What are your thoughts on a family owned business?

[Bankotsu]

What are your thoughts on a family owned business where everybody involved in the business organisation is part of a family?

Can that be considered socialist?

[Dr Mindbender]

under capitalism, people must strive to do what they can for themselves and their loved ones with all available means so i don't think they can be blamed for that. Especially as noone wants to live under the mercy and subjection of a large company that dictates pay and working conditons.

The point is that under communism the need and motives (scarcity of goods and alienation of labour from means of production) to start such a venture would be gone so its a non issue really.

[Bud Struggle]

The point is that under communism the need and motives (scarcity of goods and alienation of labour from means of production) to start such a venture would be gone so its a non issue really.

Maybe. But people often do things they have no need to do or have no financial motivation for doing. You don't think there sould be any impedimet to family owned businesses under Communism, do you?

[Dr Mindbender]

Maybe. But people often do things they have no need to do or have no financial motivation for doing. You don't think there sould be any impedimet to family owned businesses under Communism, do you?
If families want to operate as a unit by offering a trade or service i dont see why they should be prevented from doing so any more than individuals as long as they arent taking advantage of others (which they wouldnt be able to in an abundancy society anway).

[mollymae]

If families want to operate as a unit by offering a trade or service i dont see why they should be prevented from doing so any more than individuals as long as they arent taking advantage of others

I agree with this. I don't see how a family-run business can be equated to communism. Besides, if they restricted themselves in terms of who they could hire, it's unlikely that they would gain enough power to become a large business anyway, unless they were Catholic or something. (No disrespect to Catholics.) :)

[Physicist]

What are your thoughts on a family owned business where everybody involved in the business organisation is part of a family?

Can that be considered socialist?

Small-scale family-owned businesses (colloquially referred to as mom-and-pop shops) are not socialist. At the same time they are not anymore antagonistic towards socialism than independent contract work. Wage slavery is a societal condition brought about by large enterprises that control the means of production. Rarely - if ever - are they family owned, although that does not mean they can't be family managed (Walmart).

[Comrade B]

If it is family owned-family run, it does not steal anyone's wage, thus they do no conflict with socialism.

[cb9's_unity]

The pettiest of the petty-bourgeoisie, like the family businesses you talk about, live almost entirely like proletarians. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up falling behind a proletarian program.

[which doctor]

The family is not the defining social unit of capitalism; rather, it is class.

Socialism at the level of the family could only ever exist if that family was isolated from society. By virtue of it being a family-run business that functions within a much larger social formation, to speak of 'socialism' at the level of family ties is pointless.

[Green Dragon]

If it is family owned-family run, it does not steal anyone's wage, thus they do no conflict with socialism.

What about other members of the family?

[Comrade B]

What about other members of the family?
I am betting that they share the profits from the business with the other family members. In capitalism, the great injustice in business is that when you make something, your boss will sell it for more than he payed you to make it, and then you don't see a penny out of that. It assumes that your boss put more labor into the object that you did, which is a load of shit.
In a family business, the members tend to hold shares in the business, thus when the business profits, the whole family does. If different family members are getting payed more for less work, then you can refer to cb9's revolution's post

[LeftSideDown]

under capitalism, people must strive to do what they can for themselves and their loved ones with all available means so i don't think they can be blamed for that. Especially as noone wants to live under the mercy and subjection of a large company that dictates pay and working conditons.


Because people would much rather work under a huge government that controls pay and working conditions... right?

[LeftSideDown]

I am betting that they share the profits from the business with the other family members. In capitalism, the great injustice in business is that when you make something, your boss will sell it for more than he payed you to make it, and then you don't see a penny out of that. It assumes that your boss put more labor into the object that you did, which is a load of shit.


No, that is plain false.

[LeftSideDown]

The pettiest of the petty-bourgeoisie, like the family businesses you talk about, live almost entirely like proletarians. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up falling behind a proletarian program.

Too bad they'd still be killed for being bourgeois!
"Put all those sons-of-b%#ches against the wall!"

[LeftSideDown]

If it is family owned-family run, it does not steal anyone's wage, thus they do no conflict with socialism.

I'm curious where the stealing is going on in any business.

[LeftSideDown]

under capitalism, people must strive to do what they can for themselves and their loved ones with all available means so i don't think they can be blamed for that. Especially as noone wants to live under the mercy and subjection of a large company that dictates pay and working conditons.

The point is that under communism the need and motives (scarcity of goods and alienation of labour from means of production) to start such a venture would be gone so its a non issue really.

Thats amazing! All past communist regimes have eliminated scarcity? Weird how all those people starved.

[Physicist]

Because people would much rather work under a huge government that controls pay and working conditions... right?

Burn straw man, burn.

[Dr Mindbender]

Because people would much rather work under a huge government that controls pay and working conditions... right?

at least with a government you can vote them out.

A private corporation has no such democratic pretences.

Dont give me that objectivist shit about ''if they dont like it they can find another job'' either. Try finding new work in this current economic climate.

[Dr Mindbender]

Thats amazing! All past communist regimes have eliminated scarcity? Weird how all those people starved.

what 'communist' regimes? Communism implies a condition of both statelessness and classlessness. Name me one country that has ever acheived either?

To answer your bullshit though, You cant operate an abundancy society nationally within a global scarcity system. That is why previous attempts at socialism fucked up, it has nothing to do with it being an inferior or unworkable system.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm curious where the stealing is going on in any business.

look up the labour theory of value you tool.

[Comrade B]

I'm curious where the stealing is going on in any business.
You seriously should actually read the manifesto before coming onto this website.

This is one of the most basic of Marx's principles. I am betting you are some Glenn Beck fan-ass hole who thinks that because Beck shouted about 'communists' (really social democrats and centrist liberals) for a little, you know something about Marxism.

[Bud Struggle]

This is one of the most basic of Marx's principles. I am betting you are some Glenn Beck fan-ass hole who thinks that because Beck shouted about 'communists' (really social democrats and centrist liberals) for a little, you know something about Marxism.

In the real world no one knows anything about Marxism.

It's Marxism's chief charm.

[Comrade B]

In the real world no one knows anything about Marxism.

It's Marxism's chief charm.
What the fuck are you talking about?

[LeftSideDown]

at least with a government you can vote them out.

A private corporation has no such democratic pretences.

Dont give me that objectivist shit about ''if they dont like it they can find another job'' either. Try finding new work in this current economic climate.

Oh yes, with government you can vote them out, what, every 2 years? 4 years? 6 years in some cases? FOR LIFE, in others?

No, with businesses, if they do not supply goods that meet consumer demand they go out of business unless they change their policy. No amount of exploitation makes pet rocks any more appealing to me. I don't care if they're 1 cent because workers are "exploited" I still don't want them, so my dollar/money/"vote" goes to another business that provides me with corn... or something.

Funny that you mention the current economic climate when its caused by government. I love how grand an effect they can have on a global market when they try to run things themselves.

[LeftSideDown]

what 'communist' regimes? Communism implies a condition of both statelessness and classlessness. Name me one country that has ever acheived either?

To answer your bullshit though, You cant operate an abundancy society nationally within a global scarcity system. That is why previous attempts at socialism fucked up, it has nothing to do with it being an inferior or unworkable system.

Yes, because those things are just going to happen. Once every body is fat dumb and happy the government goes "alright, see you guys later". Its funny that in Marx's writing he avoids using the state to describe his utopia and instead uses "society" in a subtle attempt to fool readers into thinking there will be a day when the state doesn't exist.

You can't operate an abundancy society at all if there exists scarcity... well unless you want to kill a bunch of people and make it everything relatively abundant (I say relatively as there is a LIMITED amount of stuff in the universe, law of conservation of mass and what have you, so there is an ULTIMATE scarcity).

Oh, and I thought socialism failed because of the economic calculation problem! All those bricks hanging out in town X while town Y is trying to build housing is all part of the greatness of communism!

Please tell me: how long does the dictatorship of the proletariat last?

[LeftSideDown]

look up the labour theory of value you tool.

Look up the subjective-theory of value, you tool.

[LeftSideDown]

You seriously should actually read the manifesto before coming onto this website.

This is one of the most basic of Marx's principles. I am betting you are some Glenn Beck fan-ass hole who thinks that because Beck shouted about 'communists' (really social democrats and centrist liberals) for a little, you know something about Marxism.

You should seriously read "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" by Boehm-Bawerk.

Glenn Beck is an idiot, and I take that as an ad hominem.

There is no stealing in a voluntary exchange. Otherwise it would be involuntary.

[Comrade B]

There is no stealing in a voluntary exchange. Otherwise it would be involuntary.
So if your options are, be homeless, or work for a company who treats you like shit, you think that is a voluntary choice? How about prostitutes? How about addicts who give all their money to an addiction?



Glenn Beck is an idiot, and I take that as an ad hominem.
It was an ad hominem.

[LeftSideDown]

So if your options are, be homeless, or work for a company who treats you like shit, you think that is a voluntary choice? How about prostitutes? How about addicts who give all their money to an addiction?

Then obviously your current standard of living than you value free time. Its not the employers fault that someone has skills that are a) either widely held, b) not valuable.


It was an ad hominem.

I'm glad we're agreed.

[Comrade B]

The purpose of mechanization of the work force is to devalue labor. This makes workers easily replaceable and cheaper.


Then obviously your current standard of living than you value free time.
I am guessing you wanted to say "it is obvious you value your current standard of living more than you value free time"
When a person is living solely to survive, they don't have free time. They are constantly trying to keep themselves alive, thus have very little time where they can do what they want. Regardless, when the fuck does a homeless person ever say to themselves "Well, I have no home, it is hard to get food, and I have very little to keep me entertained, at least I have free time!"

[LeftSideDown]

The purpose of mechanization of the work force is to devalue labor. This makes workers easily replaceable and cheaper.

I am guessing you wanted to say "it is obvious you value your current standard of living more than you value free time"
When a person is living solely to survive, they don't have free time. They are constantly trying to keep themselves alive, thus have very little time where they can do what they want. Regardless, when the fuck does a homeless person ever say to themselves "Well, I have no home, it is hard to get food, and I have very little to keep me entertained, at least I have free time!"

Really? Are you sure its not to be competitive in the market and create goods more cheaply than others. This mechanization means that less labor, or less intensive labor need be dedicated to the goods that the mechanization occurred. So now labor that was previously tied up being unproductive (in 1850 it took 80 labor hours to produce 100 bushels of corn, in 1930 it took 20 labor hours for the same amount) this reduced the value of farmers, because it was no longer necessary they could now pursue different careers in new fields that there was more demand for, or a lower supply of their type of labor. By saying that mechanization is bad is to claim progress is bad, something I firmly disagree with.

I was saying if they didn't work, they could have free time for however long they can live. If they think its worth more to work than it is to have time to do what they like (in the case of unemployment, people have all the free time they could possibly want), than they are making a voluntary exchange. And can you honestly say you know what every homeless person is thinking? I know at least one case (I searched for the story, but couldn't find it) where a man left the city and went into the wild and just foraged for a living. He obviously valued his time more than he valued any standard of living a job could offer. So he was "homeless" and I think he went into town every now and then to trade for clothes but that was the limit of his involvement in town.

[#FF0000]

Thats amazing! All past communist regimes have eliminated scarcity? Weird how all those people starved.

Famine in the 20th century isn't really, you know, uncommon.

[MortyMingledon]

Thats amazing! All past communist regimes have eliminated scarcity? Weird how all those people starved.
Stalin's system of state capitalism which caused the Ukrainian famine can hardly be called Communism, even if he attempted to call it that himself.

By saying that mechanization is bad is to claim progress is bad, something I firmly disagree with.
Mechanization of the labour force can mean less hard work for a proportion of the population, but under capitalism mechanization just results in further exploitation. Mechanization would thus be a positive when applied in a socialist society, as it would result in more freedom for the population to do other things, but in a capitalist society it devalues the workforce causing further oppression. I don't think anyone was arguing against mechanization in general, just against mechanization under capitalism... which isn't all that surprising considering this forum is all about arguing against anything under capitalism.

[Physicist]

Look up the subjective-theory of value, you tool.
Marginalism is an adaptation of Marxian value systems that just tries to disassociate itself from the labor component. The LTV of marginalist value theory are two sides of the same coin, as Kevin Carson has indicated in his own writings.

[LeftSideDown]

Marginalism is an adaptation of Marxian value systems that just tries to disassociate itself from the labor component.

But value has nothing to do with labor... so why should it be connected to labor?

[Physicist]

But value has nothing to do with labor... so why should it be connected to labor?

How can you argue that value is removed from labor when Jevons and Menger both agreed that it was a prime component? From the perspective of a marginalist, the scarcity or presence of labor directly impacts its value. Outside of personal tastes and labor inputs, the only additional component to value is resource availibility. Yet regardless if you hate carrots or not, value judgements will always be offset by how many farmers contribute to the production of said produce. Furthermore, Marx's value systems are based more on societal implications than an individual's particular standing in terms of taste. In other words he's interested in trading value. Carrots may not be your favorite meal, but even if everyone's tastes remained the same and no new resources became available, a change in labor input (either in the form of more productivity or lower wages) depreciates costs and will mean that carrots become more valuable to rational market participants for exchanging purposes with those who do love/like carrots.

[LeftSideDown]

Stalin's system of state capitalism which caused the Ukrainian famine can hardly be called Communism, even if he attempted to call it that himself.

Mechanization of the labour force can mean less hard work for a proportion of the population, but under capitalism mechanization just results in further exploitation. Mechanization would thus be a positive when applied in a socialist society, as it would result in more freedom for the population to do other things, but in a capitalist society it devalues the workforce causing further oppression. I don't think anyone was arguing against mechanization in general, just against mechanization under capitalism... which isn't all that surprising considering this forum is all about arguing against anything under capitalism.

IT seems to me, then, that all revolutions that try to bring about communism only fail and increase the misery of the country in which they originate.

The problem with socialism is that not only is there no incentive for further mechanizing production, there is actually disincentive (normally increasing mechanization is associated with intensive/expensive capital and would be costly) because of the price. Add this to the fact that that is impossible to make economic calculation in a socialist society and increased mechanization could lead to overall losses rather than overall gains.

Let me illustrate. Lets take an industry, we'll call it the chair making industry. An entrepreneur in the socialist society thinks up an idea for mechanizing chair making completely and making them more sturdy. His idea is to have a mold that you fill with molten steel and all you do is fill the mold let it cool and you have a chair, rather than have someone carve wood and attach it to woven fibers strung between more carved wood that is very labor intensive. Obviously this entrepreneur's method mechanizes the process and reduces the labor required but would it result in a net gain in society? Without profit/losses there would be no way to discover this, but if mechanization is always good in socialism they will start doing this method. However, the cost of the metal and the new mechanizations required and their maintenance ends up costing more to society, even though its less labor intensive. You would not see these effects for many years under socialism, whereas in capitalism this mechanization would fail rather quickly as losses outweigh profits. This is an example I thought of, and the innovation seems rather silly, but it could be conceived and implemented.

[LeftSideDown]

How can you argue that value is removed from labor when Jevons and Menger both agreed that it was a prime component? From the perspective of a marginalist, the scarcity or presence of labor directly impacts its value. Outside of personal tastes and labor inputs, the only additional component to value is resource availibility. Furthermore, Marx's value systems are based more on societal implications than an individual's particular standing in terms of taste. In other words he's interested in trading value.

Because, if I'm thirsty in a desert and someone asks me how much I think water is worth I'll say hundreds of dollars, which has nothing to do with the labor component. If I've just had a gallon of water I"ll say water is worth a few cents. Labor or cost of labor does not factor into my personal, subjective, valuations. Now in terms of market prices of course labor has an effect, as market prices are the aggregate of all individual consumer valuations. In individual subjective valuation, the situation determines the valuation, not any of the components you listed.

[Physicist]

Because, if I'm thirsty in a desert and someone asks me how much I think water is worth I'll say hundreds of dollars, which has nothing to do with the labor component.


I think you have the wrong impression of the LTV; Marx never argued that labor is the only element to value judgements, but that the significance of labor is resides in its basis as a human relationship. While you indicate scarcity in resources can drastically alter an item's value, 1.) this is meaningless in debating Marx's theory and furthermore 2.) scarcity of resources is somewhat tied into the idea of a labor value. You value water more because it's harder for you or anyone else to acquire it in such a scenario.

But in all honesty I'm not too interested in debating semantics as I don't think the LTV either justifies or disproves one side's opinion.

[Comrade B]

Really? Are you sure its not to be competitive in the market and create goods more cheaply than others.
The purpose is to make production cheaper, thus allowing the capitalist to sell the product at a lower price (being that labor is cheaper). This causes a great deal of trouble for the workers.


This mechanization means that less labor, or less intensive labor need be dedicated to the goods that the mechanization occurred. So now labor that was previously tied up being unproductive (in 1850 it took 80 labor hours to produce 100 bushels of corn, in 1930 it took 20 labor hours for the same amount)
My argument is not that it is unproductive, it is that it harms people. Also, as I predict you will argue that this has given us more food, I was raised in a rural community, and I can tell you this - farmers burn excess harvest to keep the prices up.


this reduced the value of farmers, because it was no longer necessary they could now pursue different careers in new fields that there was more demand for, or a lower supply of their type of labor. By saying that mechanization is bad is to claim progress is bad, something I firmly disagree with.
Mechanization and modernization does not have to be bad. If production is in the hands of the laborers, then they benefit from their labor. Why are you on this website exactly? You are giving an argument for the bourgeois. You should kinda be able to predict our responses.


I was saying if they didn't work, they could have free time for however long they can live. If they think its worth more to work than it is to have time to do what they like (in the case of unemployment, people have all the free time they could possibly want), than they are making a voluntary exchange.
If the state provided housing and food and didn't require people to work, then they could live like that, but you seem to be failing to understand that PEOPLE NEED MONEY TO SURVIVE. You NEED IT.


And can you honestly say you know what every homeless person is thinking? I know at least one case (I searched for the story, but couldn't find it) where a man left the city and went into the wild and just foraged for a living.
And that is clearly not the situation I am talking about. I am talking about the people living in the tent cities right now. the guy you have described has abandoned capitalism because he believes he would be happier living outside of capitalism than inside it. Not a very good argument honestly.

I am sure that if you offered a homeless person a steady job with decent wages, and one that they were able to get to, they would take the job.

[LeftSideDown]

The purpose is to make production cheaper, thus allowing the capitalist to sell the product at a lower price (being that labor is cheaper). This causes a great deal of trouble for the workers.

Yes, to make production cheaper so that that company can compete more efficiently on the market and earn a higher marketshare. You seem to think that wages, which would drop given a stable money supply, but increased production, are the only thing that determines standard of living. You completely disregard the fact that both you and I would work for 1 cent an hour if this 1 cent was worth one million dollars. It is what the dollar is worth, not the dollar amount that matters. Dollar value would increase as productivity increased, given a stable money supply.


My argument is not that it is unproductive, it is that it harms people. Also, as I predict you will argue that this has given us more food, I was raised in a rural community, and I can tell you this - farmers burn excess harvest to keep the prices up.

I can also tell you that the government, as a fact, subsidizes this behavior. After WWI the farmers who were made rich by the fact that none of the countries warring in Europe could farm to the extent that they needed, now had all these crops that were going to quickly devalue has european countries started farming again. So they petitioned the government and the government began hoarding the grain so that prices could stay high for farmers, whereas in a free-market the most-inefficient farms that were made profitable by the war would go out of business and the farmers still left would not have to burn crops to maintain their profit level. The crop burning only works if there is no competitor who is selling all his stock at a lower price to achieve a higher market share.


Mechanization and modernization does not have to be bad. If production is in the hands of the laborers, then they benefit from their labor. Why are you on this website exactly? You are giving an argument for the bourgeois. You should kinda be able to predict our responses.

The problem is, if the production is in the hands of the laborers, how would they benefit from mechanization? If half of them would lose their jobs do you really think workers would vote for mechanization? No, they all want to keep their jobs, even if they're not as productive as they could be. I'm on this message board to test the mettle of my ideas, and only a few times have the replies made me think too deeply about my responses.


If the state provided housing and food and didn't require people to work, then they could live like that, but you seem to be failing to understand that PEOPLE NEED MONEY TO SURVIVE. You NEED IT.

But if the state provided these things, what are the incentives? And yes people need money, or at least goods, to survive but you don't "need" to survive. Its a choice for everyone, whether to live or die. While this is weak argument, because most people favor living over not living, it still opens up people to have choice.


And that is clearly not the situation I am talking about. I am talking about the people living in the tent cities right now. the guy you have described has abandoned capitalism because he believes he would be happier living outside of capitalism than inside it. Not a very good argument honestly.

Okay? People are only living in these tent-cities because of government interference in the freemarket which caused mal-investments that eventually needed to be liquidated, leading to unemployment. While I have sympathy for these people whose only mistake was being hired by these companies, I think you are pointing the wrong finger has to the causes of this phenomena.


I am sure that if you offered a homeless person a steady job with decent wages, and one that they were able to get to, they would take the job.

But who determines what decent wages are? Would you not say that any wage above what they make begging is decent? If so then you must see that the minimum wage is a bad thing since some of these homeless people's skills do not remunerate at minimum wage, thus they aren't hired. In a free-market, there would always be jobs for low skilled labor, just like there is always a demand for any scarce resources. These low skilled labor jobs would mostly be for young people needing job experience or homeless people who need to get back on their feet. The money provided by these jobs would allow you to get a higher paying skill that you could then use to bid your wage up.

[Dr Mindbender]

There is no stealing in a voluntary exchange. Otherwise it would be involuntary.

'Voluntary' implies some element of choice.

In which case there is nothing voluntary about wage slavery. A worker has choice in wether to attend his soul destroying menial job in as much as he has choice of wether or not he eats.

Co-ercive exchanges (i believe is the term you are looking for) may as well be considered stealing.

[Bud Struggle]

'Voluntary' implies some element of choice.

In which case there is nothing voluntary about wage slavery. A worker has choice in wether to attend his soul destroying menial job in as much as he has choice of wether or not he eats.

Co-ercive exchanges (i believe is the term you are looking for) may as well be considered stealing.

True to an extent, but in the western world at least one also has to choice to better him/herself and make more (sometimes lots more) money or go out on an be successful without being anyone's slave.

As longe as one has a choice and the opportunity it can hardly be called slavery.

[LeftSideDown]

'Voluntary' implies some element of choice.

In which case there is nothing voluntary about wage slavery. A worker has choice in wether to attend his soul destroying menial job in as much as he has choice of wether or not he eats.

Co-ercive exchanges (i believe is the term you are looking for) may as well be considered stealing.

There is an element of choice. There are several choices lain before someone who doesn't not want to be a "wage-slave" (I use your term, I don't believe in it). He could go on the streets and try to make a living begging. He could be a street mime, or a dance performer, or anything he likes. The risk is high, but if he hates the menial job so much than the option becomes a probable one. He could resort to crime if he hates the system so much that he believes hes entitled to what other people earns. He could not eat (in which case he'd be suicidal, and whose to say we should force him to work?). He could try to go to a bank and convince them to give him a loan to pursue a higher education/an apprenticeship/a higher skilled job/his own business.

Are these enough choices? Everyone, EVERYONE, lives under conditions of scarcity and has to either a) work b) have been worked for c) benefit society by innovating.

[MortyMingledon]

There is an element of choice. There are several choices lain before someone who doesn't not want to be a "wage-slave" (I use your term, I don't believe in it). He could go on the streets and try to make a living begging. He could be a street mime, or a dance performer, or anything he likes. The risk is high, but if he hates the menial job so much than the option becomes a probable one. He could resort to crime if he hates the system so much that he believes hes entitled to what other people earns. He could not eat (in which case he'd be suicidal, and whose to say we should force him to work?). He could try to go to a bank and convince them to give him a loan to pursue a higher education/an apprenticeship/a higher skilled job/his own business.

Are these enough choices? Everyone, EVERYONE, lives under conditions of scarcity and has to either a) work b) have been worked for c) benefit society by innovating.

The so-called "choices" you are presenting can hardly really be called choices at all. People are compelled into taking decisions due to their material environment. A man cannot simply "choose" to become a beggar and then whizz-bang suddenly he has a sustainable income.

What if it isn't his choice not to eat, but the fact that he has been forced into an un-profitable job forces him not to? It cannot be argued that he has "chosen" not to eat. The "choices" you name are really acts of extreme desperation that we should not wish anyone to suffer through.

[Jazzratt]

There is an element of choice. There are several choices lain before someone who doesn't not want to be a "wage-slave" (I use your term, I don't believe in it). He could go on the streets and try to make a living begging. He could be a street mime, or a dance performer, or anything he likes. The risk is high, but if he hates the menial job so much than the option becomes a probable one. He could resort to crime if he hates the system so much that he believes hes entitled to what other people earns. He could not eat (in which case he'd be suicidal, and whose to say we should force him to work?). He could try to go to a bank and convince them to give him a loan to pursue a higher education/an apprenticeship/a higher skilled job/his own business.

Are these enough choices? Everyone, EVERYONE, lives under conditions of scarcity and has to either a) work b) have been worked for c) benefit society by innovating.

A choice isn't automatically a good thing. If all the choices in front of you amount to a heaping pile of shite then it's much the same as not having one.

[LeftSideDown]

The so-called "choices" you are presenting can hardly really be called choices at all. People are compelled into taking decisions due to their material environment. A man cannot simply "choose" to become a beggar and then whizz-bang suddenly he has a sustainable income.

What if it isn't his choice not to eat, but the fact that he has been forced into an un-profitable job forces him not to? It cannot be argued that he has "chosen" not to eat. The "choices" you name are really acts of extreme desperation that we should not wish anyone to suffer through.

How are they not choices?
Choices- Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action.

If you decide that you're being exploited in the marketplace you could choose to refrain from this and try to make it by yourself. If however you recognize that your productivity (and your income) is increased by selling your labor to the highest bidder than you will take the choice of action that satisfies you most.

He lives under conditions of scarcity just like everyone else. Do I feel bad for him? Sure, yes. Do I think I'm personally responsible for his situation? No, not in the least. If you do feel personal responsibility to people who are starving you certainly aren't doing much to fulfill this "obligation". I'll help you out. Start by selling your house/stop paying for your apartment. Turn off the heat and air conditioning, sell all extra clothes, sell your computer, sell your TV, sell all your furniture (I GUESS you can keep a mattress) and continue working while only making enough to sustain yourself and donate the rest to poorer people. If you aren't doing this, you're hypocritical.

[LeftSideDown]

A choice isn't automatically a good thing. If all the choices in front of you amount to a heaping pile of shite then it's much the same as not having one.

You're living under the same conditions of scarcity as everyone else.

Economics is the study of human actions under conditions of scarcity.

[Physicist]

He lives under conditions of scarcity just like everyone else. Do I feel bad for him? Sure, yes. Do I think I'm personally responsible for his situation? No, not in the least. If you do feel personal responsibility to people who are starving you certainly aren't doing much to fulfill this "obligation". I'll help you out. Start by selling your house/stop paying for your apartment. Turn off the heat and air conditioning, sell all extra clothes, sell your computer, sell your TV, sell all your furniture (I GUESS you can keep a mattress) and continue working while only making enough to sustain yourself and donate the rest to poorer people. If you aren't doing this, you're hypocritical.Not at all. Socialists are (or should be) critical of structural consequences, not individuals caught up in the game on either side. Selling off one's relative luxuries may help a family or two survive for the winter, but it does nothing to correct poverty and all the other systematic symptoms of a class society. Reapplying the same bandage to a gaping wound that requires surgery is just wasting one's time.

You've also misinterpreted socialists to be altruists.

[RGacky3]

You're living under the same conditions of scarcity as everyone else.

Economics is the study of human actions under conditions of scarcity.

What??? That did'nt answer his questions, his point was, some people have a choice between a green pile of shite and a brown one, whereas others have a choice between first class and buisiness class.


If you decide that you're being exploited in the marketplace you could choose to refrain from this and try to make it by yourself. If however you recognize that your productivity (and your income) is increased by selling your labor to the highest bidder than you will take the choice of action that satisfies you most.

He lives under conditions of scarcity just like everyone else. Do I feel bad for him? Sure, yes. Do I think I'm personally responsible for his situation? No, not in the least. If you do feel personal responsibility to people who are starving you certainly aren't doing much to fulfill this "obligation". I'll help you out. Start by selling your house/stop paying for your apartment. Turn off the heat and air conditioning, sell all extra clothes, sell your computer, sell your TV, sell all your furniture (I GUESS you can keep a mattress) and continue working while only making enough to sustain yourself and donate the rest to poorer people. If you aren't doing this, you're hypocritical.

ORRRR, you can just not accept your situation that Capitalism has forced on you, and do something about it, change the situation, take from the rich, strike, occupy, and so on and so forth, why are the only options you see available within the system?

I'm not asking the Capitalist class to feel responsible for the working calsses poverty, I could care less what they feel, I'm saying the working class should simply rebel, not accept the capitalists system, and make the system in their favor.

[LeftSideDown]

What??? That did'nt answer his questions, his point was, some people have a choice between a green pile of shite and a brown one, whereas others have a choice between first class and buisiness class.

My point is that even billionaires have conditions of scarcity, but they are different than say you or me.


ORRRR, you can just not accept your situation that Capitalism has forced on you, and do something about it, change the situation, take from the rich, strike, occupy, and so on and so forth, why are the only options you see available within the system?

I'm not asking the Capitalist class to feel responsible for the working calsses poverty, I could care less what they feel, I'm saying the working class should simply rebel, not accept the capitalists system, and make the system in their favor.

I wouldn't want to change the system, besides removing government interference completely. The advent of capitalism and freetrade is responsible for the largest increase in the standard of living in industrialized nations that the world has ever seen, and had it not been interrupted by the rise in government power I think we all would've been significantly better off by now than we are.

You're saying the working class should rebel and destroy the only chance they have of a better life.

If you take the Forbes 400 and redistribute all their wealth equally across the world, everyone makes 187 dollars.

Yippee.

[Bud Struggle]

If you take the Forbes 400 and redistribute all their wealth equally across the world, everyone makes 187 dollars.

Yippee.

For some reason Communists have some sort of tabloid fixation on billionaires. I'm sure most Communist meetings give the latest run down on Brad and whats-her-name Jole.

[RGacky3]

For some reason Communists have some sort of tabloid fixation on billionaires. I'm sure most Communist meetings give the latest run down on Brad and whats-her-name Jole.

Yeah, and for some reason anti-racists have this fixation on discrimination, its wierd.


If you take the Forbes 400 and redistribute all their wealth equally across the world, everyone makes 187 dollars.

Yippee.

You can't put an actual dollar value on it, because value in a capitalist society is based on the market, which is a distortion of actual social value.


I wouldn't want to change the system, besides removing government interference completely. The advent of capitalism and freetrade is responsible for the largest increase in the standard of living in industrialized nations that the world has ever seen, and had it not been interrupted by the rise in government power I think we all would've been significantly better off by now than we are.

You're saying the working class should rebel and destroy the only chance they have of a better life.


Thats rediculous, there is no evidence that the rise inliving standards (for a privileged few) had to do with free trade whatsoever, infact the rise in living standards in Europe, has had much to do with social-democracy. So, your just making things up. I might as well say that the rise in living standards is the result of the rise of english being an international language, or the popularity of jeans, or whatever.


My point is that even billionaires have conditions of scarcity, but they are different than say you or me.
¨

Ok, depends how you define scarcity, but anyway, whats your point on that?

[TiberiusGracchus]

What are your thoughts on a family owned business where everybody involved in the business organisation is part of a family?

Can that be considered socialist?


It's not socialist, but it's not capitalist either.

Besides the major classes under capitalism - bourgeoisie and proletariat - there's also some minor classes. One of these is called the "petit bourgeoise", which is quite missleading because they are no small capitalists. They are not capitalists at all. They are not a part of the capitalist mode of production. They have a mode of production of their own, Marx called it simple commodity production.

A true petit bourgeoise does own means of production, but he mainly uses them himself. If he has employees they are most often family members or other hidden companions (much of what officially is companies is in fact camouflaged workers cooperatives). He does not live by exploiting other peoples labor as the capitalist does.

The petit bourgeoisie act on a market, where he sells commodities (material products and services) which he has produced: The market economy is the exchange form of the simple commodity production just as monopoly and oligopoly is the exchange form of capitalist commodity production. The average family farmer is petit bourgeoisie; the large part of the peasant class became petit bourgeoisie when it's members turned to market production. A lot of small business makes up the economic base of the petit bourgeoisie.

The petit bourgeoisies role in history has often been highly revolutionary. It started and carried on the big french revolution. But it has also had it's bad times; squeezed between bourgeoisie and proletariat it let itself be used for evil causes - the petit bourgeoisie played an important role in the fascist reaction. Under capitalism the petit bourgeoisie has been on the decline, it's numbers has decreased quite a lot since the days of Marx & Engels. However the technological development of late capitalism has meant new possibilities for parts of the petit bourgeoisie: in high-tech society theres a lot of tasks that don't do well within the frames of bureaucratic big business. But every petit bourgeoisie does not realize that he does not live in a petit bourgeoisie society, or even in a market economy. The capitalists refer the petit bourgeoisie to a subordinated role; they control legislation and financing and distrubution and politics to the advantage of themselves and to the disadvantage of the petit bourgeoisie.

Big business, right-wing parties and think-tanks have also been good at inciting the petit bourgeoisie against the democratic and progressive forces and many petit bourgeoisie has followed at this but they really don't share interests with the capitalists. And even more importantly, their interests does not in any major way stand against the interests of the working class. I myself am sure that the petit bourgeoisie will survive the big bourgeoisie, they will continue to strive under early communism.


The left has long been very sceptical or even hostile towards the petit bourgeoisie, much because of the role they played in fascism. And it is true that they are quite unreliable but I hold that this class is inheritly anti-capitalist (but not necessarily anti-socialist) and that they very well might turn out to be the extra force needed to tip the scale in favor of the revolution. Today they are often aligned with the bourgeoisie, but that's because we have not presented them any alternative. They can and should be convinced to stand behind the working class.

[LeftSideDown]

You can't put an actual dollar value on it, because value in a capitalist society is based on the market, which is a distortion of actual social value.

The market is the only means of determining actual "social value" (whatever that is, I assume you mean a group of individual valuations, but if you don't feel free to define it).


Thats rediculous, there is no evidence that the rise inliving standards (for a privileged few) had to do with free trade whatsoever, infact the rise in living standards in Europe, has had much to do with social-democracy. So, your just making things up. I might as well say that the rise in living standards is the result of the rise of english being an international language, or the popularity of jeans, or whatever.

So people just "voted" themselves a higher standard of living? Passed a law? "I pass a law that everyone can afford food, drink, televisions, computers, etc". I'm sorry thats not how the economy works, but nice try.


Ok, depends how you define scarcity, but anyway, whats your point on that?

My point is it applies to everyone, and I guess further to remind everyone that progress proceeds in an echelon like fashion.

[RGacky3]

The market is the only means of determining actual "social value" (whatever that is, I assume you mean a group of individual valuations, but if you don't feel free to define it).

Which is why through the market, millions are starving yet tons of money is being put into making a new Iphone. Social value is what is best for the common good.


So people just "voted" themselves a higher standard of living? Passed a law? "I pass a law that everyone can afford food, drink, televisions, computers, etc". I'm sorry thats not how the economy works, but nice try.


They voted social-democratic parties in, which implimented some socialistic policies which in turn raised living standards, so yeah.


My point is it applies to everyone, and I guess further to remind everyone that progress proceeds in an echelon like fashion

But waht does that mean? The rich live in a situation of scarcity (according to you), but they control the vast majority of resources, so for them the whole situation is different. When your living pay check to pay check groceries have a whole different value than somone who has billions.

[LeftSideDown]

Which is why through the market, millions are starving yet tons of money is being put into making a new Iphone. Social value is what is best for the common good.

Well, lets examine this "millions of people" starving. Most people have heard the catch phrase "1 in 8 Americans is struggling with hunger"... its a pretty widespread phrase. Thats about 37 million, 500 thousand or 12.5% of the population. Now, despite what the campaign would have you believe, this number has been pretty much stable for the past 15 years.

Another interesting tidbit of information is that until 2005, the FSS divided food insecurity into "food insecurity without hunger" and "food insecurity with hunger." It then replaced those labels, without any change in their statistical definition, with "low food security" and "very low food security," respectively. Thus, the famous "one-in-eight" hungry Americans include all Americans living in households that, until 2005, were described as food insecure, but without hunger.

The "defining characteristic" of households with very low food security "is that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food."

Now, even this hardly fits in the definition of hunger as formulated by the Committee on National Statistics: "a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."[4]

In fact, households with "very low food security" include all those that, because of reduced food intake, sometimes felt the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger — not hunger in the sense of a day-to-day struggle to maintain one's health and strength.

Likewise, publicizing the disastrous situation of America in the face of hunger, activists obviously point out the case of children. Yet, a close look at the actual data reveals that less than 1 percent of households with children had very low food security among children.

One would expect food insecurity to be closely linked to household resources. However, half of the households categorized as having very low food security have incomes well above the poverty line.[6] "On the other hand," the 2005 report states, "many low-income households (including almost two-thirds of those with incomes below the official poverty line) were food secure." Indeed, only 15 percent of households with incomes below the poverty line have very low food security.[7]

This means that 2 percent of all American households sometimes feel the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger due to a lack of economic resources — and the vast majority of those with children manage to spare them from hunger.[8]

Certainly, this constitutes a problem; even more certainly, the truth is far from the collective-emergency myth that "one in eight Americans is struggling with hunger."

For complete article, see: http://mises.org/daily/3776


They voted social-democratic parties in, which implimented some socialistic policies which in turn raised living standards, so yeah.

But, as I said, you cannot merely legislate away social problems. Why don't we legislate away gravity, so we can all fly? Its silly and childish to think that legislation can do away with any social issues, unless the resources and means of production already exist. And America, at least, has consistently had the lowest member of union laborers (the height maybe reaching 1 in 3) but has consistently enjoyed the highest wages and best working conditions.


But waht does that mean? The rich live in a situation of scarcity (according to you), but they control the vast majority of resources, so for them the whole situation is different. When your living pay check to pay check groceries have a whole different value than somone who has billions.

They do live under different conditions of scarcity, and this is easy to prove. Can every rich business man afford to buy a jet? If he can, can he do it every year? Can he buy a Rolls-Royce every month? Production has not reached a point that it could satisfy every whim of even the richest capitalist. This is scarcity. I'm not debating that the situation is not different, and it is exactly this difference that is important for progress. When something new is invented, most of the time the public does not want it, or care for it. Humans are wont to embrace change. However, rich people are generally exciting by even trivialities. For instance, the "automobile" was originally nothing more than an excitement for rich people, a "self-drawn carriage", as it were. When rich people started buying these cars and driving them around, eventually the people who look up to the rich people (which is most people, the rich start the social and technological trends in most places) begin to demand cars as well. So it is in the manufacturers best interest to find ways to make the product cheaper in order to sell more of them. This has been true of cars, computers, plasma TVs, cellphones, laptops (to some degree), air conditioning, refrigerators and so on. Without a test group (the rich), who then discover what is wrong with the items and serve as an initial consumer base for new technology that is inherently expensive due to its newness, no invention would ever receive funding. It'd be too expensive to manufacture it for general use, especially since there exists no widespread initial demand.

[RGacky3]

As far as your first Misis regurgitation, Capitalism is worldwide, and thats what I was talking about. But even if it was only 1 in 16 Americans, taking Americas wealth into consideration, it still proves my point.


But, as I said, you cannot merely legislate away social problems. Why don't we legislate away gravity, so we can all fly? Its silly and childish to think that legislation can do away with any social issues, unless the resources and means of production already exist. And America, at least, has consistently had the lowest member of union laborers (the height maybe reaching 1 in 3) but has consistently enjoyed the highest wages and best working conditions.


What??? There is a difference between the economy and gravity. If you take Capital from private hands and make it public, the way the economy is run is going to be different. As far as the highest wages and working conditions? I'm calling bullshit, source please.


Can every rich business man afford to buy a jet? If he can, can he do it every year? Can he buy a Rolls-Royce every month? Production has not reached a point that it could satisfy every whim of even the richest capitalist.

Thats a terrible argument, scarcity to live a comfortable life is much different from buying a jet every year.


I'm not debating that the situation is not different, and it is exactly this difference that is important for progress. When something new is invented, most of the time the public does not want it, or care for it.

Really? Any proof of that?


Humans are wont to embrace change. However, rich people are generally exciting by even trivialities. For instance, the "automobile" was originally nothing more than an excitement for rich people, a "self-drawn carriage", as it were.

Thats because only rich people could afford them.


When rich people started buying these cars and driving them around, eventually the people who look up to the rich people (which is most people, the rich start the social and technological trends in most places) begin to demand cars as well.

After world war two, because of FDRs reforms living standards went up and much more people could afford cars, also the automobil technology advanced a lot. But continue your ass has more to say.


So it is in the manufacturers best interest to find ways to make the product cheaper in order to sell more of them. This has been true of cars, computers, plasma TVs, cellphones, laptops (to some degree), air conditioning, refrigerators and so on.

Depends, sometimes thats true, sometimes its not, theres a reason diamonds and fine wines are extremely expensive, its not supply and demand.


Without a test group (the rich), who then discover what is wrong with the items and serve as an initial consumer base for new technology that is inherently expensive due to its newness, no invention would ever receive funding.

Thats only because the rich are rich dumbass, and can afford new technology. You socialize that, inventions would keep going, except it would'nt be the rich that get to choose.


It'd be too expensive to manufacture it for general use, especially since there exists no widespread initial demand.

Ok now your ass is done talking, perhaps you'd like to back what it said up iwth something

[LeftSideDown]

What??? There is a difference between the economy and gravity. If you take Capital from private hands and make it public, the way the economy is run is going to be different. As far as the highest wages and working conditions? I'm calling bullshit, source please.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls

Comparison of GDP per Capita of most (maybe all(?)) countries from 1969-2009 (I know its not the past 100, I could only find a graph showing American GDP per Capita from 1869 to 2000)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_195-economy-gdp-per-capita-1950

Another link showing a snapshot from 1950

http://www.economicadventure.org/teachers/primer.pdf

Refer to page 3 for the Chart I referred to earlier.

Comparing to Asian countries (no real comparison I know, but I'll go ahead and post it)

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/gdp-per-capita-east-asia.jpg

United States just against England
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/uksince_1500v2.jpg

if you have any statistics you'd like to share I'd be happy to see them (Since, if you call bullshit, you must have statistics that back your side up :))

[LeftSideDown]

As far as your first Misis regurgitation, Capitalism is worldwide, and thats what I was talking about. But even if it was only 1 in 16 Americans, taking Americas wealth into consideration, it still proves my point.

Its not 1 in 16, its 1 in 50. And its not "starvation" its the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger due to a lack of economic resources. The usual uneasy sensation of hunger... Like what you feel if you skip lunch.

And it doesn't matter that it comes from Mises.org, its definitions and numbers come from:
[1] A brief summary is accessible at the US Department of Agriculture website.
[2] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, Economic Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 10.
[3] US Department of Agriculture.
[4] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, p. 6.
[5] US Department of Agriculture.
[6] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, p. 13.
[7] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, p. 16.
[8] The criterion I use to classify households as "lacking economic resources" is the Poverty Line x 1.3 ratio.

[RGacky3]

GDP per capita has nothing to do with living standards or working conditions. the United States has tons and tons of wealth, no one disputes that, you hav'nt shown any thing relating to living standards or working conditions at all.


Its not 1 in 16, its 1 in 50. And its not "starvation" its the "usual uneasy sensation" of hunger due to a lack of economic resources. The usual uneasy sensation of hunger... Like what you feel if you skip lunch.


ON a regular basis, I don'nt know if your a doctor, but usual eneasy sensation because you cannot afford enough food is a problem.

And like I said, Capitalism is worldwide.

[LeftSideDown]

"For economists, a good measure of living standards would be the "value of all goods and services consumed per capita" (per capita = per person). Ideally, goods and services would be defined broadly and would included not only goods and services that are purchased (such as a loaf of Wonder Bread), but also goods and services produced at home (such as a loaf of home-baked bread). Goods and services provided by the government (Such as public parks and fire protection) would also be included, as would the value of leisure time. The ideal measure would also include the enjoyment of environmental amenities (such as clean air and water) and good health, and it would incorporate adjustments for demographic factors such as differing consumption needs of children and adults.

Such a comprehensive measure does not exist; so we turn to approximations. The most commonly used measure of standard of living is national output per capita, usually measured as GDP or GNP per capita." (Emphasis Added)

Sorry...