able to cut down trees, whereas before he could only pick up sticks... or something)

The rent for the means of production is the why labor doesn't get the "full-value" of their work. Without the means of the production that the capitalist took risk to acquire, often went into debt to afford, and risked their savings to acquire the workers productivity would be less and their wages would be lower, even if they got "full-value". Why should the capitalist invest in means of production, risk all his money, to get nothing in return? Capitalists take on risk for higher rewards, workers prefer lower paying, but guaranteed jobs. They do not have to wait for their product to sell before they are paid, capitalists do.

Funny how Austrians made Socialists the laughing stock of the world, and how Hayek received a Nobel Prize in economics... yeah, laughingstock.

[Invincible Summer]

I mean, its all well and good that you say there will be no forcing, but it seems to me I at least have history on my side that in a communist regime forcing is all that gets done.

Well, see, when there's an un-industrialized nation that is trying to build a better society whilst imperialist, capitalist powers are breathing down its neck, compulsory labour seems pretty attractive. Instead of taking hundreds of years to industrialize, why not just get everyone to work (thus having nearly full employment) in order to industrialize in less than 30 years?

So do you see how pushing for technological advancement and industrialization is important for socialism/communism? Then it is more likely that compulsory labour policies would not need to be exercised.


And there is still scarcity. Is it possible for all of us to live in 1 Million Dollar homes? No, there are not enough resources, yet, for us to do this. Strangely, when we all do live in 1 million dollar homes you will still be fighting for the "poor" because the rich have 1 billion dollar homes and you find this difference in income to somehow prove exploitation when there really is none.

Why aren't there enough resources for everyone to live in $1 mil homes? There are plenty of malls, skyscrapers, etc being built for capitalist business, as well as mega-mansions for the heads of these businesses. Clearly there are enough resources to actually build the homes, just not the population able to buy them.

Also, the prices you state are subjective and arbitrary. You should know that housing prices fluctuate with the market. Where I live, even a tiny 3-bedroom house with a small lot in a decent area is $1 million +. So just because someone lives in a house that has a lot appraised at $1 mil, doesn't mean they are not poor. Lots of people take out mortgages, hardly anyone actually owns their homes.

Again, you're using the term "exploitation" in a very strange way. What do you define as "exploitation?"


Why does it matter how far they progressed? Well if your model of communism is one of a primitive society seems to me that any gains you make in equality of income are offset by a stagnation or deevolution. They act differently from capitalist countries because they seem unable to postpone present income for future, higher-order goods, thus they cannot progress.
Overall, communism is not based on primitive society. You're taking what Christofer said about band societies out of context.




Blah blah blah....

The rent for the means of production is the why labor doesn't get the "full-value" of their work. Without the means of the production that the capitalist took risk to acquire, often went into debt to afford, and risked their savings to acquire the workers productivity would be less and their wages would be lower, even if they got "full-value". Why should the capitalist invest in means of production, risk all his money, to get nothing in return? Capitalists take on risk for higher rewards, workers prefer lower paying, but guaranteed jobs. They do not have to wait for their product to sell before they are paid, capitalists do.

Oh poor capitalists... they worked so hard and risked so much to "earn" the "right" to exploit workers. "Risk" is not an acceptable reason to excuse denying workers their full pay. People take all sorts of "risks" in their every day lives, but why are capitalists allowed to benefit from it? Millions of workers worldwide die or get injured on the job every year - clearly they take a risk going to work.

No matter what your capitalist apologist excuse is, the workers are the ones who generate the profit for the capitalist. Without them, the capitalist is nothing. So they should get their dues.

The thing is, a capitalist doesn't have to be a capitalist. A worker has to work to survive. It is a forced choice. The capitalist has to wait for a product to sell, but the worker has to wait for a paycheck to survive. Obviously, if the capitalist is able to "wait" in such a manner, they are financially stable enough to do so, and are able to survive without relying on selling the product alone.

And workers "prefer" lower paying jobs? Go say that to the face of a parent who's barely making enough to get by. Your arrogance is disgusting.



Funny how Austrians made Socialists the laughing stock of the world, and how Hayek received a Nobel Prize in economics... yeah, laughingstock.
In the real world, no one really gives a fuck about Austrian economics.

[LeftSideDown]

One in the same? Being on RevLeft, you should know that that argument goes nowhere, and should very well know what my argument is.

But I'll humour you.

If "trickle-down" economics worked, then why are there millions of people living in abject poverty? I'm not just talking about in the developing world, but in our own Western back alleys and shelters. When this is pointed out, the "oh well they don't work hard enough" argument is attempted. But many of these people work full-time, possibly even multiple jobs in order to try and make ends meet. But they still aren't able to have a decent life... and yet the CEOs and CFOs of mega corporations earn 7-figure salaries. Where is the money trickling down to? Employees aren't getting more benefits... in fact they are getting laid off.

Profit =/= betterment of society. Corporate executives have said it themselves... their goal is to make money. That's all they are responsible for.

Innovation comes from inspired individuals. If you've talk to any scientist, philosopher, inventor, professor, researcher, then it becomes apparent quite quickly that they aren't in it for the money. They just love the subject that they've pursued. They are doing research for research's sake.

And who said anything about delineating jobs to people in the way you're suggesting? Scientists are scientists by nature... these people are inclined to that thinking.

In terms of investing capital... you obviously don't know a thing about socialism and communism if you're asking these questions. In terms of the allocation of resources (e.g. lab space, use of equipment, etc) however, I'd think that it would go about in a similar way as it is today - a researcher would put forward a proposal, and a committee would consider it and decide whether or not it's worth allocating resources for.



This coming from someone who believes that an invisible force in a market makes things all fair and just for everybody.


You implicitly acknowledged that capitalists exploit employees when you said that wholly replacing the workforce with machines would be "mega exploitation."

What is your definition of "exploitation," anyway?

Well, I don't see it as an argument, more as a fact, but I'll pursue it no further, it really is a boring topic to discuss, unless you want to. I doubt we'll ever reach an agreement on it.

I don't know where you got that I was a trickle-down economist. Trickle down economics is a silly subsidizing of the rich at the cost of others. You don't subsidize production, just as I don't believe you should subsidize consumption.

And before the government became heavily involved in the economy, how many people per household had to work to obtain a fairly decent standard of living? One, normally the male. They could often also afford a vehicle for each child when they came of age. But the more government has gotten involved the lower the standard of living has become. Even when they involve themselves for production in order to "help" everybody, they are really taking money from one group moving it to another group. Also why I disagree with most taxes.

You can ONLY make profit by providing something that consumers demand. Thats the only way. If you are fulfilling a consumer demand than you are creating value and you should be able to personally profit from your foresight in investing in whatever good that fulfilled a demand. I do not think there is such a thing as a excessive profit.

As for innovation, maybe some say this, maybe others don't. You saying that "if you talk to them..." doesn't prove anything to me. Give me some statistics and then I'll reply. Assuming all of them are in it for merely the pleasure of their job, than they too are "profiting" (i.e. they value the time spent researching more than the cost of this research). So I guess you should make these guys clean toilets, because they can be said to have "excess profit" as profit isn't just money. I can say that I had "a profitable evening" without referring to money at all. I can have a "profitable" walk along the beach.

Even if everybody is inspired with some great invention, who decides what inventions receive funding and capital, both of these things are scarce. How do you measure whether or not society is benefiting?

And this committee, who decides who to make them up? Who says they know best? What are the consequences if their investment doesn't pay off? IN fact, how can you tell what an investment is paying at all? Profit and loss shows both these things, but communism will eliminate profit, or ways of measuring profit.

And using the word fair is just antagonistic. Who decides what is fair? Is it merit? Effort? What you think is Fair? It might not, according to your definition, be fair, but it treats everyone the same (or at least a true free-market without government distortions/subsidies) and by the same I mean it will follow supply/demand so that if you're a lowskilled laborer and you're in abundance you will be paid low. If you don't like your situation get a skill.

I put "mega exploitation" in quotes because its Marxist terminology that is not accurate. There is no exploitation in voluntary exchanges, there is exploitation in taxation and government. They voluntarily sell their time for a low price. Their time is not worth much either to themselves or their employer, otherwise they would take their work elsewhere.

exploited - developed or used to greatest advantage
exploited - of persons; taken advantage of;
from: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[Drace]

I don't know where you got that I was a trickle-down economist. Trickle down economics is a silly subsidizing of the rich at the cost of others. You don't subsidize production, just as I don't believe you should subsidize consumption.

And before the government became heavily involved in the economy, how many people per household had to work to obtain a fairly decent standard of living? One, normally the male. They could often also afford a vehicle for each child when they came of age. But the more government has gotten involved the lower the standard of living has become. Even when they involve themselves for production in order to "help" everybody, they are really taking money from one group moving it to another group. Also why I disagree with most taxes.What magical period of time are you referring to?

Before the government got involved in minimum wage laws, workers protection, benefits, etc, people were getting paid starvation wages.


You can ONLY make profit by providing something that consumers demand.Making weapons for the government is somewhat an exception.


If you are fulfilling a consumer demand than you are creating value and you should be able to personally profit from your foresight in investing in whatever good that fulfilled a demand. I do not think there is such a thing as a excessive profit.
Your not creating value. Your just investing wealth you shouldn't have in the first place to gain a proportion of the means of productions, in order to control the supply of commodities and thus be able to profit off what people need.


As for innovation, maybe some say this, maybe others don't. You saying that "if you talk to them..." doesn't prove anything to me. Give me some statistics and then I'll reply.I dunno, its rather a simple observation. Ancient philosophers like Plato did it for the profit? Noam Chomsky writes just to make money?
Albert Einstein, too?
Though it really doesn't matter. I don't have a problem with rewarding research, but innovation does not at all justify exploitation and private ownership.


Assuming all of them are in it for merely the pleasure of their job, than they too are "profiting" (i.e. they value the time spent researching more than the cost of this research). So I guess you should make these guys clean toilets, because they can be said to have "excess profit" as profit isn't just money. I can say that I had "a profitable evening" without referring to money at all. I can have a "profitable" walk along the beach.Ridiculous stretch of vocabulary. Might as well say a pencil is a pen because its like a stick and it writes things down.


Even if everybody is inspired with some great invention, who decides what inventions receive funding and capital, both of these things are scarce.The individual, and society?
Hasn't there been innovation and great breakthroughs for thousands of years without the market forces of capitalism?

Governments themselves have sparked innovation.


How do you measure whether or not society is benefiting?Well jeez I dunno, if we cure cancer I think its obvious...


And this committee, who decides who to make them up? Who says they know best? What are the consequences if their investment doesn't pay off? IN fact, how can you tell what an investment is paying at all? Profit and loss shows both these things, but communism will eliminate profit, or ways of measuring profit.All profit measure is whether you made more money as a result of various factors...selling more, charging more, less operational cost, less wages/benefits...
Wtf it has to do with finding out if something is beneficial or not?


And using the word fair is just antagonistic. Who decides what is fair? Is it merit? Effort? What you think is Fair? Just a play on vocabulary again. If I do 99% of the work and get $5 while you do 1% and get 50%, I think the lack of fairness is obvious.


I put "mega exploitation" in quotes because its Marxist terminology that is not accurate. There is no exploitation in voluntary exchanges, there is exploitation in taxation and government. They voluntarily sell their time for a low price. Their time is not worth much either to themselves or their employer, otherwise they would take their work elsewhere.Sure, given no alternative you "voluntarily" will chop off your balls or else face the consequences of a gun to your head.

Did serfs too voluntarily give their labor in exchange for land, housing, and some food? :)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The real work is thinking. Thinking is hard. That's why most of us hated homework when we were kids. If you took the coal shoveler and made him do math problems for 8 hours a day instead of shoveling coal, he'd beg you to let him shove goal again.

I don't see the point to this statement. If you hand many mathematicians a shovel they'd probably not know what to do.


There's a real freedom in not having to think for a living. Mike Judge's movie Office Space touched on this with Ron Livingston's character happy to be wielding a shovel for a living at the end.

By working he was performing a task which society needed done. And that doesn't mean he isn't thinking. Making phone calls from a cubicle to supervising 20 men at a construction site both have requirements.

Is a fisherman who leads his 60 foot boat through a hurricane with no lives lost less intelligent than a day trader sitting at home all day? And for the record, let's say the fishermans IQ is 45.


What many Marxists don't seem to understand is that capitalists do a lot of thinking, which is hard. They don't just magically end up owning the means of production. They think hard about which means of production to buy, how to get the funds to buy it, how to run it, etc. That's not only real work, it's the work that has the greatest economic impact.

Yes, but the system is entirely flawed as long as profit is the only gain from this system, and anything that lags on that gain is an abonimable sin.

Because of the profit seeking system you describe, we have aisles of treatments for erectile dysfunction while millions of people are denied the prescriptions needed to survive, just in this country alone. Whether that is by cost to the consumer, or because the pharmaceuticals find it a task which can't justify treating rare but serious diseases.

It's logic such as yours that amounts to dozens of coal plants being built on private money while the future, nuclear energy, is funded by whom? Oh yes, The Government.



A good example of this is the career of the Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal. He took over the Karmet Steel Works in Kazakhstan. Here I'll quote an article about him:

"The company had stopped paying its workforce because it was bleeding red inck and had no cash. The plant was on the verge of closure with its Soviet-era managers forced to barter steel for food for its workers. The Kazakh government was glad to had Mr. Mittal the keys to the plant for nothing. Not only did Mr. Mittal retain the entire workforce and run the plant, he paid all the outstanding wages and within five years had turned it into a thriving business that was gushing cash. The workers and townsfolk literally worship Mittal as the person who saved their town from collapse."


Bad management means...what are you saying with this?



Leftism has evolved since those days, and the modern left no longer idolizes the working class. The left now idolizes the non-working leisure class, and the left-right struggle has now come down to whether you support one of the two types of leisure classes. There is the intelligentsia/creative/artist class supported by the left, which includes college professors, activists, artists, writers, television people, and the like.

And there's the traditional capitalist class. Both of these classes have in common that they don't have to do disgusting things like shovel coal in order to earn a living. The modern leftist would now look down upon the coal worker for eating disgusting food like McDonalds and having vulgar tastes in entertainment like watching NASCAR. It serves him right for not going to college (unless, of course, the coal worker is black, in which case the white racist society prevented him from going to college).

Oh god what fucking caricature are you attacking right now?

Universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage to a living standard, making affordable housing, increasing employment via major government projects, making travel affordable with new technologies, moving off of an antiquated electrical grid, keeping jobs for thousands of teachers and improving our dilapidated schools, making college inexpensive, shifting the tax burden upwards, focusing on rehabilitation and treatement for drugs as opposed to only stiff punishment...

Yes, among these short term goals, all clearly only benefit a smidge of society, especially not the poor. :rolleyes:


And why a communist revolution will be IMPOSSIBLE in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is primarily because the classes have entirely different values. For instance, the reason why it sucks to be poor IN THE USA is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values.

What?



But, what would happen if poor people had the same civilized values as everyone else? Well, if that were the case, a major motivation for not being poor would be removed. People wouldn’t be motivated to work extra hard in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

This explains why Europe is different than the United States.

A poor person in Norway is living next to other Norwegians who are part of the same Norwegian culture and whose values aren’t that much worse than wealthier Norwegians. In contrast, living in a housing project in an American city or a poor, rural small town is a scary proposition for a person with civilized values.


You need some civilized values my friend.

Trust me, just because their poor, doesn't make tham any less human than you. Your shit still stinks.


In Europe, there is less of a penalty for being poor, therefore there is less motivation to work hard to move up a notch. This is why Europeans enjoy shorter working hours and get many more weeks of vacation AND TEND TO BE MORE LEFTIST IN THEIR VIEWS. They don’t have to work their asses off in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

You. Fail.

[¿Que?]

Somewhere in between are people like computer programmers. They are doing real work that produces value, so they are not part of the leisure class, but they are way better off than the people shoveling coal for a living.

This part immediately makes me think of Joe Stacks and the Pentagon guy.

There's something strange and frighteningly horrible happening with geeky math types in the US, which probably deserves some scrutiny. Sure, not much can be generalized from two incidents and a creepy post on revleft, but I have a hunch.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't know where you got that I was a trickle-down economist. Trickle down economics is a silly subsidizing of the rich at the cost of others. You don't subsidize production, just as I don't believe you should subsidize consumption.

Well generally, those who argue that profits do benefit society are into that trickle down stuff.


And before the government became heavily involved in the economy, how many people per household had to work to obtain a fairly decent standard of living? One, normally the male. They could often also afford a vehicle for each child when they came of age. But the more government has gotten involved the lower the standard of living has become. Even when they involve themselves for production in order to "help" everybody, they are really taking money from one group moving it to another group. Also why I disagree with most taxes.
Hmm... I thought people were dirt poor and could hardly even afford bread during the Depression, the era before Keynesian economics was really put to use. Oh that must've been my imagination.



You can ONLY make profit by providing something that consumers demand. Thats the only way. If you are fulfilling a consumer demand than you are creating value and you should be able to personally profit from your foresight in investing in whatever good that fulfilled a demand. I do not think there is such a thing as a excessive profit.

You did not address my assessment of "risk," nor the fact that workers are the ones producing the commodities which the capitalist profits from.


As for innovation, maybe some say this, maybe others don't. You saying that "if you talk to them..." doesn't prove anything to me. Give me some statistics and then I'll reply. Assuming all of them are in it for merely the pleasure of their job, than they too are "profiting" (i.e. they value the time spent researching more than the cost of this research). So I guess you should make these guys clean toilets, because they can be said to have "excess profit" as profit isn't just money. I can say that I had "a profitable evening" without referring to money at all. I can have a "profitable" walk along the beach.
What in the hell are you talking about? Stop trying to derail the debate with pointless semantics.


Even if everybody is inspired with some great invention, who decides what inventions receive funding and capital, both of these things are scarce. How do you measure whether or not society is benefiting?
There is no capital in socialism or communism. And in terms of deciding who gets resources, I already answered that.

How do you measure whether or not society is benefitting? Is this a serious question? It should be pretty obvious whether or not something is negatively affecting society.



And this committee, who decides who to make them up? Who says they know best? What are the consequences if their investment doesn't pay off? IN fact, how can you tell what an investment is paying at all? Profit and loss shows both these things, but communism will eliminate profit, or ways of measuring profit.
I'm assuming the committee will follow a similar formula to other committees within a socialist/communist society - they will be elected with strict term limits, and are recallable at any time if they are deemed to be unfit for the position.
Obviously people with the knowledge of a specific scientific field would be involved in the committee. They have the expertise, after all.
Consequences? People shouldn't be punished because their ambitious concept doesn't work out. Of course, if their idea is heavily resource-intensive, perhaps they will be given a certain amount of time before they can re-apply.
Again, it should be obvious when something is paying off or not. Either a new technology works or it doesn't. Stop thinking about abstract investments like stocks or something.


And using the word fair is just antagonistic. Who decides what is fair? Is it merit? Effort? What you think is Fair? It might not, according to your definition, be fair, but it treats everyone the same (or at least a true free-market without government distortions/subsidies) and by the same I mean it will follow supply/demand so that if you're a lowskilled laborer and you're in abundance you will be paid low. If you don't like your situation get a skill.

Blah blah blah. Pointless semantics again.



I put "mega exploitation" in quotes because its Marxist terminology that is not accurate. There is no exploitation in voluntary exchanges, there is exploitation in taxation and government. They voluntarily sell their time for a low price. Their time is not worth much either to themselves or their employer, otherwise they would take their work elsewhere.

exploited - developed or used to greatest advantage
exploited - of persons; taken advantage of;
from: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Bullshit. People take jobs with lower pay because they feel they won't be able to work anywhere else, or maybe because they can't work anywhere else, not because they know their time "isn't worth much." What a condescending, classist argument.
It's not like workers can just go anywhere and demand whatever wage they want. If I demand a higher wage w/ a certain employer, I might not get hired/might get fired. I might feel that my time is "worth $15/hr" but then if I don't get hired anywhere, then what?

[ChrisK]

They are getting paid because their investment is profitable, not because they are "exploiting".

And how is it profitable? Profit isn't an abstract thing, its a calculated thing. And expoliting the workers by not paying them the full calculatable value of their work, they are making money off of the work itself.

[ChrisK]

I mean, its all well and good that you say there will be no forcing, but it seems to me I at least have history on my side that in a communist regime forcing is all that gets done.

Not too up to date on communism are we? Communism is classless and statless. It has never existed.


And there is still scarcity. Is it possible for all of us to live in 1 Million Dollar homes? No, there are not enough resources, yet, for us to do this. Strangely, when we all do live in 1 million dollar homes you will still be fighting for the "poor" because the rich have 1 billion dollar homes and you find this difference in income to somehow prove exploitation when there really is none.

How can you have rich people if there's no money? And why are people living in one million dollar homes, sounds stupid to me.


Why does it matter how far they progressed? Well if your model of communism is one of a primitive society seems to me that any gains you make in equality of income are offset by a stagnation or deevolution. They act differently from capitalist countries because they seem unable to postpone present income for future, higher-order goods, thus they cannot progress.

I'm going to say this nice and clear for you. Ahem, THAT'S NOT MY MODEL FOR A COMMUNIST SOCIETY THAT WAS TO DISPROVE YOUR FALSE NOTION OF HUMAN NATURE. Hopefully you can read that.

Feudel societies couldn't postpone present income for future, higher-order goods and yet they progress into capitalism. You seem to think there cannot be progress without capitalism, yet the most impressive growth in technology ever, the Neolithic revolution, happened before the origin of class society.

[ChrisK]

No you didn't, you "proved" that the hypothetical didn't describe reality. Well the point of a hypothetical is to illustrate a point simplifying things to a point where you can relate what you're telling even to a 4 year old.

Did you read my response about how the value would be calcuated? No, because if you did you would have responded.


Value is impossible to calculate. Tell me how much I value a sandwich right now. Everyone has different valuations, and dollars do a lot to simplify this, but have shortcomings. Money just represents all goods and services produced in a society. To say "value" isn't important to calculate means that that a communist society can/should just produce whatever (Anything and everything) because if value doesn't matter it doesn't matter what you produce because everybody will somehow be silly. If you think the problem of economic calculation isn't a problem, I assert that you are an idiot.

Wrong definition of value. Your whole argument is based on a philosophical definition of value, not on a monetary definition of value, which is what the labor theory of value deals with. A very calculateable thing. Your inability to see such a difference only further supports my thesis that you have trouble with reading.


And you can sell things for less than you paid your workers, you'll just go out of business :cool:.

Thats called selling under the base value that was created through natural properties and labor. Hmmmmm.


And does it matter what the labor theory of value calculates if its proven to be wrong? Bohm-Bawerk disproved it over a century ago and I find it hard to believe some people still think its plausible. I was trying to make this a learning experience, gradually leading up to showing how the subjective theory of value is true. You've never told me what determines the price of factors of production. You've never told me what determines the price of inputs. The labor theory of value gives no answer to these things. How can you calculate what labor is worth at something at, like, a retail job where they are not producing they are selling. What is the labor value of being a waitress? These are all impossible. The theory has so many flaws.

It hasn't been disproven, fast food companies use it everyday to determine how much profit they'll make. Its a very easy calculation. Take total revenue and divide by how much you pay your workers per hour. Thats your labor percent (wages/revenue). All revenue is brought in by labor, so labor must cover wages and food cost (and a few odds and ends). Labor then determines how much you will sell your product for inorder to make a profit. Stangely that is all part of the labor theory of value.


The Axe hypothetical was meant to illustrate that workers (the lumberjack) had to pay "rent" on the means of production (the axe) to the capitalist (the axe maker) because the axe-maker owns the axe, was able to predict the demand for his product, and is responsible for the lumberjack's increased production (he is now able to cut down trees, whereas before he could only pick up sticks... or something)

The rent for the means of production is the why labor doesn't get the "full-value" of their work. Without the means of the production that the capitalist took risk to acquire, often went into debt to afford, and risked their savings to acquire the workers productivity would be less and their wages would be lower, even if they got "full-value". Why should the capitalist invest in means of production, risk all his money, to get nothing in return? Capitalists take on risk for higher rewards, workers prefer lower paying, but guaranteed jobs. They do not have to wait for their product to sell before they are paid, capitalists do.

Why should the workers even have to rent the means of production. Much simpler if they seize them and control them themselves. The flaw of capitalism is that it assumes that you need a capitalist to own the means of production.


Funny how Austrians made Socialists the laughing stock of the world, and how Hayek received a Nobel Prize in economics... yeah, laughingstock.

Funny how a nice majority of economists say Marx's analysis was right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/17/comment.theobserver1

[RGacky3]

You can ONLY make profit by providing something that consumers demand. Thats the only way. If you are fulfilling a consumer demand than you are creating value and you should be able to personally profit from your foresight in investing in whatever good that fulfilled a demand. I do not think there is such a thing as a excessive profit.

Your right, you onl make a profit by providing something that consumers demand, in other words you play the market, now given that conservatively 5% control 95% of the wealth, who controls the markets? Who do you need to ultimately please to succede in the Market? Not the poor, this is the reason that new iphones are being invented when people are still starving in the US and the world, because the market has nothing to do with peoples needs.

This is what supply and demand means, the poor supply the labor the earth supplys the resources and the rich demand. Also the Rich tend to be the Capitalists, so they demand in 2 ways.

So it does'nt really work does it.


And before the government became heavily involved in the economy, how many people per household had to work to obtain a fairly decent standard of living? One, normally the male. They could often also afford a vehicle for each child when they came of age. But the more government has gotten involved the lower the standard of living has become. Even when they involve themselves for production in order to "help" everybody, they are really taking money from one group moving it to another group. Also why I disagree with most taxes.


When was teh government NOT heavily involved in the economy???

Other than since the 1980s.


Even if everybody is inspired with some great invention, who decides what inventions receive funding and capital, both of these things are scarce. How do you measure whether or not society is benefiting?

A novel little idea called democracy, where EVERYONES benefit comes into consideration, not just the rich.


And using the word fair is just antagonistic. Who decides what is fair? Is it merit? Effort? What you think is Fair? It might not, according to your definition, be fair, but it treats everyone the same (or at least a true free-market without government distortions/subsidies) and by the same I mean it will follow supply/demand so that if you're a lowskilled laborer and you're in abundance you will be paid low. If you don't like your situation get a skill.

I put "mega exploitation" in quotes because its Marxist terminology that is not accurate. There is no exploitation in voluntary exchanges, there is exploitation in taxation and government. They voluntarily sell their time for a low price. Their time is not worth much either to themselves or their employer, otherwise they would take their work elsewhere.


The government which taxes is controlled democratically (at least somewhat), Corporations are 100% totalitarian institutions. The Corporations are the ones that control everything, their profit comes from other peoples work.

If you truely believe that bosses pay are what they actually earned, why not make pay a democratic desicion, in other words in a big company, all hte workers decide who gets what? Do you Honestly think that a CEOs compensation would be the same? Do you honestly think that a CEO deciding everyones pay is more fair than pay being democratically decided? And don't give me this free market bull, because what the free market really means, is the CEO decides.

[LeftSideDown]

Well generally, those who argue that profits do benefit society are into that trickle down stuff.

Hmm... I thought people were dirt poor and could hardly even afford bread during the Depression, the era before Keynesian economics was really put to use. Oh that must've been my imagination.

You did not address my assessment of "risk," nor the fact that workers are the ones producing the commodities which the capitalist profits from.

What in the hell are you talking about? Stop trying to derail the debate with pointless semantics.

There is no capital in socialism or communism. And in terms of deciding who gets resources, I already answered that.

How do you measure whether or not society is benefitting? Is this a serious question? It should be pretty obvious whether or not something is negatively affecting society.

I'm assuming the committee will follow a similar formula to other committees within a socialist/communist society - they will be elected with strict term limits, and are recallable at any time if they are deemed to be unfit for the position.
Obviously people with the knowledge of a specific scientific field would be involved in the committee. They have the expertise, after all.
Consequences? People shouldn't be punished because their ambitious concept doesn't work out. Of course, if their idea is heavily resource-intensive, perhaps they will be given a certain amount of time before they can re-apply.
Again, it should be obvious when something is paying off or not. Either a new technology works or it doesn't. Stop thinking about abstract investments like stocks or something.

Blah blah blah. Pointless semantics again.

Bullshit. People take jobs with lower pay because they feel they won't be able to work anywhere else, or maybe because they can't work anywhere else, not because they know their time "isn't worth much." What a condescending, classist argument.
It's not like workers can just go anywhere and demand whatever wage they want. If I demand a higher wage w/ a certain employer, I might not get hired/might get fired. I might feel that my time is "worth $15/hr" but then if I don't get hired anywhere, then what?

Funny thing about the Depression. There was a similar depression between 1920-1921 that saw an incredibly sharp decline in GDP and Warren G. Harding, the president at the time, despite Hoover's (his secretary of treasury, I believe) pleadings slashed taxes, payed back the deficit, encouraged savings and in about year it was gone. No government intervention.

Fast forward, great Depression. Stock-market crash that caught all Keynesians with their pants down while Hayek and Mises both had predicted the crash (some say Mises did as early as 1922) and this is the first time essentially Keynesian ideas are tried out. The depression lasted ALL 4 of FDR's terms and it took a World War where millions of people were sent over seas to eliminate the unemployment problem. Keynesianism works... yeah.

(Side note: The government, after WWI subsidized farmers because they wanted to keep the same profits they made during the Great War, so while people were starving in the streets during the great depression the government was hoarding grain/corn to keep the prices high... don't you just love government?)

Yes, the workers are producing the commodities, but they (the workers producing the commodities) are not the ones who produced the machines that allow them greater productivity. Other workers did, but who decided that it might be profitable to use this machinery? That maybe market demand could be met more efficiently if these means of production were invested in? Without these entrepreneurs/capitalists (those who decide what means of production should be invested in) there would be no industrialization at all... its too capital intensive. And I love how people talk of "excessive profit" but where is the condemnation of "excessive loss" surely one is just as bad as the other!

I'd hate to live in a society without capital, I'm sorry. Define: Capital - assets available for use in the production of further assets.

But its not obvious whether something is benefiting society. How much does society benefit from making 100 thousand extra gallons of grape juice vs 20 thousand extra gallons of oil? Remember, in socialism there is no money so there are no prices. You have to do this calculation... for everything. What is the benefit for 100 chairs vs 45 tables? Or against 4000 Nails? Please tell me how its noticeable whether society is better off in any of these situations.

Tut tut, there would be no scientists of a particular field, as you (or your friend said) there would be no scientists, or carpenters, or car manufacturers, everyone would do every job.

I'm not thinking about stocks at all, although it is an important investment. What about higher orders of production that take decades to come to fruition? For instance, in making a car you need to find the "mine" (for all the natural resources) prep the mine, take the resources from the mine, get them refined (keep in mind you need to build refining plants too), transport them to a metal-molder, make the resources into something useful, send those parts to another factory where they are assembled into a car that requires a thousand other parts that also need to be manufactured and tell me that process does not take a long time. So after all this, all these resources you have one car. How do you know if these resources couldn't have been put to better use? How do you know that the leather in the steering wheel shouldn't have been used for boots?

Why do people feel they won't be able to work anywhere else? Is it possible that they have no marketable skills? Is it possible that their work could be replicated by just about anybody so the supply of these low-skilled workers is extremely high, while demand can fluctuate? You're right, workers can't go around and demand wages, because if they don't get hired at 15 dollars an hour, even though they think they're worth it, doesn't it mean they should reevaluate how much their time is really worth? I might think my time is worth 1000 dollars an hour, but does that mean I'm entitled to a job that pays thusly? No, I have to have a marketable skill that allows my productivity to be higher to my cost so that an employer will have reason to hire me.

And some people's time is NOT worth that much. I'm sorry if you see it as classist, but take of the beer goggles, thats reality. A toddler's time is not worth minimum wage, a severely mentally handicapped person's time is not worth minimum wage. Saying its classist is like saying its sexist that women have different body parts. Its not sexist, its fact. And am I saying these people (toddlers/mentally handicapped people) should die? No, but I'm saying its wrong to steal from others to support them. Their family should support them or a private charity that makes its money through donation, not theft.

[LeftSideDown]

Your right, you onl make a profit by providing something that consumers demand, in other words you play the market, now given that conservatively 5% control 95% of the wealth, who controls the markets? Who do you need to ultimately please to succede in the Market? Not the poor, this is the reason that new iphones are being invented when people are still starving in the US and the world, because the market has nothing to do with peoples needs.

This is what supply and demand means, the poor supply the labor the earth supplys the resources and the rich demand. Also the Rich tend to be the Capitalists, so they demand in 2 ways.

So it does'nt really work does it.

Yes, people do focus demand towards the richest. Only the richest had cars originally, it was a novelty. Only the richest has home computers originally, it was a novelty. What happens once the rich got these items, and served as basically guinea pigs? Capitalists stopped trying to make these things affordable... I mean they already had the rich. OH WAIT! STOP! Hammer time. No capitalist is going to ignore 5% of the wealth and most of the time, after seeing if people want a product by testing it on the rich, they begin to formulate ways to make it cheaper and more affordable to more people so that they can expand where there competition is stuck trying to make more expensive cars that even most of the rich would condemn as being superfluous. How else do most people in America have cars/ home computers? Once the capitalists had gotten the rich, where was the need for further investment? Your theory doesn't work, does it?



When was teh government NOT heavily involved in the economy???

Other than since the 1980s.

Most of America's history, if you want an example, look up a guy named Andrew Jackson... he was kind of a champion of laissez-faire capitalism (although he was far from a good president)

And if you think the government has gotten out of involvement in the market since the 1980's you are sadly mistaken, my friend.


A novel little idea called democracy, where EVERYONES benefit comes into consideration, not just the rich.

Funny thing is, in capitalism, you don't NEED to consider everyones benefit to benefit them. However, in socialism every decision you have to think about it. You have to measure the subjective valuation of producing one item vs another for all items. Its impossible. And, if I may ask, what about the minorities vote? is it taken into consideration? Perhaps, but as an afterthought, the tyranny of the majority is a real thing, and I don't think any decision can be said to be right just because 51% of some population thinks it is.


The government which taxes is controlled democratically (at least somewhat), Corporations are 100% totalitarian institutions. The Corporations are the ones that control everything, their profit comes from other peoples work.

Controlled democratically every how many years. The terms vary from 2 years to lifetime in America, so at most you're taken into consideration every 2 years. And people vote with their money. If McDonalds starts putting rat poisoning in peoples food, immediately people will stop buying from them and that company will go under just as quickly unless they change their practices. And as to taxing "democratically", this is almost the entire reason for the civil war: duties and tariffs that harmed the South's agrarian economy to the benefit of the north's industry heavy economy. I hardly think its okay to say, "well only a few hundred thousand people died because some industry wanted a higher profit margin". Also, because you might believe otherwise unless I tell you, I do not support slavery (a synonym for which communism fits nicely).


If you truely believe that bosses pay are what they actually earned, why not make pay a democratic desicion, in other words in a big company, all hte workers decide who gets what? Do you Honestly think that a CEOs compensation would be the same? Do you honestly think that a CEO deciding everyones pay is more fair than pay being democratically decided? And don't give me this free market bull, because what the free market really means, is the CEO decides.

Why not put everybody's wages up for democratic decision. If a company makes 100 dollars and employs 10 people (1 boss, 1 overseer, 5 factory-hands, and 2 janitors, lets say) and they all vote for wages what are the 5 factory-hands going to do? Vote themselves the highest wage. If they can do this without restriction they'll vote themselves each 20 dollars and screw the rest. Short-term it pays off, long term the company begins to become dirty, the workers slack off because no one is watching, and it eventually goes under because of lack of central direction.

I do not think some CEO's salaries are worth as much as they are, especially if they steal their money through government programs, but if a company decides that their CEO's next lambourgini is more important than internal investment I say have fun driving that overpriced piece of s&&t car while your company goes down the drain (unless his services are really worth that much, in which case you should pay enough to keep him).

[AK]

However, in socialism every decision you have to think about it.
You're trying to tell me one of two things:


You don't think about your decisions as that's too much for your tiny peanut of a brain - or
Thinking is overrated - bad decisions are a must.


I do not support slavery (a synonym for which communism fits nicely).
I don't support slavery, either (a synonym for which capitalism fits nicely).


Why not put everybody's wages up for democratic decision. If a company makes 100 dollars and employs 10 people (1 boss, 1 overseer, 5 factory-hands, and 2 janitors, lets say) and they all vote for wages what are the 5 factory-hands going to do? Vote themselves the highest wage. If they can do this without restriction they'll vote themselves each 20 dollars and screw the rest. Short-term it pays off, long term the company begins to become dirty, the workers slack off because no one is watching, and it eventually goes under because of lack of central direction.
Workers will negotiate fair wages with each other - they won't disadvantage others and favour themselves - the janitors and the rest would protest against it.

[LeftSideDown]

You're trying to tell me one of two things:


You don't think about your decisions as that's too much for your tiny peanut of a brain - or
Thinking is overrated - bad decisions are a must.


No, I'm saying under capitalism all these decisions aren't being made by one central authority. Businesses make decisions with or without regard to what other businesses are doing, they don't need to make all-or-nothing decisions that affect everybody for EVERY little thing, they only have to decide how they manage their own country. Decentralization, essentially, I apologize if I was unclear.



Workers will negotiate fair wages with each other - they won't disadvantage others and favour themselves - the janitors and the rest would protest against it.

Who cares if they protest against it? The factory workers have the majority, and obviously the factory workers are producing all of the goods, they should get all they create. Isn't that what the labor theory of value says?