Benefits of capitalism to the working class

[Bitter Ashes]

I've got no plans of hiding my intentions of this thread. I'm trying to see if I can convince some capitalists whether they can see that the system they defend has no future and hopefully bringing them over to the right side of the forum. Maybe it's trolling, I dunno.

Firstly I'm going to make a couple of assumptions about the intentions of capitalists here.

1) I don't think you hate the working class and I doubt that you intend them harm.

2) You believe that the working class will benefit from continued capitalism.

If I've made a mistake already then I'm in real trouble.

Right, so with that in mind, your big plan is to create "opportunies" for entreprenurism so that members of the working class can elevate themselves from poverty. Right? Isnt the problem with that, that not everyone can be self employed in an industrialised world and that at the end of the day there needs to be an employer-employee relationship maintained, where employers live off the labour of the poorer employees?

The other arguements I've heard about fighting poverty are that employers are supposed to somehow be doing us a favour by employing us. Why should we need permission to make a contribution to society through work anyway?

Isnt it too that with consumerism and competition, that workers' wages and working conditions are beaten down so that a select few can benefit from the profits?

With only a few exceptions, the most of the world operates free market economics, either by choice, or through IMF enforcement, yet wherever free markets go, only the rich benefit and the poor suffer even more. Surely the Adam Smith doctorine is showing itself to be very damaging to the working class without fail? The only times it benefits a worker is the rare times when a worker can find a niche to start a buisness of thier own. As I said above, only a minority can ever be self employed, so surely that can't justify the vast majority suffering to create these handful of "opportunities".

Finaly, the free labour market is just used in practice to drive down wages and remove the collective voice of workers, the unions, from workplaces? The unions are totaly required (even if they're currently screwing it up), to make sure that the working conditions and wages of workers are protected from the full brunt of consumerism, exploitation, and/or competitive buisness strategy.

To be honest with you, I'm pretty amazed that anyone can convince themselves that capitalism does the working class any favours at all.

[Skooma Addict]

I've got no plans of hiding my intentions of this thread. I'm trying to see if I can convince some capitalists whether they can see that the system they defend has no future and hopefully bringing them over to the right side of the forum. Maybe it's trolling, I dunno.

Firstly I'm going to make a couple of assumptions about the intentions of capitalists here.

1) I don't think you hate the working class and I doubt that you intend them harm.

2) You believe that the working class will benefit from continued capitalism.

That is correct, although #2 is misleading. Supporters of the free market have many problems with the current system.


Right, so with that in mind, your big plan is to create "opportunies" for entreprenurism so that members of the working class can elevate themselves from poverty. Right? Isnt the problem with that, that not everyone can be self employed in an industrialised world and that at the end of the day there needs to be an employer-employee relationship maintained, where employers live off the labour of the poorer employees?

The other arguements I've heard about fighting poverty are that employers are supposed to somehow be doing us a favour by employing us. Why should we need permission to make a contribution to society through work anyway?

Having individuals own the means of production means that there is actually an incentive to accumulate and reinvest capital. Worker productivity will increase as capital is accumulated, which means real wages will increase. The accumulation and rational allocation of capital is important for every economic system, not just capitalism. Mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcho-communism give people little incentive to accumulate capital....let alone work.

Are you a socialist, mutualist, anarcho-communist, ect?, Tell me and I will explain why the free market is superior.


Isnt it too that with consumerism and competition, that workers' wages and working conditions are beaten down so that a select few can benefit from the profits?

There is also competition between employers who are looking for the most productive labor. This drives wages up.

[Drace]

Having individuals own the means of production means that there is actually an incentive to accumulate and reinvest capital. Worker productivity will increase as capital is accumulated, which means real wages will increase. The accumulation and rational allocation of capital is important for every economic system, not just capitalism. Mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcho-communism give people little incentive to accumulate capital....let alone work.Worker control itself has the more powerful incentive for raising production. "Accumulating more wealth" is only something inherent in the capitalist mode of production and is useless in for any beneficiary cause.

And productivity has very much risen over the past 30 years, yet real wages have fallen.

The whole introduction of the Industrial Revolution and the poor working conditions and wages associated with it clearly show productivity has nothing to do with rise in wages.

[Tablo]

Having individuals own the means of production means that there is actually an incentive to accumulate and reinvest capital. Worker productivity will increase as capital is accumulated, which means real wages will increase. The accumulation and rational allocation of capital is important for every economic system, not just capitalism.
How is worker productivity increased? I have less incentive to work when I know the surplus value of my labor is going into the pockets of my employer and investors in his company. Knowing that your work directly influences yourself and your community makes the job more rewarding and increases incentive. Plus in a Socialist society I would always be watched by my fellow workers. If I were to be lazy they wouldn't stand for that. If I'm lazy and do not contribute well to the community then they will have no desire to provide for me. I see significantly more incentive to work in a democratic economy than a free-market one.

[CartCollector]

I have less incentive to work when I know the surplus value of my labor is going into the pockets of my employer and investors in his company.
I've heard a similar argument from the middle class- that they have less incentive to work if a large part of their income goes to the government through various taxes.

[Tablo]

I've heard a similar argument from the middle class- that they have less incentive to work if a large part of their income goes to the government through various taxes.
The "middle class" lacks any concrete definition. The "middle class" encompasses a variety of views as it includes many workers and members of the petty-bourgeois. No one in any class particularly likes paying taxes. In a real Socialist economy there would be no taxes as there couldn't realistically be a government if things are purely democratic.

[LeftSideDown]

Worker control itself has the more powerful incentive for raising production. "Accumulating more wealth" is only something inherent in the capitalist mode of production and is useless in for any beneficiary cause.

And productivity has very much risen over the past 30 years, yet real wages have fallen.

The whole introduction of the Industrial Revolution and the poor working conditions and wages associated with it clearly show productivity has nothing to do with rise in wages.

Do you not understand that wealth accumulation is why we're not still living in caves? If all we did was hunt and consume we'd never have time to make houses. Having someone not go hunting and spend time thatching huts or what have you is an investment: there is risk, it might not pay off. Maybe the roof is leaky and they have to go back to the cave, maybe the cave is warmer, or maybe its better than the cave but takes too long and too much extra meat (the other hunters have to hunt more than they would to support the hut builder). So saying it has no beneficiary cause is to say that all progress made from savings is not beneficial. I think most would disagree with you.

As to your second point: don't you think that inflation has more to do with that than capitalism? Government and Unions work together to raise wages for a select group. However, things like the minimum wage would cause massive unemployment (you can already see this in younger children and minorities; the minimum wage is a hurdle, not a floor) so what does the government do? It inflates the supply of money so that the minimum wage, despite regular increases, is offset by the increase in the supply of money. This is why real wages have been dropping, not because of capitalism.

As to the industrial revolution, I'm not an expert. However, I would ask you to look at WHY these people did these "poopy" jobs. Why didn't they just go out and farm? There was a raise in population slightly before, or right at the start of the industrial revolution. This was because more people could be supported, albeit at "low" standards of living, by the economy. Industrialization and progress does not immediately raise standards of living as higher-orders of production take generations, not just years or months. So, may I ask if you think that the industrial revolution did not, in the long run, raise the standard of living for most of Europe and America?

[LeftSideDown]

How is worker productivity increased? I have less incentive to work when I know the surplus value of my labor is going into the pockets of my employer and investors in his company. Knowing that your work directly influences yourself and your community makes the job more rewarding and increases incentive. Plus in a Socialist society I would always be watched by my fellow workers. If I were to be lazy they wouldn't stand for that. If I'm lazy and do not contribute well to the community then they will have no desire to provide for me. I see significantly more incentive to work in a democratic economy than a free-market one.

Worker productivity is increased thusly: I can chop down a tree faster with an axe than with my hands. That is productivity. Their motivation is something we aren't considering. The only motivations YOU can examine are your own so making conclusions based on what you think other people's motivations should be is merely opinion; it has no weight.

Why do people work except to directly influence themselves/their community (this term is vague and I only use it because of your use, but family is probably more accurate). Individual rewards encourage incentives, not societal. Let me explain: I work in a socialist society of one million, lets say. If I work 100% more productively/harder how much do I benefit? How much does society benefit? About 1 millionth. Hows that for incentive? I can work twice as hard and have negligible results.

And as for people not standing laziness, what if they're lazy? Or what if they think everybody is working less hard than themselves? Why should they work hard if they'll hardly benefit and these "bums" will mooch off their effort. This was part of the problem in Soviet Russia and Poland (see Polish Solidarity).

I see significantly LESS incentive to work. Socialism would work if men were angels, but not men.

[LeftSideDown]

The "middle class" lacks any concrete definition. The "middle class" encompasses a variety of views as it includes many workers and members of the petty-bourgeois. No one in any class particularly likes paying taxes. In a real Socialist economy there would be no taxes as there couldn't realistically be a government if things are purely democratic.

Yes, interesting how there is substantial middle-class that Marx seems to have ignored while writing. Why, we should be at the bourgeois throats by now, worker-consciousness driving us on to Utopia!

And what are you talking about? In a real Socialist economy there would be 100% tax on everything you make. If you make 20 shoes in a day, and someone else makes 10, you're both taxed, than 28 is redistributed back (gotta pay the guy taking inventory/doing the redestribution) so you each get 14. Oh look at this, the guy who worked less got more, and the guy who worked more got less. Tons of incentives there.

IF you didn't have taxes everybody would keep whatever they create and people who cannot create would die. This doesn't sound very socialist to me. I leave you with this "...to each according to his needs" eh? How do you achieve this without taxation/redistribution?

[RGacky3]

Yes, interesting how there is substantial middle-class that Marx seems to have ignored while writing. Why, we should be at the bourgeois throats by now, worker-consciousness driving us on to Utopia!

The middle Class, as we know it today, was made artificially through progressive and social-democratic reforms. As you dismantle those (which has happened from the 1980s, the middle class dissapears (as is happening now)


IF you didn't have taxes everybody would keep whatever they create and people who cannot create would die. This doesn't sound very socialist to me. I leave you with this "...to each according to his needs" eh? How do you achieve this without taxation/redistribution?

I don't know what your gonna do with 100s of shoes if your a shoe maker, if you know you have everything you need available from other workers, why would you hoard stuff? You can't make a profit from it, theres no money, I suppose you could try and trade it for stuff, but considering theres no profit to be made I don't see why you would.

Remember you have to evaluate a communist society in the context of no private property, thus no market, thus no profit. What your suggesting would be like mom baking all the cookies and keeping them until dad takes out the trash, its rediculous. Replace mom and dad with room mates if you want to take away the relationship.


Worker productivity is increased thusly: I can chop down a tree faster with an axe than with my hands. That is productivity. Their motivation is something we aren't considering. The only motivations YOU can examine are your own so making conclusions based on what you think other people's motivations should be is merely opinion; it has no weight.

Capitalism did not invent technology.


I work in a socialist society of one million, lets say. If I work 100% more productively/harder how much do I benefit? How much does society benefit? About 1 millionth. Hows that for incentive? I can work twice as hard and have negligible results.


I don't understand how thats different from a worker under capitalism, anyone who's been involved in capitalism for any leangth of time knows that getting ahead has nothing to do with how hard you work, much less how your work benefits society. So why work harder? Heres one, when your labor is actually free, meaning its YOUR labor for society or yourself, not yours for someone else, its much easier to take pride in your work.

Let me ask you, when are you gonna do a better job, if your a construction worker framing a house in a nice neighborhood for which your contractor will be paid and someone else will own and for which someone else will live in? Or helping your neighbor fix his garage or make a shed or whatever, chances are the latter. But your not making any money? but its YOUR work, helping YOUR neighbor.


And as for people not standing laziness, what if they're lazy? Or what if they think everybody is working less hard than themselves? Why should they work hard if they'll hardly benefit and these "bums" will mooch off their effort. This was part of the problem in Soviet Russia and Poland (see Polish Solidarity).

I see significantly LESS incentive to work. Socialism would work if men were angels, but not men.

The United States has huge unemployment, HUGE, in the US there are barely any social benefits, to live a decent like you need to work. Yet unemployment is Huge.

Norway, in reality you don't need to work, the unemployment benefits here are 80% of what you used to do before, thats what the state pays you, and social benefits cover everything and more, if you don't want to work you don't need to. Yet there is only 2% unemplyment, one of the lowest in the world .... Is'nt that interesting.

So I'm sorry but your Bums theory just does'nt hold up to reality.

[eyedrop]

The United States has huge unemployment, HUGE, in the US there are barely any social benefits, to live a decent like you need to work. Yet unemployment is Huge.

Norway, in reality you don't need to work, the unemployment benefits here are 80% of what you used to do before, thats what the state pays you, and social benefits cover everything and more, if you don't want to work you don't need to. Yet there is only 2% unemplyment, one of the lowest in the world .... Is'nt that interesting.

So I'm sorry but your Bums theory just does'nt hold up to reality. Some small corrections the 80 % coverage only extends to 52 weeks (income under 2G, or 104 weeks above), which has steadily been reduced, after that you get some social coverage, not as much but enough to live on. Disability benefits is a possibility after unemployment benefits end, which shouldn't be that hard.

The gist of it is right though reducing unemployment benefits is a poor way to reduce unemployment. There are other factors that affect unemployment to a much larger degree, for example how the economy is going. Not that that stops all kinds of politicians trying, and succeeding, to enact policies reducing unemployment benefits to with the reasoning of reducing unemployment.

[Skooma Addict]

The whole introduction of the Industrial Revolution and the poor working conditions and wages associated with it clearly show productivity has nothing to do with rise in wages.


The industrial revolution does not support your point at all. Do you know what living conditions were like prior to the industrial revolution for most people?

[Bitter Ashes]

The industrial revolution does not support your point at all. Do you know what living conditions were like prior to the industrial revolution for most people?
I'm sure that the croppers, weavers and spinners of Northern England would have loved to answer that, but sadly they were all hanged for trying to return to pre-industrialised work.

Peasantry was hard work, but at least it was free. Even capitalists admit that it's far more pleasant to be self employed than an employee.

[Zanthorus]

The industrial revolution does not support your point at all. Do you know what living conditions were like prior to the industrial revolution for most people?

This is not directly related but I would like to point out that the evidence shows that wages don't match productivity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=2

And the theory that the productivity theory of wages is based on is a bit flaky anyway.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Are you a socialist, mutualist, anarcho-communist, ect?, Tell me and I will explain why the free market is superior.

Considering it is impossible to do so, why would you say that?

[LeftSideDown]

The middle Class, as we know it today, was made artificially through progressive and social-democratic reforms. As you dismantle those (which has happened from the 1980s, the middle class dissapears (as is happening now)

How is it made artificially? How is this progress any different than any other progress? Most people consider anything humans do as being unnatural/artificial. So how is the raise in the middle class any more or less artificial than anything else? And the middle class shrinking has correlated well with government intervention, at least fairly nicely I'd say.


I don't know what your gonna do with 100s of shoes if your a shoe maker, if you know you have everything you need available from other workers, why would you hoard stuff? You can't make a profit from it, theres no money, I suppose you could try and trade it for stuff, but considering theres no profit to be made I don't see why you would.

You're going to try and trade it. And it could've just been "money" made, but making money doesn't actually create something. So I could've just as easily said 20 dollars worth of stuff that they could trade. And this is where we disagree about profit. You can profit from anything. I can have a "profitable" conversation. And all voluntary trades benefit both parties, they both "profit". This is something communists/socialists seem to not understand. In voluntary trade both parties benefit, whereas in socialism the productive are taxed (maybe voluntarily, maybe not) to support all of the lazy workers, disabled workers, and children/old people. If you do not decide where your money goes, you can almost never "profit".


Remember you have to evaluate a communist society in the context of no private property, thus no market, thus no profit. What your suggesting would be like mom baking all the cookies and keeping them until dad takes out the trash, its rediculous. Replace mom and dad with room mates if you want to take away the relationship.

Mmmm, from what I seem to remember there would still be private property, just not in the means of production. Please read up on your own political beliefs. In communist societies someone could still be imprisoned for stealing another person's bike, or breaking into their house. Without private property these would not be crimes. And thats not ridiculous. IF I want you to do something that you would not normally do/would find unpleasant why should I not do something (bake cookies) to encourage you to do it? I benefit more from you taking the trash out then I lose from baking cookies and you benefit more from eating cookies than you lose from taking the trash out. Mutual profit.


Capitalism did not invent technology.

I think it did/would have to. Even within the confines of a band-level socialist/communist society, if they want to advance they would have to take risk by allowing individuals to take actions whose benefit might not be realized until much later. I posted something in another thread, I believe about a hunter/gatherer society that lives in caves and invests in an individual who thinks that he can make a cave without a cave (a hut). They have to work harder to get him food because he has to build the hut, and this hut is not a sure deal. It could have a leaky roof, or be less warm than the cave. But if they want to progress out of caves they have to take risk through giving him private ownership of the means of production (in this case whatever tools the society has, and whatever resources he needs from nature).


I don't understand how thats different from a worker under capitalism, anyone who's been involved in capitalism for any leangth of time knows that getting ahead has nothing to do with how hard you work, much less how your work benefits society. So why work harder? Heres one, when your labor is actually free, meaning its YOUR labor for society or yourself, not yours for someone else, its much easier to take pride in your work.

I agree, but not for the reasons you think. The wage/salary system is one very opposed to changes and especially raises, however it can be reflective of your productivity. A boss, if hes a good manager, has an incentive to keep workers that work harder and not keep ones that work less. So if a "hard" worker approaches his boss for a raise or says he will leave, as long as the raise is moderate the boss will likely give in. If he doesn't and refuses to raise wages for anyone, ever, he will lose his productive labor be forced to bid for lower-productivity workers while other companies who understand the value of their laborers will scoop up these recently disenfranchised hard workers and pay them more so that they will continue to work hard. And I don't understand what you mean by free labor? I assume you don't mean you don't get paid, but rather its voluntary or something? I beg to disagree but, I don't take pride in something whose effects are negligible in a society of any real size. I produced 2 extra shoes today, so one person who I don't know whose shoes may be perfectly fine may have another new pair of shoes. How proud.


Let me ask you, when are you gonna do a better job, if your a construction worker framing a house in a nice neighborhood for which your contractor will be paid and someone else will own and for which someone else will live in? Or helping your neighbor fix his garage or make a shed or whatever, chances are the latter. But your not making any money? but its YOUR work, helping YOUR neighbor.

In this situation, if you have the same tools, you will probably do a better job working for your neighbor. But let me turn this around. Socialism is not communialism where you only help others in your community, but you work for the benefit of all society. So its not helping your neighbor, you're working for perfect strangers most of the time, with worse and worse materials as time goes on and worse and worse pay as economic calculation begins to overwhelm the central authority. So, in the case of helping your neighbor voluntarily, you'll probably work harder (granted his new/fixed garage could benefit you in the future when you need help from him), but you're comparing private to public life (private meaning neighbor, public = contracting job) and in socialism there would be no "private" life, and all your works would be public. SO it seems your analogy has really ended up hurting you, at least in my eyes.


The United States has huge unemployment, HUGE, in the US there are barely any social benefits, to live a decent like you need to work. Yet unemployment is Huge.

I would attribute the current unemployment, at least, to a combination of the minimum wage and a mal-investment of capital resources brought about by government intervention in the free market (lowering interest rates, GSE's, implicit agreements to give bailouts). And its always been true that if you want to live, you need to work, or someone else needed to work hard/invest wisely enough for you to live without labor, something that shouldn't be punished. You don't have to work, you always have the choice to die if you want. But employment merely shows that humans prefer to sell their labor than die, and this is how society functions under scarcity.


Norway, in reality you don't need to work, the unemployment benefits here are 80% of what you used to do before, thats what the state pays you, and social benefits cover everything and more, if you don't want to work you don't need to. Yet there is only 2% unemplyment, one of the lowest in the world .... Is'nt that interesting.

So I'm sorry but your Bums theory just does'nt hold up to reality.

So if I had a very "high" paying job in Norway, I could just quit after a day and get 80% of whatever that job paid? Sweet deal.

But seriously:
Here is one more thing of interest to everyone interested in living standards in Scandinavian countries vs. the US. First, according to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook, the USA has a higher GDP per capita than any Scandinavian nation with the exception of Norway. Norway has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, right after free market paradises such as Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, and oil rich nations such as Qatar and Kuwait.

Although Norway's GDP per capita seems to be boosted by huge oil and natural gas production, do Norwegians actually enjoy higher living standards than Americans? I dare say that they don't. A quick look around worldsalaries.org shows that:
1. Americans enjoy higher average disposable (after tax) AND gross (before tax) income than Norwegians do.
2. Americans enjoy a significantly lower cost of living than do Norwegians (1.00 vs. 1.487).

Here (url: http://www.ssb.no/en/fnr/main.html) is another source of Norwegian disposable income. As you see, average household disposable income is 176503 NOK, which is approximately $29,373. Note that the USA has a per capita disposable income of about $21,500. Since the average US household consists of two wage earners, it follows that US household disposable income is higher than Norwegian household dispoable income.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf

More stats if you're interested, I know seeing "cato" is probably more than enough to frighten you away, but its an interesting PDF comparing the US to Nordic countries, and by the way I'm not saying the United States has a good economic system, or that it hasn't been riding the gravy train for awhile, now.

[danyboy27]

22222
do you not understand that wealth accumulation is why we're not still living in caves? If all we did was hunt and consume we'd never have time to make houses. Having someone not go hunting and spend time thatching huts or what have you is an investment: There is risk, it might not pay off. Maybe the roof is leaky and they have to go back to the cave, maybe the cave is warmer, or maybe its better than the cave but takes too long and too much extra meat (the other hunters have to hunt more than they would to support the hut builder). So saying it has no beneficiary cause is to say that all progress made from savings is not beneficial. I think most would disagree with you.

As to your second point: Don't you think that inflation has more to do with that than capitalism? Government and unions work together to raise wages for a select group. However, things like the minimum wage would cause massive unemployment (you can already see this in younger children and minorities; the minimum wage is a hurdle, not a floor) so what does the government do? It inflates the supply of money so that the minimum wage, despite regular increases, is offset by the increase in the supply of money. This is why real wages have been dropping, not because of capitalism.

As to the industrial revolution, i'm not an expert. However, i would ask you to look at why these people did these "poopy" jobs. Why didn't they just go out and farm? There was a raise in population slightly before, or right at the start of the industrial revolution. This was because more people could be supported, albeit at "low" standards of living, by the economy. Industrialization and progress does not immediately raise standards of living as higher-orders of production take generations, not just years or months. So, may i ask if you think that the industrial revolution did not, in the long run, raise the standard of living for most of europe and america?

[Bitter Ashes]

You're going to try and trade it. And it could've just been "money" made, but making money doesn't actually create something. So I could've just as easily said 20 dollars worth of stuff that they could trade. And this is where we disagree about profit. You can profit from anything. I can have a "profitable" conversation. And all voluntary trades benefit both parties, they both "profit". This is something communists/socialists seem to not understand. In voluntary trade both parties benefit, whereas in socialism the productive are taxed (maybe voluntarily, maybe not) to support all of the lazy workers, disabled workers, and children/old people. If you do not decide where your money goes, you can almost never "profit".So... somebody's going to try be "clever" and get people to pay for some shoes that are free for everyone? Sounds like a bargin! They'll become rich I'm sure! With all that money they can buy anything... except that everything that they wanted to buy is free already. I dont think you've thought this through. ;)

Another thing to consider. Unemployment and low wages and even the global recession are actualy bieng caused by OVERproduction. Maybe you could start a perpetual war to suck up some resources, 1984 style... oh hang on...

[LeftSideDown]

So... somebody's going to try be "clever" and get people to pay for some shoes that are free for everyone? Sounds like a bargin! They'll become rich I'm sure! With all that money they can buy anything... except that everything that they wanted to buy is free already. I dont think you've thought this through. ;)

Another thing to consider. Unemployment and low wages and even the global recession are actualy bieng caused by OVERproduction. Maybe you could start a perpetual war to suck up some resources, 1984 style... oh hang on...

You're expanding an analogy that was supposed to illustrate that socialism would have a 100% tax, not 0%. And if everything is free, why wouldn't someone just take all of it? Maybe the socialist purges didn't wipe out all the un-altruistic people. You're really silly. Things won't be free, they'll be rationed.

And I'm sorry, overproduction is not the cause of unemployment, and its SO silly to say it is. If overproduction just caused unemployment we'd still be in the stone age. Anything more than the necessities (food, water, shelter, and clothes) would be superfluous over production. So no airconditioning, not meat, no heating, no cars. IF thats what you want, keep your socialism, I however would much prefer progress and raising the standard of living of the poor rather than lower the standard of living of every one else.

[CartCollector]

Suppose you and I and a score of others had suffered shipwreck and found ourselves on an island rich with fruit of every kind. Of course, we'd get to work to gather the foot. But suppose one of our number should declare that it all belongs to him, and that no one shall have a single morsel unless he first pays him tribute for it. We would be indignant, wouldn't we? We'd laugh at his pretensions. If he'd try to make trouble about it, we might throw him into the sea, and it would serve him right, would it not?
Suppose further that we ourselves and our forefathers had cultivated the island and stocked it with everything needed for life and comfort, and that some one should arrive and claim it all as his. What would we say? We'd ignore him, wouldn't we? We might tell him that he could share with us and join us in our work. But suppose that he insists on his ownership and that he produces a slip of paper and says that it proves that everything belongs to him? We'd tell him he's crazy and we'd go about our business. But if he should have a government back of him, he would appeal to it for the protection of "his rights," and the government would send police and soldiers who would evict us and put the "lawful owner in possession."
That is the function of government; that is what government exists for and what it is doing all the time.

There you go, LeftSideDown.

[LeftSideDown]

Suppose you and I and a score of others had suffered shipwreck and found ourselves on an island rich with fruit of every kind. Of course, we'd get to work to gather the foot. But suppose one of our number should declare that it all belongs to him, and that no one shall have a single morsel unless he first pays him tribute for it. We would be indignant, wouldn't we? We'd laugh at his pretensions. If he'd try to make trouble about it, we might throw him into the sea, and it would serve him right, would it not?
Suppose further that we ourselves and our forefathers had cultivated the island and stocked it with everything needed for life and comfort, and that some one should arrive and claim it all as his. What would we say? We'd ignore him, wouldn't we? We might tell him that he could share with us and join us in our work. But suppose that he insists on his ownership and that he produces a slip of paper and says that it proves that everything belongs to him? We'd tell him he's crazy and we'd go about our business. But if he should have a government back of him, he would appeal to it for the protection of "his rights," and the government would send police and soldiers who would evict us and put the "lawful owner in possession."
That is the function of government; that is what government exists for and what it is doing all the time.

There you go, LeftSideDown.

I don't know, this seems to be more of an argument against government than against capitalism or private ownership, however I will respond to it just the same.

In the first case, someone with no more claim than anyone else is, without justification, claiming the whole island as his. Assuming they cannot leave the island, this is their whole world. Obviously it'd be ludicrous for one person to claim ownership of the whole earth without justification. So, in this case, they would either force him to only claim his "fair share" (I assume they would divide it evenly) and if he refused they would imprison or kill him. I would have no problem with this.

In the second case, that of previous ownership, he may have owned the land before you came but if he wasn't "homesteading" the property his rights to that property would diminish with time. For someone to claim ownership he has to actively homestead that property to maintain the legality of his claim. Since he had not been doing this he has no claim, even if he bought the land. However, if that landowner had been gone for, oh say, 5 minutes, and then the shipped crashed, and this landowner had homesteaded that land all his life do the shipwrecked people have any claim to his land? No, that is ludicrous. Thats like you leaving your house for 5 minutes and a homeless man coming into and claiming it as his. Its silly. However, if a homeless man wondered into a home that had not been occupied for many years (the number of years that would make this legal is a continuum problem and will not be discussed here) and begin to mix his labor with the house, he would be the active homesteader and he would have a stronger claim to the property than the owner, who, by not maintaining the house had done no homesteading.

So if your point is that the government enforces other people's claims to property they don't own, then I 100% agree with you; however, I apply this principle to taxes which make the assumption that somehow those who don't/can't work have a claim on your property.

So hows that for you?

[Drace]

Do you not understand that wealth accumulation is why we're not still living in caves?

No, I'm pretty sure its rather the accumulation of knowledge.


If all we did was hunt and consume we'd never have time to make houses. Having someone not go hunting and spend time thatching huts or what have you is an investment: there is risk, it might not pay off. Maybe the roof is leaky and they have to go back to the cave, maybe the cave is warmer, or maybe its better than the cave but takes too long and too much extra meat (the other hunters have to hunt more than they would to support the hut builder). So saying it has no beneficiary cause is to say that all progress made from savings is not beneficial. I think most would disagree with you.


Wtf does the division of labor have to do with accumulating wealth? Or more so to the original argument that accumulating wealth provides incentive for beneficiary causes.


As to the industrial revolution, I'm not an expert. However, I would ask you to look at WHY these people did these "poopy" jobs. Why didn't they just go out and farm? There was a raise in population slightly before, or right at the start of the industrial revolution. This was because more people could be supported, albeit at "low" standards of living, by the economy. Industrialization and progress does not immediately raise standards of living as higher-orders of production take generations, not just years or months. So, may I ask if you think that the industrial revolution did not, in the long run, raise the standard of living for most of Europe and America?

Obvious answer, the new machinery was capable of outproducing any hand made craft work. It thus forced people to work in the factories which the bourgeoisie owned privately.
Sure, the Industrial Revolution was a good technological advancement, but nonetheless, it does not mean that the capitalist use of the new technology was at all justified nor that it was responsible for the rise in living standards.

[John_Jordan]

No, I'm pretty sure its rather the accumulation of knowledge.

It's not. It is more important for society to accumulate "wealth" than knowledge, if one is just trying to improve the quality of life for society. One can have all sorts of knowledge, but if there is not the "wealth" to use it, then it doesn't improve anybody's life.

[IcarusAngel]

What a sick ideology anarcho-tyrants ("anarcho"-capitalists) have.

We should be increasing knowledge and constantly acting upon new knowledge, as scientists do. For example, if better methods are found for producing energy, we should take away the old energy and implement the new energy.

This is the type of society that communism allows.

[Drace]

It's not. It is more important for society to accumulate "wealth" than knowledge, if one is just trying to improve the quality of life for society. One can have all sorts of knowledge, but if there is not the "wealth" to use it, then it doesn't improve anybody's life.Accumulation of wealth and private property has nothing to do with having the knowledge of how to built a hut lol.
Of course, ideas have to be invested in but its ridiculous to say that capitalism is the only way that this can be done.

And I believe, primitive society very much shared the traits of communism, not capitalism.

[Ryke]

The idea that the accumulation of wealth is more important than accumulation of knowledge for the increase in quality of life really doesn't stand up. Wealth exists in some form or other in nature, and we extract and use it. It doesn't matter who "owns" or "accumulates" it (doesn't matter if anyone does, in fact) through institutionalised means, the wealth exists. It requires the knowledge to use it, and that is where technology comes from, ultimately. Things do not necessarily need to be bought or privately owned to be used. If anything, the accumulation of wealth coupled with strict property laws over natural resources and means of production prevent a generalised increase in living standards while creating a very large increase in the living standards of what is altogether a few people. Individual property of useful objects which are used on a fairly regular basis by the owner (toothbrush, bike, car, apartment sized reasonably for one person, etc) is a sound idea if it's communally agreed on, but private (or state, in many cases) property of natural resources or means of production only needs to an exponentially increasing ease of accumulation; the more you have, the easier it is to get even more, and so on, without an end in sight short of significant economic issues. This isn't even touching on exploitation.

[Green Dragon]

Plus in a Socialist society I would always be watched by my fellow workers.

How "libertarian" can socialism be if a selling point is constant monitoring by others?

I agree, though, that this is how one would expect production in a socialist community. Probably watched by community boards and neighborhood associations. They have been a standard feature in socialist regimes. Why such routes would prove more successful the NEXT time around, the non-socialists hereabouts await with bated breath.

[Ryke]

How "libertarian" can socialism be if a selling point is constant monitoring by others?

I agree, though, that this is how one would expect production in a socialist community. Probably watched by community boards and neighborhood associations. They have been a standard feature in socialist regimes. Why such routes would prove more successful the NEXT time around, the non-socialists hereabouts await with bated breath.

Well, how would you expect any kind of society to arise if you expect the people immediately surrounding you to actively ignore you, and actively seek to avoid the solidarity of people in similar situations? Because I'm pretty damn sure that's the kind of thing he was talking about, not some kind of totalitarian organisation where some bureau or group of people knows what you did and are doing at all times.

As far as I read into it (IE without malicious intent) he meant "watched" as in "paid attention to by a community in which solidarity among workers is a foundational idea" not "carefully monitored regardless of personal preferences or consent".

[Green Dragon]

Well, how would you expect any kind of society to arise if you expect the people immediately surrounding you to actively ignore you, and actively seek to avoid the solidarity of people in similar situations? Because I'm pretty damn sure that's the kind of thing he was talking about, not some kind of totalitarian organisation where some bureau or group of people knows what you did and are doing at all times.

As far as I read into it (IE without malicious intent) he meant "watched" as in "paid attention to by a community in which solidarity among workers is a foundational idea" not "carefully monitored regardless of personal preferences or consent".

Ok. In other words, part of a "libertarian" socialist community has an expectation that people will be in "solidarity" with each other, and efforts will be made to ensure that the recalcitrant, well, cease being recalcitrant. And this is because solidarity amongst the workers is the foundation of the system.

I am not seeing the "libertarianism" here.

[Ryke]

Ok. In other words, part of a "libertarian" socialist community has an expectation that people will be in "solidarity" with each other, and efforts will be made to ensure that the recalcitrant, well, cease being recalcitrant. And this is because solidarity amongst the workers is the foundation of the system.

I am not seeing the "libertarianism" here.

Efforts will not be made in any institutional, centralised manner. In the same way as libertarian capitalists expect property rights and a certain social order, or at least basic social ideas, to be respected without constant, unilateral enforcement, for that matter.

Dealing with the freeloader problem, for example, would be essentially an individual and communal choice made on a case-by-case basis. If a man who does not work lives in a society (and a time) of abundance and manages to be well-perceived even when not being productive (either not at all, or very little), and at least some individuals or groups have no issue with letting him live comfortably in this society, then he can stay, and unless his activities clearly concern a third party (if he's being a violent drunk on top of being non-productive, for example), this is entirely a matter between the freeloader and the individuals which help him. The understanding does not have to be contractual or any more precise than both parties want it do be, does not have to be made public to anyone not concerned, and does not need to be enforced by an external authority. If the matter is a serious preoccupation to a wider audience (tighter resources, or problematic behaviour on the part of the freeloader) then the matter could become one between the freeloader and a wider group of people who feel legitimately concerned. None of this needs to be officially enforced; the idea is that it is socially enforced, which could involve kicking people out through forceful means. In this way, people frivolously opposed to freeloaders who do not pose a problem to anyone actually concerned by the issue would have a very hard time getting their way, as enforcement effectively depends on explicit consent.

Same principle goes for most of everything, ideally. No claim is made that problems would be completely eliminated, simply that they would be effectively handled. That is basically the way "solidarity among workers" is enforced. If your dissenting ideology doesn't fit in, but you still make your place and cause no considerable problem, then you're treated just as well as anyone else. People who oppose to someone being kicked out for any reason (or kept within a community for any reason) they're free to voice it, and if (and, as much as possible, only if) push comes to shove, he is free to act in consequence, which is to say to actively try to kick him out/keep him in, or seek compromise.

[Drace]

Ok. In other words, part of a "libertarian" socialist community has an expectation that people will be in "solidarity" with each other, and efforts will be made to ensure that the recalcitrant, well, cease being recalcitrant. And this is because solidarity amongst the workers is the foundation of the system.

I am not seeing the "libertarianism" here. Your trying to hard to make an argument... :cool:

But of course, society should encourage laziness and make no attempt at improving production.

Would such encouragement be centralized or coercive by any means? Its a mere "I should work to meet the qualification of the others". But of course, fairness is somehow against individuality.

[John_Jordan]

Accumulation of wealth and private property has nothing to do with having the knowledge of how to built a hut lol.
Of course, ideas have to be invested in but its ridiculous to say that capitalism is the only way that this can be done.


I did not say anything about private property. One can accumulate "wealth" without private property.

And while society can have lots of wealth without huts, they at least will live well with the knowledge they do have. Having the knowledge of huts but no wealth to build huts is not useful.


The idea that the accumulation of wealth is more important than accumulation of knowledge for the increase in quality of life really doesn't stand up. Wealth exists in some form or other in nature, and we extract and use it. It doesn't matter who "owns" or "accumulates" it (doesn't matter if anyone does, in fact) through institutionalised means, the wealth exists. It requires the knowledge to use it, and that is where technology comes from, ultimately. Things do not necessarily need to be bought or privately owned to be used. If anything, the accumulation of wealth coupled with strict property laws over natural resources and means of production prevent a generalised increase in living standards while creating a very large increase in the living standards of what is altogether a few people. Individual property of useful objects which are used on a fairly regular basis by the owner (toothbrush, bike, car, apartment sized reasonably for one person, etc) is a sound idea if it's communally agreed on, but private (or state, in many cases) property of natural resources or means of production only needs to an exponentially increasing ease of accumulation; the more you have, the easier it is to get even more, and so on, without an end in sight short of significant economic issues. This isn't even touching on exploitation.

You're reading more into what I said than what I actually said. I never said anything about private property, capitalism, or anything like that. A communist society can accumulate wealth. And I fully agree that the natural resources in the land is wealth (but not all wealth is natural resources). Accumulation of said wealth is just using it.

The point is, without the recourses (if you like that word better than "wealth") you can not hope to use the knowledge you have. If a society doesn't have the ability to build hospitals because there are no building supplies, it doesn't matter if the society knows how to build hospitals.

In this way, wealth is more important than knowledge.

[mikelepore]

And I'm sorry, overproduction is not the cause of unemployment, and its SO silly to say it is.

Surely you have seen new articles about workers who were laid off because their jobs can now be performed by automation.

[LeftSideDown]

Surely you have seen new articles about workers who were laid off because their jobs can now be performed by automation.

Before I reply to your point, let me set up a hypothetical scenario and question you on it.

Lets say that a society uses gold knives for cutting, and have done so for 1000 years with no innovation, not because its suppressed, but just because no one thinks it can get better. One day a man thinks up a way to make stronger knives that only use half the gold that regular knives do, making up the rest with some less precious metal (lets call it iron). Suddenly, half the gold that was being used/reserved/restricted to making knives can now be used for other things (making jewelry, or I think they use some gold in computer chips, although this may be wrong). Would you say that the man who made this invention is bad because he opened up new ways that gold could be used for other things? Of course not.

The same is true for labor. If the world had become communist before the industrial revolution, according to your logic, we'd still be a largely agrarian society with standards of living so abysmally low it would make you look upon the homeless man in New York City in the dead of winter with envy. The point is that progress/automation will free up resources (in some cases labor) that was previously restrained to this field AND THIS IS NOT a bad thing.

[Tablo]

Before I reply to your point, let me set up a hypothetical scenario and question you on it.

Lets say that a society uses gold knives for cutting, and have done so for 1000 years with no innovation, not because its suppressed, but just because no one thinks it can get better. One day a man thinks up a way to make stronger knives that only use half the gold that regular knives do, making up the rest with some less precious metal (lets call it iron). Suddenly, half the gold that was being used/reserved/restricted to making knives can now be used for other things (making jewelry, or I think they use some gold in computer chips, although this may be wrong). Would you say that the man who made this invention is bad because he opened up new ways that gold could be used for other things? Of course not.

The same is true for labor. If the world had become communist before the industrial revolution, according to your logic, we'd still be a largely agrarian society with standards of living so abysmally low it would make you look upon the homeless man in New York City in the dead of winter with envy. The point is that progress/automation will free up resources (in some cases labor) that was previously restrained to this field AND THIS IS NOT a bad thing.
Why do you make the assumption that Communism is opposed to progress? It is actually radically in favor of progress that will benefit humanity. Quit trying to equate us with anti-progress movements like primitivism.

[LeftSideDown]

No, I'm pretty sure its rather the accumulation of knowledge.

So you're saying that knowledge isn't an incarnation of wealth, or that its not valuable? If I have lots of some resource, even if its not money (like dollars), it still valuable. A society cannot accumulate more knowledge without experiencing change (There is no difference, in a static world, between a man who goes out and fishes everyday and his son... no knowledge is gained if they are content) and this change is what breeds progress. Progress needs to be financed by wealth or savings. My point is still valid.


Wtf does the division of labor have to do with accumulating wealth? Or more so to the original argument that accumulating wealth provides incentive for beneficiary causes.

That division of labor is needed? I don't know, people need to do different jobs and experience different lifestyles to come up with different ideas. If everyone worked all day farming, they might be able to become extremely advanced at farming (with their tools being limited to what freetime they had outside of farming) but in all other areas they would be lacking. I don't understand the point of your second question/statement.


Obvious answer, the new machinery was capable of outproducing any hand made craft work. It thus forced people to work in the factories which the bourgeoisie owned privately.
Sure, the Industrial Revolution was a good technological advancement, but nonetheless, it does not mean that the capitalist use of the new technology was at all justified nor that it was responsible for the rise in living standards.

By bringing up "hand made craft" you expect to arouse within me feelings of sympathy for the self employed man that now had to work for a wage, but I honestly feel nothing. He was inefficient or else he wouldn't have been outcompeted. Honestly, you could use communist reasoning to oppose any sort of technological innovation as its probably going to put people who don't use this technology out of business or cause temporary unemployment because the labor is freed up.

[LeftSideDown]

What a sick ideology anarcho-tyrants ("anarcho"-capitalists) have.

We should be increasing knowledge and constantly acting upon new knowledge, as scientists do. For example, if better methods are found for producing energy, we should take away the old energy and implement the new energy.

This is the type of society that communism allows.

But don't you realize it is IMPOSSIBLE to say what a "better" method of producing energy is without cost-benefit analysis? IN order to do cost-benefit analysis you need money, (or at least some way of measuring profit/losses) something most communists/socialists on here say that socialism/communism will do away with. For instance, what are your criteria for "better"? More efficient? Lets say a new energy source is found thats 100x more efficient than coal, but 1000x scarcer, would socialist society use this? What if you found something thats 100x more efficient but 50x more polluting? What about something thats 100x less efficient but has no pollutants whatsoever? What about something thats 10x more efficient but doesn't/wouldn't give profit in a capitalistic society for 100 years (i.e. the initial investment is so high that even the efficiency doesn't outweigh the costs for many years)? If you would do the last one, do you know how the standard of living would have to fall in order to accommodate this new investment? So now you can see that you can't just always take away the old and implement the new, and in fact socialists almost ALWAYS assume static conditions (something not found in nature). So under Socialism, no progress would take place anyway.

[Tablo]

But don't you realize it is IMPOSSIBLE to say what a "better" method of producing energy is without cost-benefit analysis? IN order to do cost-benefit analysis you need money, (or at least some way of measuring profit/losses) something most communists/socialists on here say that socialism/communism will do away with. For instance, what are your criteria for "better"? More efficient? Lets say a new energy source is found thats 100x more efficient than coal, but 1000x scarcer, would socialist society use this? What if you found something thats 100x more efficient but 50x more polluting? What about something thats 100x less efficient but has no pollutants whatsoever? What about something thats 10x more efficient but doesn't/wouldn't give profit in a capitalistic society for 100 years (i.e. the initial investment is so high that even the efficiency doesn't outweigh the costs for many years)? If you would do the last one, do you know how the standard of living would have to fall in order to accommodate this new investment? So now you can see that you can't just always take away the old and implement the new, and in fact socialists almost ALWAYS assume static conditions (something not found in nature). So under Socialism, no progress would take place anyway.
Whether things are considered better would be decided by democratic means. That is the only fair way to decide such things.

[LeftSideDown]

The idea that the accumulation of wealth is more important than accumulation of knowledge for the increase in quality of life really doesn't stand up. Wealth exists in some form or other in nature, and we extract and use it. It doesn't matter who "owns" or "accumulates" it (doesn't matter if anyone does, in fact) through institutionalised means, the wealth exists. It requires the knowledge to use it, and that is where technology comes from, ultimately. Things do not necessarily need to be bought or privately owned to be used. If anything, the accumulation of wealth coupled with strict property laws over natural resources and means of production prevent a generalised increase in living standards while creating a very large increase in the living standards of what is altogether a few people. Individual property of useful objects which are used on a fairly regular basis by the owner (toothbrush, bike, car, apartment sized reasonably for one person, etc) is a sound idea if it's communally agreed on, but private (or state, in many cases) property of natural resources or means of production only needs to an exponentially increasing ease of accumulation; the more you have, the easier it is to get even more, and so on, without an end in sight short of significant economic issues. This isn't even touching on exploitation.

How does a community that owns, lets say, a steel mine figure out how to use it? What if each one has a different idea of what to do with it? Someone says (assuming an advanced society) to use the resource (with others, henceforth this will be assumed) to make a computer because a computer will make it possible for the society to make complex calculations and learn new things. Another person says that it should be used to create a guard railing at a nearby cliff that killed 5 people a year. Another says that they should build a store house for grain so that they can prepare for bad years. Which is most economically benefit. How does any community decide? Democratically? IF they all disagree, what then? What if only 51% agree, because the 51% has the more convincing speaker? DO you accept the will of the majority no matter the case?

[LeftSideDown]

Why do you make the assumption that Communism is opposed to progress? It is actually radically in favor of progress that will benefit humanity. Quit trying to equate us with anti-progress movements like primitivism.

Oh, maybe not all of you, although I've seen no way you can distinguish between ideas that will benefit society and those that will just drain resources, and:

Surely you have seen new articles about workers who were laid off because their jobs can now be performed by automation.
seems to support my conclusions.

[Tablo]

Oh, maybe not all of you, although I've seen no way you can distinguish between ideas that will benefit society and those that will just drain resources, and:

seems to support my conclusions.
We do not want workers laid off and such things would never even happen under a Communist system to begin with since more people working equates to everyone having to work less.

His/Her comment merely sows our opposition to the firing of workers for the purpose of increased profit. In Communism there is always a job to be done and as long as you actually work you are guaranteed to be provided for.

[LeftSideDown]

Whether things are considered better would be decided by democratic means. That is the only fair way to decide such things.

It was "democratically" decided that slavery was okay, at least in America, until 1865. Hitler was "democratically" elected. The senate, in Roman times, "Democratically" voted to elect Gaius Julius Caesar to become dictator rei gerundae causa and then Dictator perpetuo (I'm not here to argue that Caesar was or was not a good emperor merely that the instilling of this ultimate power into one individual came about democratically, and some subsequent emperors abused this power horribly). I hardly think slavery, Hitler, or Roman emperors were "fair". And the definition of fair is so subjective that even debating about is fruitless (as I hope you'll recognize) and so to say it's "the only fair way" is equivalent to saying nothing.

[Tablo]

It was "democratically" decided that slavery was okay, at least in America, until 1865. Hitler was "democratically" elected. The senate, in Roman times, "Democratically" voted to elect Gaius Julius Caesar to become dictator rei gerundae causa and then Dictator perpetuo (I'm not here to argue that Caesar was or was not a good emperor merely that the instilling of this ultimate power into one individual came about democratically, and some subsequent emperors abused this power horribly). I hardly think slavery, Hitler, or Roman emperors were "fair". And the definition of fair is so subjective that even debating about is fruitless (as I hope you'll recognize) and so to say it's "the only fair way" is equivalent to saying nothing.
Democratically decided in societies ruled by misinformation by ruling elites. Are you arguing that authoritarianism would be a better means by which to make decisions? Democracy is by no means perfect, but in Communism it would be at least taken to a grassroots level and decided by communes instead of by entire land masses so people would easily have the opportunity to move away from a commune that they dislike.

[LeftSideDown]

We do not want workers laid off and such things would never even happen under a Communist system to begin with since more people working equates to everyone having to work less.

His/Her comment merely sows our opposition to the firing of workers for the purpose of increased profit. In Communism there is always a job to be done and as long as you actually work you are guaranteed to be provided for.

If you say people would not be "laid off" then you are saying there will be no progress. Whats the point of making tractors or anything that increases productivity if you need the SAME amount of people to do the SAME work? And you make the assumption that the population does not grow, nor does consumer preference, or any external factors (such as weather). This is silly. How do you control population? Not allow copulation? Force people to only have one or two kids? Its silly to go into all the ways that population control could not work, or to describe why there is no such thing as a static economy.

So in communism, you'd have the same amount of people doing a job that now requires LESS people, instead of transferring these people to industries that could not previously be made possible because labor was tied up in this resource because it fulfilled a more urgent need? First you say that you want progress, than you won't allow any of the changes that progress demands to happen, which do you want?

[LeftSideDown]

Democratically decided in societies ruled by misinformation by ruling elites. Are you arguing that authoritarianism would be a better means by which to make decisions? Democracy is by no means perfect, but in Communism it would be at least taken to a grassroots level and decided by communes instead of by entire land masses so people would easily have the opportunity to move away from a commune that they dislike.

I'm not arguing for authoritarianism, I'm arguing that democracy responsible for some of the biggest atrocities in history. And, if you didn't know, the Senate in roman times were the elite... so they were probably informed, or at least as informed as you can be. As for people who democratically decided to institutionalize slavery, were they just not told africans are humans? If you say they weren't, then you're ignoring that there were american abolitionists since the country was founded.

How could democracy work in a society without economic calculation? There would be no way to determine the best use of resources whatsoever. And, really? People could move? So if there was a community near a trash dump whose job it was to process trash they could just move away and no one would take care of trash? Why would people move to this trashy, stinky area? No, coercion would have to exist at every level of communist society in order to even PRETEND that there was some way of determining the economics of a certain action.

[Tablo]

If you say people would not be "laid off" then you are saying there will be no progress. Whats the point of making tractors or anything that increases productivity if you need the SAME amount of people to do the SAME work? And you make the assumption that the population does not grow, nor does consumer preference, or any external factors (such as weather). This is silly. How do you control population? Not allow copulation? Force people to only have one or two kids? Its silly to go into all the ways that population control could not work, or to describe why there is no such thing as a static economy.

So in communism, you'd have the same amount of people doing a job that now requires LESS people, instead of transferring these people to industries that could not previously be made possible because labor was tied up in this resource because it fulfilled a more urgent need? First you say that you want progress, than you won't allow any of the changes that progress demands to happen, which do you want?
It has been clearly demonstrated that population growth is dramatically decreased with information on birth control and right to abortion being provided to women. As a matter of fact the United States only maintains population growth due to immigration.

In Communism the needs of the people always come first. If a natural disaster occurs in one commune then I imagine that surrounding communes would temporarily not spend time on more trivial jobs so labor could be concentrated in the reconstruction of their neighbors infrastructure. The reason for this is because what hurts the production in one commune hurts the provided goods of another. We are a united humanity so we should all help each other for our own benefit. You seem to ignore the fact that labor in Capitalism is already unbelievably inefficient. Communism is not some perfect utopia by any means, but it is the best imaginable improvement.

[Tablo]

I'm not arguing for authoritarianism, I'm arguing that democracy responsible for some of the biggest atrocities in history. And, if you didn't know, the Senate in roman times were the elite... so they were probably informed, or at least as informed as you can be. As for people who democratically decided to institutionalize slavery, were they just not told africans are humans? If you say they weren't, then you're ignoring that there were american abolitionists since the country was founded.

How could democracy work in a society without economic calculation? There would be no way to determine the best use of resources whatsoever. And, really? People could move? So if there was a community near a trash dump whose job it was to process trash they could just move away and no one would take care of trash? Why would people move to this trashy, stinky area? No, coercion would have to exist at every level of communist society in order to even PRETEND that there was some way of determining the economics of a certain action.
Yes, those Roman elections were by the elite. What are the interests of the elite? Obviously to maintain power and control over the ignorant masses. So they would not by any means wish to do any good for the enslaved masses. Who are the ones elected in modern day elections? Still the elites. Why? Their campaigns are funded by the elites so the ignorant masses still vote for them.

How could democracy possibly exist with a society with economic calculation! When a fucking factory owners can fund a politician with his massive revenue how the fuck can common workers compete? The state only exists to protect the interests of the elites! The best use of resources would be decided democratically based on the knowledge of those in the community. You are arguing against democracy which, to most people, is an authoritarian position to take.

[LeftSideDown]

It has been clearly demonstrated that population growth is dramatically decreased with information on birth control and right to abortion being provided to women. As a matter of fact the United States only maintains population growth due to immigration.

In Communism the needs of the people always come first. If a natural disaster occurs in one commune then I imagine that surrounding communes would temporarily not spend time on more trivial jobs so labor could be concentrated in the reconstruction of their neighbors infrastructure. The reason for this is because what hurts the production in one commune hurts the provided goods of another. We are a united humanity so we should all help each other for our own benefit. You seem to ignore the fact that labor in Capitalism is already unbelievably inefficient. Communism is not some perfect utopia by any means, but it is the best imaginable improvement.

Fair point on population control, but you still make the assumption of population stability and this is impossible. If population begins declining than some industries will lack the labor necessary, or that they had before, and will lose productivity.

And does not your situation with disaster management occur in a capitalist community? Dollars donated to causes such as Haiti and hurricane Katrina demonstrate this point vividly. So what point are you trying to make?

[Tablo]

Fair point on population control, but you still make the assumption of population stability and this is impossible. If population begins declining than some industries will lack the labor necessary, or that they had before, and will lose productivity.

And does not your situation with disaster management occur in a capitalist community? Dollars donated to causes such as Haiti and hurricane Katrina demonstrate this point vividly. So what point are you trying to make?
If population declines how would industries lack necessary labor? A decline in population simply means a decline in goods and services that are needed to be provided. If you are taking into account a small working age population and a large population of elderly people then it is true that additional labor would need to be done, but it goes the same in any system. It is not possible to avoid such a situation.

In Katrina we still had members of financial institutions carrying on with their unproductive labor. We still had movie producers carrying on with their unproductive labor. We still had video game developers, business owners, and fucking politicians carrying on with unproductive labor. They didn't drop what they were doing and help the people in the Katrina disaster. Goods and services were not completely freely provided for them so they could recover. The incident was handled poorly and many suffered because of this. The example of Katrina is largely in direct opposition of the maintenance of the Capitalist system.

[LeftSideDown]

Yes, those Roman elections were by the elite. What are the interests of the elite? Obviously to maintain power and control over the ignorant masses. So they would not by any means wish to do any good for the enslaved masses. Who are the ones elected in modern day elections? Still the elites. Why? Their campaigns are funded by the elites so the ignorant masses still vote for them.

How could democracy possibly exist with a society with economic calculation! When a fucking factory owners can fund a politician with his massive revenue how the fuck can common workers compete? The state only exists to protect the interests of the elites! The best use of resources would be decided democratically based on the knowledge of those in the community. You are arguing against democracy which, to most people, is an authoritarian position to take.

The senate... the senate lost all its power when they handed it over to the dictator. After they declared a dictator they basically served as counselors and really have no power. Why would they do this? The most informed people in Roman society made this grave mistake. What does illustrate? Imperfect knowledge that exists everywhere and is EXASPERATED by democracy, not reduced.

It could exist very easily and has existed, at least in America, since the mid 1780's... you might want to check up on your history. It might not be your ideal (you said yourself its not perfect, I don't see how yours would be more perfect) democracy, but it existed.

But listen, I agree with you that a factory owner would have more say because of his funding, but answer me this: if the government could not grant privileges, immunities, or monopolies to the factory owner, where would be his incentive to donate money? The only reason would be is that he personally believes in the candidate, but even then he would not throw all the resources of his company behind a candidate that could lose no matter how much money he uses. It seems your argument leads to the minarchism: that a government that is tiny and extremely limited would garner hardly any special interests and would make democracy more "fair".

I also agree that, today, the state exists to protect the elite, since the elite have them in their pockets. But without all the power the government has granted itself, what would it matter how many politicians you have in your pocket if they are so powerless they couldn't benefit you in any way?

Have you ever considered I'm making an argument against government which is completely counter to authoritarianism?

Please refer to my previous post and tell me how a democracy could with any sort of real knowledge vote on this:
But don't you realize it is IMPOSSIBLE to say what a "better" method of producing energy is without cost-benefit analysis? IN order to do cost-benefit analysis you need money, (or at least some way of measuring profit/losses) something most communists/socialists on here say that socialism/communism will do away with. For instance, what are your criteria for "better"? More efficient? Lets say a new energy source is found thats 100x more efficient than coal, but 1000x scarcer, would socialist society use this? What if you found something thats 100x more efficient but 50x more polluting? What about something thats 100x less efficient but has no pollutants whatsoever? What about something thats 10x more efficient but doesn't/wouldn't give profit in a capitalistic society for 100 years (i.e. the initial investment is so high that even the efficiency doesn't outweigh the costs for many years)? If you would do the last one, do you know how the standard of living would have to fall in order to accommodate this new investment? So now you can see that you can't just always take away the old and implement the new, and in fact socialists almost ALWAYS assume static conditions (something not found in nature). So under Socialism, no progress would take place anyway.

or this:
How does a community that owns, lets say, a steel mine figure out how to use it? What if each one has a different idea of what to do with it? Someone says (assuming an advanced society) to use the resource (with others, henceforth this will be assumed) to make a computer because a computer will make it possible for the society to make complex calculations and learn new things. Another person says that it should be used to create a guard railing at a nearby cliff that killed 5 people a year. Another says that they should build a store house for grain so that they can prepare for bad years. Which is most economically benefit. How does any community decide? Democratically? IF they all disagree, what then? What if only 51% agree, because the 51% has the more convincing speaker? DO you accept the will of the majority no matter the case?

[Tablo]

The senate... the senate lost all its power when they handed it over to the dictator. After they declared a dictator they basically served as counselors and really have no power. Why would they do this? The most informed people in Roman society made this grave mistake. What does illustrate? Imperfect knowledge that exists everywhere and is EXASPERATED by democracy, not reduced.

It could exist very easily and has existed, at least in America, since the mid 1780's... you might want to check up on your history. It might not be your ideal (you said yourself its not perfect, I don't see how yours would be more perfect) democracy, but it existed.

But listen, I agree with you that a factory owner would have more say because of his funding, but answer me this: if the government could not grant privileges, immunities, or monopolies to the factory owner, where would be his incentive to donate money? The only reason would be is that he personally believes in the candidate, but even then he would not throw all the resources of his company behind a candidate that could lose no matter how much money he uses. It seems your argument leads to the minarchism: that a government that is tiny and extremely limited would garner hardly any special interests and would make democracy more "fair".

I also agree that, today, the state exists to protect the elite, since the elite have them in their pockets. But without all the power the government has granted itself, what would it matter how many politicians you have in your pocket if they are so powerless they couldn't benefit you in any way?

Have you ever considered I'm making an argument against government which is completely counter to authoritarianism?

Please refer to my previous post and tell me how a democracy could with any sort of real knowledge vote on this:
But don't you realize it is IMPOSSIBLE to say what a "better" method of producing energy is without cost-benefit analysis? IN order to do cost-benefit analysis you need money, (or at least some way of measuring profit/losses) something most communists/socialists on here say that socialism/communism will do away with. For instance, what are your criteria for "better"? More efficient? Lets say a new energy source is found thats 100x more efficient than coal, but 1000x scarcer, would socialist society use this? What if you found something thats 100x more efficient but 50x more polluting? What about something thats 100x less efficient but has no pollutants whatsoever? What about something thats 10x more efficient but doesn't/wouldn't give profit in a capitalistic society for 100 years (i.e. the initial investment is so high that even the efficiency doesn't outweigh the costs for many years)? If you would do the last one, do you know how the standard of living would have to fall in order to accommodate this new investment? So now you can see that you can't just always take away the old and implement the new, and in fact socialists almost ALWAYS assume static conditions (something not found in nature). So under Socialism, no progress would take place anyway.

or this:
How does a community that owns, lets say, a steel mine figure out how to use it? What if each one has a different idea of what to do with it? Someone says (assuming an advanced society) to use the resource (with others, henceforth this will be assumed) to make a computer because a computer will make it possible for the society to make complex calculations and learn new things. Another person says that it should be used to create a guard railing at a nearby cliff that killed 5 people a year. Another says that they should build a store house for grain so that they can prepare for bad years. Which is most economically benefit. How does any community decide? Democratically? IF they all disagree, what then? What if only 51% agree, because the 51% has the more convincing speaker? DO you accept the will of the majority no matter the case?
I'm a little bit drunk at the moment so I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but it seems you are arguing in favor of the cost-benefit analysis. This is a terrible way to determine anything. It places profits before actual human needs. Plus, cost in our society is largely based on artificial scarcity which is caused by the profit motive to begin with.

[LeftSideDown]

If population declines how would industries lack necessary labor? A decline in population simply means a decline in goods and services that are needed to be provided. If you are taking into account a small working age population and a large population of elderly people then it is true that additional labor would need to be done, but it goes the same in any system. It is not possible to avoid such a situation.

In Katrina we still had members of financial institutions carrying on with their unproductive labor. We still had movie producers carrying on with their unproductive labor. We still had video game developers, business owners, and fucking politicians carrying on with unproductive labor. They didn't drop what they were doing and help the people in the Katrina disaster. Goods and services were not completely freely provided for them so they could recover. The incident was handled poorly and many suffered because of this. The example of Katrina is largely in direct opposition of the maintenance of the Capitalist system.

But, as I've said, Socialists always assume static conditions, one of which is population. For instance, lets say that the population drops and instead of workers filling up two shoe factories they only fill up one; what happens to the other factory? Do you maintain it, in case of future population growth? Do you let it degenerate because it would take a lot of resources to maintain it that could be used to promote standards of living now? Both situations imply risk, and socialism has no real method of deciding on what risk to take.

Besides, humans produce far more than they consume, or, in other words, they are worth more than they cost to maintain. Otherwise humanity would perish because it would cost more to keep one alive than one can produce. Obviously this is wrong. So to say "A decline in population simply means a decline in goods and services that are needed to be provided" is wrong because those people were producing more than they were consuming otherwise humanity would not be viable. To put it in perspective, thats like saying it wouldn't cause any problems if suddenly 100tons of iron disappeared because then we wouldn't need to spend as much time maintaining that iron and preventing it from oxidizing. Its silly, the benefits of using iron are much more than the costs of maintaining it.

Financial institutions are not unproductive; they provide the service of planning people's finances because some people are inept at this, even if they are good at other things. Movie producers provide entertainment; they are not unproductive. Video game developers and business owners are not unproductive; they produce video games and all other matter of consumer goods.

Your solution to solving a crisis is to have everyone stop producing and just run to the crisis area without anybody left behind producing the things that would be needed to resolve the crisis. I'm sorry, you made find entertainment unproductive and you can show this preference by not indulging in these things (this forum is pretty unproductive, when I think about it. People are starving and you're posting on this forum, you're a terrible person), however would you really want to live in a society without entertainment? All you do is work and then go home and sit around? Seems pretty lame to me.

Besides, all goods and services are free in communism, so how would they react to a crisis any differently? Besides the government handled things horribly, not private companies that were stopped by FEMA from entering the city and providing essentials to those stranded. I'm sorry communism advocates an increase in efficiency and I don't.

[LeftSideDown]

I'm a little bit drunk at the moment so I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but it seems you are arguing in favor of the cost-benefit analysis. This is a terrible way to determine anything. It places profits before actual human needs. Plus, cost in our society is largely based on artificial scarcity which is caused by the profit motive to begin with.

Well, please, tomorrow, or whenever you are sober, answer these questions, as they could conceivably happen, and tell me how you would do this without cost benefit analysis? Why is it wrong to do cost benefit analysis with society as the determining factor?

[Tablo]

But, as I've said, Socialists always assume static conditions, one of which is population. For instance, lets say that the population drops and instead of workers filling up two shoe factories they only fill up one; what happens to the other factory? Do you maintain it, in case of future population growth? Do you let it degenerate because it would take a lot of resources to maintain it that could be used to promote standards of living now? Both situations imply risk, and socialism has no real method of deciding on what risk to take.

Besides, humans produce far more than they consume, or, in other words, they are worth more than they cost to maintain. Otherwise humanity would perish because it would cost more to keep one alive than one can produce. Obviously this is wrong. So to say "A decline in population simply means a decline in goods and services that are needed to be provided" is wrong because those people were producing more than they were consuming otherwise humanity would not be viable. To put it in perspective, thats like saying it wouldn't cause any problems if suddenly 100tons of iron disappeared because then we wouldn't need to spend as much time maintaining that iron and preventing it from oxidizing. Its silly, the benefits of using iron are much more than the costs of maintaining it.

Financial institutions are not unproductive; they provide the service of planning people's finances because some people are inept at this, even if they are good at other things. Movie producers provide entertainment; they are not unproductive. Video game developers and business owners are not unproductive; they produce video games and all other matter of consumer goods.

Your solution to solving a crisis is to have everyone stop producing and just run to the crisis area without anybody left behind producing the things that would be needed to resolve the crisis. I'm sorry, you made find entertainment unproductive and you can show this preference by not indulging in these things (this forum is pretty unproductive, when I think about it. People are starving and you're posting on this forum, you're a terrible person), however would you really want to live in a society without entertainment? All you do is work and then go home and sit around? Seems pretty lame to me.

Besides, all goods and services are free in communism, so how would they react to a crisis any differently? Besides the government handled things horribly, not private companies that were stopped by FEMA from entering the city and providing essentials to those stranded. I'm sorry communism advocates an increase in efficiency and I don't.
Socialists do not assume static conditions. I don't see why you would make such an assumption. If there became a demand for additional shoes then they would make the second factory or increase the capacity of the first factory in order to meet the needs of society. That isn't even an argument. In Capitalism it would be a bad idea to provide the shoes necessary for everyone in the world as the increased supply would dramatically decrease demand which decreases prices and reduces profit. This can be seen in food production. We easily can create enough food to supply the world, but the government pays farmers not to in order to maintain market value to stop economic collapse. Supply and demand are the very basics of market economics so I suggest you do a bit of research.

Yes, humans produce more than they consume which bolsters the argument for a shorter work day. To produce significantly more than is needed is wasteful when we live in a closed environment(planet Earth) which has limited resources.

I only want unproductive labor to stop production. Or at least the least productive labor to stop production. I'm sorry. I do not see how victims of natural disasters need to watch fucking movies when they do not have food or shelter. The reconstruction of the necessary infrastructure takes priority over entertainment. Entertainment, while very beneficial, is not as important as a roof over your head.

I am not arguing in favor of government. I'm and Anarchist and reject government bureaucracy. Why would you favor a system that is less efficient at providing for human needs? Seems like the position of a petty-bourgeois kid that is ignorant of the plights of the working class.

[Tablo]

Well, please, tomorrow, or whenever you are sober, answer these questions, as they could conceivably happen, and tell me how you would do this without cost benefit analysis? Why is it wrong to do cost benefit analysis with society as the determining factor?
Even in my intoxicated state I did point out the problems of the cost-benefit analysis. Cost can not be properly determined in any way in a market economy since cost is largely created by artificial scarcity created in order to keep prices up in order to maintain high profit. In this way cost-benefit analysis does not take into account human needs.

[RGacky3]

But, as I've said, Socialists always assume static conditions, one of which is population. For instance, lets say that the population drops and instead of workers filling up two shoe factories they only fill up one; what happens to the other factory? Do you maintain it, in case of future population growth? Do you let it degenerate because it would take a lot of resources to maintain it that could be used to promote standards of living now? Both situations imply risk, and socialism has no real method of deciding on what risk to take.


No, you close one, and everyone has to work less. Hurra.

We don't assume static conditions at all, what does that have to do with anything?

The difference is Capitalists want changes to be decided by Capitalists (i.e. by the market, i.e. by people with lots of money, i.e. Capitalists), Socialists want changes to be decided by society (i.e. democracy).


Financial institutions are not unproductive; they provide the service of planning people's finances because some people are inept at this, even if they are good at other things. Movie producers provide entertainment; they are not unproductive. Video game developers and business owners are not unproductive; they produce video games and all other matter of consumer goods.


Financial institutiosn ARE unproductive, without a capitalist system there would be absolutely no need for financial institutions as a buisiness, where as movie producers and the such actually produce something that would exist with or without a Capitalist system.


Also Tsukae for goodness sake don't post drunk.

[LeftSideDown]

I will reply to both of you tomorrow, later in the day. I enjoy the discussion greatly, even if we find only very small portions of common ground I love debate and I hope you guys will at least throw me in prison for life rather than shoot me when the revolution rolls around :wub:.
(Thats a joke by the way)

[CartCollector]

I don't know, this seems to be more of an argument against government than against capitalism or private ownership, however I will respond to it just the same. And what do capitalism and private ownership need to exist? From my original quote of The ABCs of Anarchism:

But suppose that he insists on his ownership and that he produces a slip of paper and says that it proves that everything belongs to him? We'd tell him he's crazy and we'd go about our business. But if he should have a government back of him, he would appeal to it for the protection of "his rights," and the government would send police and soldiers who would evict us and put the "lawful owner in possession."
That is the function of government; that is what government exists for and what it is doing all the time.
In other words, government's purpose is to protect capital owners, and without government, capital gets expropriated.

However, if a homeless man wondered into a home that had not been occupied for many years (the number of years that would make this legal is a continuum problem and will not be discussed here) and begin to mix his labor with the house, he would be the active homesteader and he would have a stronger claim to the property than the owner, who, by not maintaining the house had done no homesteading.Oh no not this "sweat of the brow ownership" nonsense again. All you really need to lay claim to property is to convince everyone else it's yours and intimidate, imprison, and kill those who aren't convinced. That second part is the only "labor" you need.
Anyways if you really supported "sweat of the brow ownership," wouldn't you say that those who mix their labor with materials own the result of their labor?

[Ryke]

How does a community that owns, lets say, a steel mine figure out how to use it? What if each one has a different idea of what to do with it? Someone says (assuming an advanced society) to use the resource (with others, henceforth this will be assumed) to make a computer because a computer will make it possible for the society to make complex calculations and learn new things. Another person says that it should be used to create a guard railing at a nearby cliff that killed 5 people a year. Another says that they should build a store house for grain so that they can prepare for bad years. Which is most economically benefit. How does any community decide? Democratically? IF they all disagree, what then? What if only 51% agree, because the 51% has the more convincing speaker? DO you accept the will of the majority no matter the case?

First, ask the miners how much they can extract, even if it's approximate, in a certain amount of time. Then, ask everyone involved how much they'd need, and negotiate accordingly between the miners who run the mine and the people who ask for the iron (no such thing as a steel mine, btw). Consensus or explicit agreement is preferred to any majority. Since the grain silo and guardrail are issues which involve the whole community to a degree, they could have their say as well. I expect the silo or guardrail would be built, being that they have an incidence on human lives.

If there's just not enough iron for everyone and some people still consider they need it, there's the possibility of looking elsewhere for a mine in a community where there's plenty of iron, or to look for substitutes that would do as well.

The main arguments against direct democracy is that it would involve a bunch of uninvolved people voting on everything, which isn't true, and that voting would be used in every situation, even when consent could be better ascertained through face-to-face negotiation or discussion.

And besides, society would effectively be a federation of freely associated groups which would range in size from the tiny to the international, which means that for votes involving very large numbers of people, face-to-face discussion can still be done within groups, and between groups, using delegates if necessary.

[LeftSideDown]

And what do capitalism and private ownership need to exist? From my original quote of The ABCs of Anarchism:

In other words, government's purpose is to protect capital owners, and without government, capital gets expropriated.
Oh no not this "sweat of the brow ownership" nonsense again. All you really need to lay claim to property is to convince everyone else it's yours and intimidate, imprison, and kill those who aren't convinced. That second part is the only "labor" you need.

I replied to this already, so I'll just copy pasta it:
In the first case, someone with no more claim than anyone else is, without justification, claiming the whole island as his. Assuming they cannot leave the island, this is their whole world. Obviously it'd be ludicrous for one person to claim ownership of the whole earth without justification. So, in this case, they would either force him to only claim his "fair share" (I assume they would divide it evenly) and if he refused they would imprison or kill him. I would have no problem with this.

In the second case, that of previous ownership, he may have owned the land before you came but if he wasn't "homesteading" the property his rights to that property would diminish with time. For someone to claim ownership he has to actively homestead that property to maintain the legality of his claim. Since he had not been doing this he has no claim, even if he bought the land. However, if that landowner had been gone for, oh say, 5 minutes, and then the shipped crashed, and this landowner had homesteaded that land all his life do the shipwrecked people have any claim to his land? No, that is ludicrous. Thats like you leaving your house for 5 minutes and a homeless man coming into and claiming it as his. Its silly. However, if a homeless man wondered into a home that had not been occupied for many years (the number of years that would make this legal is a continuum problem and will not be discussed here) and begin to mix his labor with the house, he would be the active homesteader and he would have a stronger claim to the property than the owner, who, by not maintaining the house had done no homesteading.

So if your point is that the government enforces other people's claims to property they don't own, then I 100% agree with you; however, I apply this principle to taxes which make the assumption that somehow those who don't/can't work have a claim on your property.

Anyway, if you kill or imprison anyone you are invading their property rights and should be punished accordingly. Government, nowadays, is the only institution that is routinely allowed to do this. I'm not saying crime doesn't happen, only that government is allowed to commit crimes at their will without so much as being questioned. SO again, seems to me to be an argument against government. Besides, if all you have to do is convince everyone its yours, where does the government play into this? Seems to me there is no need if all you need to do is convince others. Please stop changing your story.


Anyways if you really supported "sweat of the brow ownership," wouldn't you say that those who mix their labor with materials own the result of their labor?

That depends. Do they own the materials that they are laboring with? Do they own the means of production that make them more productive? If you answered "no" to either of these questions they aren't entitled to everything they make since they are profiting from the added productivity of means of production made before they began laboring for whomever it is they are laboring for

[Ryke]

That depends. Do they own the materials that they are laboring with? Do they own the means of production that make them more productive? If you answered "no" to either of these questions they aren't entitled to everything they make since they are profiting from the added productivity of means of production made before they began laboring for whomever it is they are laboring for

Not only is that logic vaguely circular, it ignores the matter of how and why anyone now owns anything and whether this is justified. Apply this logic to the bosses as well and it just stops making any kind of sense. Why does the man who employ the workers own what he owns? Is it wholly the fruit of his labour? If ownership of the means of production obeys different rules, why does it? You can't just handle the matter of ownership as though it just exists.

[LeftSideDown]

Socialists do not assume static conditions. I don't see why you would make such an assumption. If there became a demand for additional shoes then they would make the second factory or increase the capacity of the first factory in order to meet the needs of society. That isn't even an argument. In Capitalism it would be a bad idea to provide the shoes necessary for everyone in the world as the increased supply would dramatically decrease demand which decreases prices and reduces profit. This can be seen in food production. We easily can create enough food to supply the world, but the government pays farmers not to in order to maintain market value to stop economic collapse. Supply and demand are the very basics of market economics so I suggest you do a bit of research.

"Tacitly underlying Marxian theory is the nebulous idea that the natural factors of production are such that they need to not be economized. Such a conclusion indeed follows inevitably from a system that reckons labor as the only element in costs, that does not accept the law of diminishing returns...and loses itself in obscure fantasies about the unlimited possibility of increasing productivity."...
"To suppose that a socialist community could substitute calculations in kind for calculations in terms of money is an illusion. In a community that does not practice exchange, calculations in kind can never cover more than the consumption goods. They break down completely where goods of higher order are concerned. Once society abandons free pricing of production goods rational production becomes impossible. Every step that leads away from private ownership of the means of production and the use of money is a step away from rational economic activity."
...
"For some time possibly the accumulated tradition of thousands of years of economic freedom would preserve the art of economic administration from complete disintegration. Men would preserve the old processes, not because they were rational, but because they were sanctified by tradition. In the meantime, however, changing conditions would make them irrational. They would become uneconomical as a result of changes brought about by the general decline of economic thought. It is true that production would no longer be "anarchical". The command of a supreme authority would govern the business of supply. Instead of the economy of "anarchical" production the senseless order of an irrational machine would be supreme. The wheels would go round, but to no effect."
...
"Suppose, for instance, that the socialist commonwealth was contemplating a new railway line. Would a new railway line be a good thing? If so, which of many possible routes should it cover? Under a system of private ownership we could use money calculations to decide these questions. The new line would cheapen the transportation of certain articles, and, on this basis, we could estimate whether the reduction in transport charges would be great enough to counterweigh the expenditure which the building and running of the line would involve. Such a calculation could be made only in money. We could not do it by comparing various classes of expenditure and savings in kind. If it is out out of the question to reduce to a common unit unit the quantities of various kinds of skilled and unskilled labour, iron, coal, building materials of various different kinds, machinery and the other things which the building and upkeep of the railways necessitate, then it is impossible to make them the subject of economic calculation. We can make systematic economic plans only when all the commodities which we have to take into account can be assimilated to money. True, money calculations are incomplete. True, they have profound deficiencies. But we have nothing better to put in their place. And under sound monetary conditions they suffice for practical purposes. If we abandon them, economic calculation becomes absolutely impossible."

You really need to brush up on your economics. If it is unprofitable to provide shoes for everyone that means that cost outweigh the benefits. In different terms, you're fulfilling a less urgent need at the cost of a more urgent need, thus the company goes out of business. I find it strange that you think capital just pops out of nowhere and factories can be made all willy nilly without any regard for the economics of such a factory. People want as much stuff as possible, so I guess you would just make a million factories for everything people want then? Also, I already brought up the farmers earlier (or maybe in a different thread) and I don't think its right for the government to subsidize any portion of the economy at the cost of others.


Yes, humans produce more than they consume which bolsters the argument for a shorter work day. To produce significantly more than is needed is wasteful when we live in a closed environment(planet Earth) which has limited resources.

So you propose, then, to live as Buddhist monks? If we did this we would stop all progress. Anything outside of 2000 calories a day and however much water we need is superfluous. Its not needed. Who is to say what amount of consumption is wasteful and what is progress. Think back. Do not old people you know always say we have it so easy, but it was so much better back in their day? Don't they almost unilaterally oppose change? How would you avoid this in socialism, if at all?


I only want unproductive labor to stop production. Or at least the least productive labor to stop production. I'm sorry. I do not see how victims of natural disasters need to watch fucking movies when they do not have food or shelter. The reconstruction of the necessary infrastructure takes priority over entertainment. Entertainment, while very beneficial, is not as important as a roof over your head.

Define unproductive. If its you define it as more than is necessary to survive than most progress during the industrial revolution is unproductive. You cannot just make food and shelter appear, and hollywood could not be converted to a food producing plant overnight (if you didn't know that) so whats the point of stopping production? If by the time your resources had been changed over the crisis had been resolved why even bother changing over your resources?


I am not arguing in favor of government. I'm and Anarchist and reject government bureaucracy. Why would you favor a system that is less efficient at providing for human needs? Seems like the position of a petty-bourgeois kid that is ignorant of the plights of the working class.

Well theres a semi-point of agreement. While I'm not anarchistic, I do believe that government should be as small as possible and kept that way. If you reject government you reject communism. There is no way to even pretend to have an economic plan without central planning. There is no way to redistribute wealth without a central authority. It is impossible to make diverse peoples come together without coercion, even if its for "their benefit". I favor a system thats most effective of providing for human needs, and if you need proof of this, I urge you to listen to this recording. Whilst it is 36 minutes its interesting and I'd like to hear your thoughts. http://mises.org/media/4260

[LeftSideDown]

Even in my intoxicated state I did point out the problems of the cost-benefit analysis. Cost can not be properly determined in any way in a market economy since cost is largely created by artificial scarcity created in order to keep prices up in order to maintain high profit. In this way cost-benefit analysis does not take into account human needs.

Wow, without cost-benefit analysis you're literally in the middle of the ocean without a sail, rudder, compass, or paddle. If we didn't have cost benefit analysis we would be making houses of gold and cars out of wood and baby toys out of knives. Like, its entirely silly to say cost-benefit analysis is entirely debunked because you claim there is an artificial scarcity. IF you take away this "artificial scarcity" then, I assume, it would be okay to use cost-benefit analysis... because if you say its not this debate is over. I'm taking my hat and finding the door.

[LeftSideDown]

The difference is Capitalists want changes to be decided by Capitalists (i.e. by the market, i.e. by people with lots of money, i.e. Capitalists), Socialists want changes to be decided by society (i.e. democracy).

But how can a society decide what is most beneficial without money and prices? It is impossible.


Financial institutiosn ARE unproductive, without a capitalist system there would be absolutely no need for financial institutions as a buisiness, where as movie producers and the such actually produce something that would exist with or without a Capitalist system.

So in socialism you would hold everybody's hand to make sure they don't buy things they shouldn't? Or you would you issue ration tickets and limit consumption anyway? Either way you're reducing freedom and eliminating consumer choice from the matter.


Also Tsukae for goodness sake don't post drunk.

^^^This

[LeftSideDown]

First, ask the miners how much they can extract, even if it's approximate, in a certain amount of time. Then, ask everyone involved how much they'd need, and negotiate accordingly between the miners who run the mine and the people who ask for the iron (no such thing as a steel mine, btw). Consensus or explicit agreement is preferred to any majority. Since the grain silo and guardrail are issues which involve the whole community to a degree, they could have their say as well. I expect the silo or guardrail would be built, being that they have an incidence on human lives.

Really? How much steel does anyone need? Its not necessary for survival (all you need for survival is food and water, and a nice climate). So already theres a flaw. Any use of "iron" is at most excess or unproductive consumption since it won't serve either to give people food or water. Yeah, I was being silly with the steel mine. Regardless I just wanted to name a limited natural resource and steel popped into my head because its so useful. How much would you limit people whom you ask about? IF you said we have 100tons of steel available and how much do you need? is kind of useless unless they can use this resource or have the facilities to process it. I know it introduces a new dimension, but since it wouldn't fulfill any "needs" it would only be for wants and it'd be excess consumption so why fund it?

Don't computers also have an incidence on human life? They improve standard of living of the people, they have an incidence on human life. Now that you'v answered my question, how big would you make the guard rail/how sturdy/how thick and how large would you make the grain silo? These also need to be answered, and so are you going to democratically going to vote on volumes, length, and area?


If there's just not enough iron for everyone and some people still consider they need it, there's the possibility of looking elsewhere for a mine in a community where there's plenty of iron, or to look for substitutes that would do as well.

Looking elsewhere, wouldn't they have to provide that community with some sort of good in exchange for iron? Or if it was all free whats to prevent one community who can state their "desperate need for it" from taking all of the iron of another community. IF there is trade, how do you determine trade ratios?


The main arguments against direct democracy is that it would involve a bunch of uninvolved people voting on everything, which isn't true, and that voting would be used in every situation, even when consent could be better ascertained through face-to-face negotiation or discussion.

I don't see your point.


And besides, society would effectively be a federation of freely associated groups which would range in size from the tiny to the international, which means that for votes involving very large numbers of people, face-to-face discussion can still be done within groups, and between groups, using delegates if necessary.

Delegates sound a lot like government to me. Regardless, if its a bunch of solitary communities that within the confines of their borders practice socialism they would still have to be free-market outside their borders to exchange for goods they need.

[LeftSideDown]

Not only is that logic vaguely circular, it ignores the matter of how and why anyone now owns anything and whether this is justified. Apply this logic to the bosses as well and it just stops making any kind of sense. Why does the man who employ the workers own what he owns? Is it wholly the fruit of his labour? If ownership of the means of production obeys different rules, why does it? You can't just handle the matter of ownership as though it just exists.

I don't see how its circular, kind of confusing because of the terminology, but hardly circular. And up to this point we have not questioned the legitimacy of someone's claim to ownership, only that they do own it, and under these premises are workers entitled to everything they make. I say "no" because they're made more productive because of the means of production previously acquired, you say yes because you say private property is illegitimate.

The "boss" isn't necessarily the owner of the means of production, he could just be an overseer hired by the owner to ensure that workers are not being paid for work they aren't doing it. IF you're talking of the boss as the owner of the means of production, than he is homesteading the means of production by hiring people. If he was ignoring a factory he owned completely (which he would probably have to get a bank loan to finance, and if he wasn't pulling in revenue the bank would seize it and give it to a better businessman) than eventually he is no longer exercising power over it and loses his ownership rights. He doesn't not himself have to mix his labor in order for it to be his. A farmer can hire farm-workers without losing control of his farm, he is still actively homesteading it. IN the case of a homeowner, even if they don't live there most of the time if they hire a maid or make sure its at least checked on while they aren't living there they are still exercising homesteading.

Ownership does just exist. Let me prove it. Who decides what actions you do? Not what pressures you face but ultimately who lifts your fingers and wraps them around a cup to lift it to your lips to drink. Maybe your mother if you're severely disabled, but ultimately you own your own body and all property rights derive their legitimacy from this.

[Ryke]

I don't own me, I am me. You can call that ownership, but it's pointless semantics. It makes no point at all other than giving the name "ownership" to something that exists in nature. Unless you can say that you own your body in the same sense and for the same reasons that you own your house or that a corporation owns a trademark, you didn't actually do anything but call a concept (the concept of being someone) by a less usual name (owning someone - yourself). If anything, I would think that this perception of one's own body comes from the way we consider ownership of objects or resources, not the other way around. You can say that property rights derive from ownership of your own body, but then you have to explain why. Ownership and property rights are defined as a judicial concept. You are in control of yourself whether you "own" yourself or not.

I'm not sure what you're getting at by expounding on what the owner of a house or farm or factory does. On its own, that changes absolutely nothing. Is hiring people who work in your name and for your benefit a legitimate way to keep property rights, and why? You can't consider all of those questions in isolation; if you question one thing at a time without even asking yourself whether all the surrounding structures are legitimate, you can justify absolutely every institution.

[Ryke]

Really? How much steel does anyone need? Its not necessary for survival (all you need for survival is food and water, and a nice climate). So already theres a flaw. Any use of "iron" is at most excess or unproductive consumption since it won't serve either to give people food or water. Yeah, I was being silly with the steel mine. Regardless I just wanted to name a limited natural resource and steel popped into my head because its so useful. How much would you limit people whom you ask about? IF you said we have 100tons of steel available and how much do you need? is kind of useless unless they can use this resource or have the facilities to process it. I know it introduces a new dimension, but since it wouldn't fulfill any "needs" it would only be for wants and it'd be excess consumption so why fund it?

Did you purposely misunderstand? I mean how much they would need to build what they would want to build. Nobody is arguing for a world in which luxury is outlawed and only basic necessities for survival are considered useful. Insofar as no one needs iron for survival, why limit it to needs that don't exist? That would be a consideration for food (which should be given in priority to people who are considered to have none or not enough), but not iron, where priorities are much more flexible and depend essentially on wants. In the case of iron, the main limit would be the quantity available, and exactly what people think is preferable.


Don't computers also have an incidence on human life? They improve standard of living of the people, they have an incidence on human life. Now that you'v answered my question, how big would you make the guard rail/how sturdy/how thick and how large would you make the grain silo? These also need to be answered, and so are you going to democratically going to vote on volumes, length, and area? They don't have nearly the same incidence on the life and death of people. Computers do not save or kill people. Falling off a cliff and starving does kill people. Computers are useful, but if the lack of a guardrail and the possible lack of grain were considered issues that need immediate addressing, they would be more important by most standards, and this is true even in today's society.

As for width and girth or whatever, of course not. What do we have engineers for? It would be perfectly reasonable to inform people on how much will need to be used and why, and to make the relevant research (on why a guardrail or silo needs to be this thick and not this thick, for example) publicly available. Voting could be used to clear up intense disagreement (which just would not arise, but let's assume it does for whatever reason), and only after all the evidence in favour of the different ideas is presented and explained to the people who vote. But in most situations, voting on that is no more relevant than voting on how scientists should perform experiments, which is to say mostly useless. So, yes, a vote could be called, but it wouldn't be necessary, and would involve giving voters a functional understanding of what they're voting for or against.



Looking elsewhere, wouldn't they have to provide that community with some sort of good in exchange for iron? Or if it was all free whats to prevent one community who can state their "desperate need for it" from taking all of the iron of another community. IF there is trade, how do you determine trade ratios?They wouldn't have to, but they could. It's based on agreement, which I wouldn't think is difficult to understand. The people who will be giving away the steel have all the right to go take a look at exactly what the others wish to use it for, and they are entitled to ask whether there's an overabundance of anything they could use in exchange for the steel. They can easily negotiate a deal for a certain quantity or time based on what is actually needed.




I don't see your point.My point was that you imply or outright state both of these false ideas in a couple places.



Delegates sound a lot like government to me. Regardless, if its a bunch of solitary communities that within the confines of their borders practice socialism they would still have to be free-market outside their borders to exchange for goods they need.Delegates are not government in that A) it's not handled as a job, certainly not as a career, and it's quite temporary, and B) it has a clear mandate of getting across a particular message from a group to another group when a face-to-face meeting between the whole of both groups is difficult, and failing to do so accurately would involve either immediate clarification or immediately being recalled. Decision-taking is not part of their mandate, and if they ever are in a position to take important decisions, their decisions are not authoritative if the people who have mandated him in the first place agree that it is void.

Delegates are essentially messengers, and must be transparent in all of their duties. In that way, it's possible (and expected) for delegates to act on their own initiative if they do so reasonably enough that the group who has delegated him (and to whom he still belongs; delegates should be picked from members of the group who know what they're talking about and what the group they represent wants) doesn't consider it problematic.

As for your last point, that depends on exactly what you mean. It's absolutely true that if an anarcho-communist commune arises within current society, it's going to need to obey the laws of the free-market world economy. It cannot (and should not really want to) be completely self-sufficient. That is why most anarchists don't believe that simply forming or participating in a commune is the best way to further anarchist ideas. However, on a wider scale, an anarchist society does not need to play by what we call "free market" rules. For one, if anarchism ever became the primary form of organisation, there would be no borders, at least none imposed by anarchists. And so long as enough resources existed within anarchist communities that they didn't need to look within whatever capitalist economies may remain, there would be no need to play by today's rules at all.

[Zanthorus]

Hitler was "democratically" elected.

Oh for fucks sake.

I am so sick of this piece of blatant historical revisionism being used by every reactionary from here to eternity to "prove" that democracy doesn't work.

The winner of the 1932 election was Paul Von Hindenburg who was persuaded to run in the election as he was considered the best person to defeat Hitler. However Hindenberg appointed Hitler as chancellor in 1933 and when Hindenberg died in 1934 Hitler's cabinet decided to transfer the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler instead of calling new elections as required by the constitution.

Anyway, the victory of Fascism occured in a highly unusual situation. Most of the time the views of the population at large are to the left of the media and political classes as a whole. I'm sure you can find examples and statistics if you trawl through a few Chomsky interviews/speeches. Mehdi Hasan did a piece on this subject in the context of britain a couple of days ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/11/defeatist-nonsense-leftwing-thinking

[RGacky3]

But how can a society decide what is most beneficial without money and prices? It is impossible.

Democracy.


So in socialism you would hold everybody's hand to make sure they don't buy things they shouldn't? Or you would you issue ration tickets and limit consumption anyway? Either way you're reducing freedom and eliminating consumer choice from the matter.


No, people take what they need or want, and produce is done accordingly, if theres a problem with something, its resolved democratically by those involved. The idea that people will just accumulate everything makes no sense considering there are no property laws and theres a communist system.

(BTW, what I'm describing is generally considered communism)

[Comrade Anarchist]

benefits for worker include the ability to work where ever they want, the ability to be paid for the worth they worked, and if they even want to work.

[Drace]

benefits for worker include the ability to work where ever they want, the ability to be paid for the worth they worked, and if they even want to work.

Oh praise capitalism because we are able to work!

[Comrade Anarchist]

Oh praise capitalism because we are able to work!

And the ability not to.

[Elfcat]

Anyone who says that the demoralization of the middle class is a function of seeing their income appropriated by government agencies through taxation and fees must, to be at all consistent, consider how much of middle class workers' income is appropriated by corporations through debt-related costs such as interest, service charges, late and overage fees, etc.

I managed to graduate from U.C. Berkeley back when tuition was only $800 a semester. I hear it has skyrocketed since then. Even so, I have a mortgage on a house for which the initial principal was $130,000 - which is dirt cheap for the Bay Area, and is in the far East Bay Area in fact - for a not bad fixed rate of 8% or so.... and the interest on that loan has so far been greater than my income tax. And that is to say nothing of the home equity loan and the credit card debt.

So, tell me again capitalists, who really deserves a violent response from us?

[LeftSideDown]

Democracy.

Because thats so effective at measuring how beneficial something will be, right? Wasn't George Bush elected democratically? I doubt any people will say that he benefited America in any real way, but the people (or the electoral college) spoke. You say democracy will decide what the community wants, but how can you measure how beneficial it is? How can you measure how costly something is? You can say that people would vote themselves a new shoe factory (thats useful/beneficial) but if they already have 10 other shoe factors how do you know whether the costs outweigh the benefits?


No, people take what they need or want, and produce is done accordingly, if theres a problem with something, its resolved democratically by those involved. The idea that people will just accumulate everything makes no sense considering there are no property laws and theres a communist system.

(BTW, what I'm describing is generally considered communism)

You seem to be under the impression a) that democracy cannot be abused b)all people will be selfless in communist society. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove both of these things.

[Drace]

And the ability not to.

And die?

[LeftSideDown]

Anyone who says that the demoralization of the middle class is a function of seeing their income appropriated by government agencies through taxation and fees must, to be at all consistent, consider how much of middle class workers' income is appropriated by corporations through debt-related costs such as interest, service charges, late and overage fees, etc.

I managed to graduate from U.C. Berkeley back when tuition was only $800 a semester. I hear it has skyrocketed since then. Even so, I have a mortgage on a house for which the initial principal was $130,000 - which is dirt cheap for the Bay Area, and is in the far East Bay Area in fact - for a not bad fixed rate of 8% or so.... and the interest on that loan has so far been greater than my income tax. And that is to say nothing of the home equity loan and the credit card debt.

So, tell me again capitalists, who really deserves a violent response from us?

What do you get from the government? Wars, bureaucracy, corruption. What do you get from a bank/mortgage? A house. Which would you rather pay for?

And interest isn't just some thing bankers made up to make money, its the discount between present goods vs future goods. If you say in communism interest rates will be 0, no one will save and no one will invest because consumption postponement would delegate no benefits.

[LeftSideDown]

And die?

You could go on the streets and perform or just beg for money. Why is the only alternative death? Are you so narrow minded? So unimaginative?

[Drace]

And interest isn't just some thing bankers made up to make money:lol:


its the discount between present goods vs future goods.:confused:


If you say in communism interest rates will be 0, no one will save and no one will invest because consumption postponement would delegate no benefits. :blink:


You could go on the streets and perform or just beg for money. Why is the only alternative death? Are you so narrow minded? So unimaginative?

You get the point. Why must you understand things so strictly.

And live very poorly? Its not much of a freedom to not work.

[LeftSideDown]

Economics 101:
The supply curve of loanable funds is conventionally explained by time preference, while the demand curve for loans by business firms is explained by reference to the “marginal productivity of capital”—in short, by the “natural” rate of interest embodied in the long-term normal rate of profit. But the firm that borrows money in order to hire workers or to buy capital goods is really buying future goods in exchange for a present good, money. In short, the business borrower, like the saver-creditor who lends him money, is buying a future good whenever he makes an investment. If we assume, for example, that there are no business loans but only stock investment, this point is easier to understand. When a man saves and invests in a productive process, he pays workers and other factors now in exchange for services that will yield a product, and therefore an income, at some future time. In short, the capitalist-entrepreneur hires or invests in factors now and pays out money (a present good)in exchange for productive services that are future goods. It is for his service in paying factors now, in advance of the fruits of production, that the capitalist normally earns an interest return, a return for time preference. In sum, every factor of production (whether labor, land, or capital goods) earns, not its marginal value productivity, according to the current conventional explanation, but its marginal productivity discounted by the interest rate or time preference; and the capitalist earns the discount.

and

Each individual has a personal time-preference schedule, a schedule relating his choice of present and future goods to his stock of available present goods. As his stock of present goods increases, the marginal value of future goods rises, and his rate of time preference tends to fall. These individual schedules interact on the time market to set, at any given time, a social rate of time preference. This rate, in turn, constitutes the interest rate on the market, and it is this interest rate that is used to convert (or “discount”) all future values into present values, whether the future good happens to be a bond (a claim to future money) or more specifically the expected future rentals from land or capital.

Thus, Fetter was the first economist to explain interest rates solely by time preference. Every factor of production earns its rent in accordance with its marginal product, and every future rental return is discounted, or “capitalized,” to get its present value in accordance with the overall social rate of time preference. This means that a firm that buys a machine will only pay the present value of expected future rental incomes, discounted by the social rate of time preference; and that when a capitalist hires a worker or rents land, he will pay now, not the factor's full marginal product, but the expected future marginal product discounted by the social rate of time preference.

Also, by your own admission, working for a living improves your standard of living, so by selling your labor at a certain price you stand to benefit.

[Lynx]

Labour credits would not earn interest. They are for personal consumption only.

I don't know if the mutualist model allows for usury.

[Il Medico]

benefits for worker include the ability to work where ever they want, the ability to be paid for the worth they worked, and if they even want to work.
You have obviously never have had the misfortune to play the "find what ever you can to attempt to pay the bills" game that most workers do. You work where you can get a job, you get paid what ever shit amount they give you, and work however much is required to pay for the things you need.

[Ryke]

And interest isn't just some thing bankers made up to make money, its the discount between present goods vs future goods. If you say in communism interest rates will be 0, no one will save and no one will invest because consumption postponement would delegate no benefits.

Er. Actually, interest is generally defined as both compensation to the lender (whether it's a bank, or just some individual), and payment to make up for the opportunity cost of the theoretical investments he could've-would've-should've made with the money he lent. Both of which are questionable (would you really not put your money in a bank account if there were 0% interest? To the majority of people, who have bank account balances featuring a reasonable number of digits, interest paid to them is a nice collateral, while interest to pay is considered somewhere between a pain in the ass and downright theft. And why should anyone systematically be paid back for investments they explicitly chose not to make? It's a nice thing to do, but to institutionalise it as an obligation and to scale it to often obnoxious levels is simply institutionalising greed), but thankfully enough, in any society which could wholeheartedly and honestly call itself Communist, there would be no banking in the first place.

And in the mutualist model, there is no usury or rent, I'm pretty sure. Lending to a communal bank on a regular basis would be a prerequisite to borrow from it, and loans would be used for communal projects (IE not for personal spending, but to erect buildings, pave roads, buy school or healthcare supplies, housing space) and in case of considerable uncertainty on whether the loan should go through or not, some form of democracy could be used among the lending members of the bank to decide, after taking into account the whole situation.

I'm not a mutualist myself, but this is how I understand it. If anyone knows more than I do, they're welcome to correct me.

[Ryke]

Also, by your own admission, working for a living improves your standard of living, so by selling your labor at a certain price you stand to benefit.

And again with this completely myopic argument every defender of capitalism seems to make three times a minute. Yes, obviously within a capitalist society your standard of life is considerably higher if you sell your labour, because the alternative is a standard of living that's practically null.

But the question is, does this situation arise as an absolute necessity, or is it only a necessary situation within a particular set of circumstances which could be changed? Should a man chained to a wall be content that he can pace around a few steps and lick drops of water on a wall rather than just lay there and slowly die without doing anything at all, or should he consider that there may be other possibilities outside his current constraints?

[RGacky3]

Because thats so effective at measuring how beneficial something will be, right? Wasn't George Bush elected democratically? I doubt any people will say that he benefited America in any real way, but the people (or the electoral college) spoke. You say democracy will decide what the community wants, but how can you measure how beneficial it is? How can you measure how costly something is? You can say that people would vote themselves a new shoe factory (thats useful/beneficial) but if they already have 10 other shoe factors how do you know whether the costs outweigh the benefits?


Yes it is, and I suggest you look at the the few examples, one of them being Anarchist Spain in the 1930s for some empirical evidence.

That George Bush argument is rediculous, and if you want me to respond to it I will, but before I do, I want to you say you believe thats a valid argument, so its clear that you are a moron.


You seem to be under the impression a) that democracy cannot be abused b)all people will be selfless in communist society. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove both of these things.

I am unde the impression that democracy is less likely to be abused than any other system.

As far as everyone being selfless? Where do you get that impression? Thats not my impression at all.

[LeftSideDown]

Er. Actually, interest is generally defined as both compensation to the lender (whether it's a bank, or just some individual), and payment to make up for the opportunity cost of the theoretical investments he could've-would've-should've made with the money he lent. Both of which are questionable (would you really not put your money in a bank account if there were 0% interest? To the majority of people, who have bank account balances featuring a reasonable number of digits, interest paid to them is a nice collateral, while interest to pay is considered somewhere between a pain in the ass and downright theft. And why should anyone systematically be paid back for investments they explicitly chose not to make? It's a nice thing to do, but to institutionalise it as an obligation and to scale it to often obnoxious levels is simply institutionalising greed), but thankfully enough, in any society which could wholeheartedly and honestly call itself Communist, there would be no banking in the first place.

And in the mutualist model, there is no usury or rent, I'm pretty sure. Lending to a communal bank on a regular basis would be a prerequisite to borrow from it, and loans would be used for communal projects (IE not for personal spending, but to erect buildings, pave roads, buy school or healthcare supplies, housing space) and in case of considerable uncertainty on whether the loan should go through or not, some form of democracy could be used among the lending members of the bank to decide, after taking into account the whole situation.

I'm not a mutualist myself, but this is how I understand it. If anyone knows more than I do, they're welcome to correct me.

You're wrong about interest, read my earlier post featuring around 3 paragraphs explaining the phenomena that are bolded. Interest is one of the main components of the "time-market" or the buying/selling of present goods vs the buying/selling of future goods.

So, this mutualist model of yours seems pretty unfair. Why would anyone loan to the bank? You said they wouldn't be able to borrow without first lending, but then you said people could only borrow for communal projects. Since savings is deferred consumption, why would anyone defer consumption with no return on this action? Now, if you force people to save, its not really saving its theft (just like taxes) and this power could be used without restraint should "society" (or what we presently call the state) say that more funds are needed.

For some reason, you guys seem to think determining what action to take (through democracy) is the same as being able to measure what action was best to take. The two are not naturally the same.

[Ryke]

So, this mutualist model of yours seems pretty unfair. Why would anyone loan to the bank? You said they wouldn't be able to borrow without first lending, but then you said people could only borrow for communal projects. Since savings is deferred consumption, why would anyone defer consumption with no return on this action? Now, if you force people to save, its not really saving its theft (just like taxes) and this power could be used without restraint should "society" (or what we presently call the state) say that more funds are needed.

Again, is interest really a prerequisite for you to put money in a bank? It certainly is not the motive of the vast majority of people with a bank account balance under six digits long; interest is, occasionally, a nice collateral, not much more. The point of lending to a bank would be to have access to more money than you, individually, possess. You're allowed to take back the money you put in for personal spending, but not more, as value is created by labour, both on the part of the individual and on the part of society as a whole. Why would you lend if you didn't have interest? Partly because delaying consumption is in itself useful, partly, perhaps, for altruistic reasons, and partly because it's what allows large projects to get moving, as community initiatives, including some in which you have some weight. The idea is that as the bank is partly your money, you have a say in what it does and where it goes. It's part of the democratisation of the economy, without which any form of political democracy within the current system is quite hollow.

As for forcing people to lend, it would be something like taxes, yes. Which is why I don't endorse that, as was clear in my last post.


For some reason, you guys seem to think determining what action to take (through democracy) is the same as being able to measure what action was best to take. The two are not naturally the same.Efficiency? Who said anything about efficiency? We already have the means to produce enough food to feed every human being on Earth, and then some. Efficiency, especially in the scope of achieving profit rather than fulfilling needs, is not a necessity in that context. Efficiency is certainly not to be thrown out altogether, but what is efficient isn't necessarily preferable.

[Lynx]

Opportunity cost is decided according to a set of criteria. The adoption of socialism signifies the removal of profit as a criteria. Perhaps the remaining criteria should be discussed in greater detail?

[LeftSideDown]

Opportunity cost is decided according to a set of criteria. The adoption of socialism signifies the removal of profit as a criteria. Perhaps the remaining criteria should be discussed in greater detail?

How do you remove profit? Lets say someone goes out to a movie, enjoys it, and says that it was a "Profitable" evening? Do you just keep charging him until he no longer thinks its profitable? Do you remove costs from calculations? What do you remove to get rid of profit?

[Drace]

How do you remove profit? Lets say someone goes out to a movie, enjoys it, and says that it was a "Profitable" evening? Do you just keep charging him until he no longer thinks its profitable? Do you remove costs from calculations? What do you remove to get rid of profit?Are you retarded? Please, check your IQ :laugh:

If you came to learn, then that's fine, but if your seriously using that as an argument...lol

[LeftSideDown]

Are you retarded? Please, check your IQ :laugh:

If you came to learn, then that's fine, but if your seriously using that as an argument...lol

No, seriously. Do you just tax all profits a company makes, even if its profit from efficiency and not "exploitation"?

[Drace]

No, seriously. Do you just tax all profits a company makes, even if its profit from efficiency and not "exploitation"?

In your earlier post, you regarded emotional benefits as the same thing as corporate profits.

Greater profits from increased efficiency = Greater exploitation.

[LeftSideDown]

In your earlier post, you regarded emotional benefits as the same thing as corporate profits.

Greater profits from increased efficiency = Greater exploitation.

Oh, so if someone discovers a way to make his machines more efficient, and cost less resources, he is exploiting more, even if the workers don't have to labor harder?

[Lynx]

On the supply side, we remove profit as a criteria for venture X. Thus the opportunity cost of venture X is based on other criteria.

[LeftSideDown]

On the supply side, we remove profit as a criteria for venture X. Thus the opportunity cost of venture X is based on other criteria.

What other criteria?

[Drace]

Oh, so if someone discovers a way to make his machines more efficient, and cost less resources, he is exploiting more, even if the workers don't have to labor harder?


The capitalist class is the only one whose wealth can afford improved machinery. We cannot therefore give them moral appraisal for introducing new machinery.
Without that moral factor, the workers can then be said to be fully entitled to the products of their labor.

Increased efficiency is usually though the means of harder work, speed ups, more hours, etc though.

[Lynx]

What other criteria?
Does venture X reduce energy consumption?
Does it require fewer resources? fewer labour hours?

What is its environmental impact?
Is it ecologically sustainable?

[LeftSideDown]

Does venture X reduce energy consumption?
Does it require fewer resources? fewer labour hours?

What is its environmental impact?
Is it ecologically sustainable?

Let say something has a high energy cost, does that mean its not worth the investment?
If it requires a lot of resources is not worth the investment?
If it requires a lot of labor hours is it not worth the investment?

If it has a negative impact on the environment is it not worth investing in?
If its not ecologically sustainable is it not worth investing in?

(I'm not saying one industry has all these problems, merely answer each in turn)

[Lynx]

Let say something has a high energy cost, does that mean its not worth the investment?
If it requires a lot of resources is not worth the investment?
If it requires a lot of labor hours is it not worth the investment?

If it has a negative impact on the environment is it not worth investing in?
If its not ecologically sustainable is it not worth investing in?

(I'm not saying one industry has all these problems, merely answer each in turn)
If it requires more energy/resources/labour than an existing alternative then it is not worth the investment.
If there is no alternative, then the benefits must be weighed.
If there is a surplus of energy/resources/labour then there is more leeway to include such a venture.

Ventures which are not ecologically sustainable are not worth investing in.

[LeftSideDown]

If it requires more energy/resources/labour than an existing alternative then it is not worth the investment.
If there is no alternative, then the benefits must be weighed.
If there is a surplus of energy/resources/labour then there is more leeway to include such a venture.

Ventures which are not ecologically sustainable are not worth investing in.

Existing alternative in the same field, or a completely different field?
How do you weigh benefits without a price system?
There is a surplus of energy at all times (look at all the sunlight we get), how do you define a surplus of labor, and all resources are scarce.

So we stop using cars, coal power plants, nuclear power plants, airplanes, trains, and any thing that doesn't use solar or wind energy immediately?

Good luck with your economy

[Lynx]

Existing alternative in the same field, or a completely different field?
How do you weigh benefits without a price system?
There is a surplus of energy at all times (look at all the sunlight we get), how do you define a surplus of labor, and all resources are scarce.

So we stop using cars, coal power plants, nuclear power plants, airplanes, trains, and any thing that doesn't use solar or wind energy immediately?

Good luck with your economy
What do you mean by field? Alternatives have replaceable or complementary output.
Benefits are weighed using various measurements. Energy (or emergy) transformations, labor-time, and quality of life indicators might be needed. In a centrally planned economy and in some socialist market models, prices are calculated using labor-time.
A surplus of energy = energy production - energy consumption
A surplus of labor = number of people employed - the unemployed - the underemployed.
For resources, a surplus again equals production minus consumption.
Why would we stop using sources of energy that are not yet exhausted, immediately? To stop a car it is preferable to use the brakes instead of a brick wall.

[LeftSideDown]

What do you mean by field? Alternatives have replaceable or complementary output.
Benefits are weighed using various measurements. Energy (or emergy) transformations, labor-time, and quality of life indicators might be needed. In a centrally planned economy and in some socialist market models, prices are calculated using labor-time.
A surplus of energy = energy production - energy consumption
A surplus of labor = number of people employed - the unemployed - the underemployed.
For resources, a surplus again equals production minus consumption.
Why would we stop using sources of energy that are not yet exhausted, immediately? To stop a car it is preferable to use the brakes instead of a brick wall.

By field I mean, agriculture done by hand would require a lot less energy/resources (I guess this is debatable, but it would require a lot less non-human capital) than, lets say, a car manufacturer. Okay, so an alternative would have to produce a substitute (I don't think you mean complement, complement is like peanut butter to jelly, a substitute is more like margarine to butter).
What if it requires more resources, and there exists a substitute but not an exact one (Example: It takes more resources for a 4wheel drive truck than a regular coupe. Both perform functions of transportation, but the 4wheel drive truck obviously has specific uses that a normal coupe lacks)? Is there anyway to know how much you should invest in each?
So just time labored on something? How do you differentiate between lowskilled and highskilled labor? Is a doctor performing surgery for an hour worth as much as a guy filling out paper work for an hour? Is an hour spent making copper nails worth as much as an hour spent fixing cars? I don't think anyone can say you run an economy only on labor-time for the very reasons I just mentioned.

You said yourself that "Ventures which are not ecologically sustainable are not worth investing in." Well running a business takes continuous investment (at least operating costs, something else I'd find hard to calculate in a socialist economy) so do you retract your old statement or are you merely saying new forms of unsustainable energy (be they efficient, environmental, or with greater reserves) are found you would not initially invest in because, in the long run, they are unsustainable?

[Elfcat]

What do you get from the government? Wars, bureaucracy, corruption. What do you get from a bank/mortgage? A house. Which would you rather pay for?

And interest isn't just some thing bankers made up to make money, its the discount between present goods vs future goods. If you say in communism interest rates will be 0, no one will save and no one will invest because consumption postponement would delegate no benefits.

Maybe I am just an acolyte at this, but that would seem to be accurate in so far as communists do not want development to be beholden to private investment, nor do they want one individual to lord a hoarding of goods over another.

[LeftSideDown]

Maybe I am just an acolyte at this, but that would seem to be accurate in so far as communists do not want development to be beholden to private investment, nor do they want one individual to lord a hoarding of goods over another.

What do they want development beholden to? Some government bureaucracy's arbitrary opinion?

[Lynx]

By field I mean, agriculture done by hand would require a lot less energy/resources (I guess this is debatable, but it would require a lot less non-human capital) than, lets say, a car manufacturer. Okay, so an alternative would have to produce a substitute (I don't think you mean complement, complement is like peanut butter to jelly, a substitute is more like margarine to butter).
What if it requires more resources, and there exists a substitute but not an exact one (Example: It takes more resources for a 4wheel drive truck than a regular coupe. Both perform functions of transportation, but the 4wheel drive truck obviously has specific uses that a normal coupe lacks)? Is there anyway to know how much you should invest in each?
So just time labored on something? How do you differentiate between lowskilled and highskilled labor? Is a doctor performing surgery for an hour worth as much as a guy filling out paper work for an hour? Is an hour spent making copper nails worth as much as an hour spent fixing cars? I don't think anyone can say you run an economy only on labor-time for the very reasons I just mentioned.

You said yourself that "Ventures which are not ecologically sustainable are not worth investing in." Well running a business takes continuous investment (at least operating costs, something else I'd find hard to calculate in a socialist economy) so do you retract your old statement or are you merely saying new forms of unsustainable energy (be they efficient, environmental, or with greater reserves) are found you would not initially invest in because, in the long run, they are unsustainable?
Agriculture done by hand can serve a useful purpose but it's not scalable. Harvesting coal with a pick and shovel may have a higher EROI than mechanized coal extraction, but is not scalable to the level required.
What I meant by complement is 'comparable replacement' as opposed to an exact replacement.
An alternative may also supplement, ie. two or more different sources are used to provide common output, as part of diversification strategy.
Is it more efficient to substitute another vehicle for a 4-wheel truck? I think you would have to compare the efficiency of producing and using specialized vehicles versus multifunctional ones. I haven't seen calculations or statistics that would address this.
Labor-time could be used as an incentive to address demand / supply problems between professions. For example, if there is a shortage of doctors, labour-time could be adjusted so that doctors are credited 1 hour for each 45 min worked.
If this type of incentive were not used, if all hours worked are considered equal, then from the perspective of workers, selecting a job would be based on personal interest, or another non-monetary reason. Your choice would be to work more hours.
Embodied labor-time determines the break even price for a commodity or service, and operating costs for suppliers.
Existing forms of production that are unsustainable have to be wound down, either as part of a plan or when resources run out. As an environmentalist I'm more critical of new projects (energy or other fields) that are not sustainable in the long term. What would be an appropriate minimum for sustainability? 20 years?
The longer a venture can be shown to be sustainable the greater the likelihood of technological advance being able to extend or replace it.

[LeftSideDown]

Agriculture done by hand can serve a useful purpose but it's not scalable. Harvesting coal with a pick and shovel may have a higher EROI than mechanized coal extraction, but is not scalable to the level required.
What I meant by complement is 'comparable replacement' as opposed to an exact replacement.
An alternative may also supplement, ie. two or more different sources are used to provide common output, as part of diversification strategy.
Is it more efficient to substitute another vehicle for a 4-wheel truck? I think you would have to compare the efficiency of producing and using specialized vehicles versus multifunctional ones. I haven't seen calculations or statistics that would address this.
Labor-time could be used as an incentive to address demand / supply problems between professions. For example, if there is a shortage of doctors, labour-time could be adjusted so that doctors are credited 1 hour for each 45 min worked.
If this type of incentive were not used, if all hours worked are considered equal, then from the perspective of workers, selecting a job would be based on personal interest, or another non-monetary reason. Your choice would be to work more hours.
Embodied labor-time determines the break even price for a commodity or service, and operating costs for suppliers.
Existing forms of production that are unsustainable have to be wound down, either as part of a plan or when resources run out. As an environmentalist I'm more critical of new projects (energy or other fields) that are not sustainable in the long term. What would be an appropriate minimum for sustainability? 20 years?
The longer a venture can be shown to be sustainable the greater the likelihood of technological advance being able to extend or replace it.

Obviously it depends on climate whether or not 4wheel drive would be more efficient, although I can think of numerous situations where its an important feature in cars. The fact that you're now questioning me, to me, signifies a turning point. Every question you ask is one that must be answered by a socialist administrator or central planner? Is a 4wheel drive truck more efficient than a regular coupe? In some situations, yes. How many situations? Well more than one. How many more than one? Well thats a continuum problem.

Everything under socialism is a continuum problem.

So you'd pay a doctor more than a factory worker, but what about trash collectors? Those jobs wouldn't be in high demand for different reasons than doctors. ITs poopy to work with trash all day, to be sifting through it transporting it. You'd have to give incentives to do that work. And what about people who just want to be artisans, they don't want to do manual labor at all. Do you pay people to make art? If you do, how do you stop a massive influx into that field (as obviously its more fun to write poems than to shovel coal)?

The fact is you'd have to determine wages (even if you call them labor-hour ratios) for every different industry as some industries are clearly less manual labor intensive and more "fun" than other fields. However, there also fields that require years of schooling in order to work in (engineering, architecture, medicine) and so once a person had completed training for these programs they would have to continue on in this profession, even if they no longer enjoyed it, otherwise the state's investment would've been a waste.

And a final question: What if the populations levels reached a point where it was not sustainable? What is the socialist solution to that? Forced sterilization? Voluntary sterilization? Forced liquidation? Voluntary liquidation?

[Bitter Ashes]

And a final question: What if the populations levels reached a point where it was not sustainable? What is the socialist solution to that? Forced sterilization? Voluntary sterilization? Forced liquidation? Voluntary liquidation?I think you'll find that's the capitalist solution. "Too many workers" = unemployment = poverty = death.

It's always sustainable. The world produces 3 times more food than it can eat and we have millions of tonnes of usable products sat in landfills in Europe while there's still people who want those products and that's with the current, unproductive, capitalist system. You're also not taking into account the benefits of industrialised manufacturing and agriculture bieng introduced to the underdevolped world (which would actualy HARM the West if that happened under capitalism). There's also the benefits of having 5 times more workers in the UK available for production and distribution jobs instead of sitting on desks dealing with insurance claims and sales which only have a purpose under capitalism.

And for a finishing trick shot, an end to corruption and lazy ****s who sit on thier backsides, dodging tax and pretending that they're doing us a favour by giving us permission to pay thier bonuses for them.

Capitalism's horrifically unproductive and wasteful.

Yes, people would work less hard. GOOD! There'd certainly be no harm in a drop in individual production it when the collective production rises so dramatically!

[Lynx]

Obviously it depends on climate whether or not 4wheel drive would be more efficient, although I can think of numerous situations where its an important feature in cars. The fact that you're now questioning me, to me, signifies a turning point. Every question you ask is one that must be answered by a socialist administrator or central planner? Is a 4wheel drive truck more efficient than a regular coupe? In some situations, yes. How many situations? Well more than one. How many more than one? Well thats a continuum problem.

Everything under socialism is a continuum problem.
The question(s) can be answered, I just doubt whether the answers are worth the effort. I don't see significant energy/resource/labour savings being gained from it.

So you'd pay a doctor more than a factory worker, but what about trash collectors? Those jobs wouldn't be in high demand for different reasons than doctors. ITs poopy to work with trash all day, to be sifting through it transporting it. You'd have to give incentives to do that work.
If there is a shortage of trash collectors then paying them more acts as an incentive.

And what about people who just want to be artisans, they don't want to do manual labor at all. Do you pay people to make art? If you do, how do you stop a massive influx into that field (as obviously its more fun to write poems than to shovel coal)?
I don't know if art would be considered 'socially necessary'.

The fact is you'd have to determine wages (even if you call them labor-hour ratios) for every different industry as some industries are clearly less manual labor intensive and more "fun" than other fields. However, there also fields that require years of schooling in order to work in (engineering, architecture, medicine) and so once a person had completed training for these programs they would have to continue on in this profession, even if they no longer enjoyed it, otherwise the state's investment would've been a waste.
In Canada, job training programs are tailored to fit the job market and are changed as the outlook for different professions changes. They try to teach skills that employers are seeking. This is not a challenge faced uniquely by socialism.

[Robert]

So you'd pay a doctor more than a factory worker

No, they won't. Communists won't pay anybody anything because there won't be any money after the Revolution, and even if there were, they'd "pay" the factory worker only what he "needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)" and no more, and they'd pay the doctor what he "needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)."

I know, I know, who decides, right?

Guess.

[LeftSideDown]

No, they won't. Communists won't pay anybody anything because there won't be any money after the Revolution, and even if there were, they'd "pay" the factory worker only what he "needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)" and no more, and they'd pay the doctor what he "needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)."

I know, I know, who decides, right?

Guess.

The people in their respective fields maybe? A government? Societyyyyyy?!?