Hording or Greed as Human Nature?

[apathy maybe]

It is an often cited 'fact' that communism could not work because of 'human nature'. The argument goes that because humans are 'naturally' greedy, they would not share what they have. Or something like that. This argument fails on a number of points, firstly, you only need one example to disprove the statement, and there are many many examples (any number of long lived communistic communes). The fact that humans don't have a 'nature' that is so easily pointed out is another rebuttal.

However, there is another claim that is not quite that humans are 'naturally' greedy. It goes that humans 'naturally' hoard things. Again, it only takes on example to disprove this, but anyway. It is the case, that in times of scarcity many animals and humans hoard things. However, in times of plenty, this is less the case.

An example, imagine that (keeping the current economic system otherwise) bread was suddenly provide for free by the government. I would expect that a number of people would rush out and get as much as they could to stick in their freezers. After a while, as bread continued to be free, these people would realise that they did not need to do this and will stop doing it. They would instead, when they needed bread, just pop down to the local store and pick some up, for free.

In a situation of communism, it is expected that there would be plenty, thus people would not hoard in the same way. But, what about famines or times of scarcity; what about when the resources start to run out? Well I guess you might see situations of hoarding, but then again, as is shown by previous experiments, it could be that all tighten their belts and starve together, rather then starving alone.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I really dislike the human nature argument that is taught as an unquestionable "fact" in schools. "Human nature" has existed differently in the various stages of human existence. If we take Marx's stages, then there was a different nature present in each. This only makes sense, what is benificial in one stage of humanity, is useless in another.

The idea that competition is the only way to distrubute goods is a bit pretentious. Whilst trade has been a driving force for some time, it is by no means all the time. What was said above rings true, why be greedy if it doesn't benifit you?

What human nature is could well be up for debate, although it is fairly accepted now that Locke style arguments of a blank slate are out of fashion. But regardless of what human impulses are, most of them rely on perception of a given situation, and are therefore largely owing to socialisation as well.

[slim]

If we want to play that argument we can say that capitalism is incompatible with human nature because no man wishes to be a slave.

[Livetrueordie]

It is an often cited 'fact' that communism could not work because of 'human nature'. The argument goes that because humans are 'naturally' greedy, THIS IS FALSE Ask any socioligist or psychologist, there is no merrit to the statment, at the most Human Nature is adaptability and the creating of culture, but really its just instincts like any other animal. Find a book on sociology.

[Ownthink]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

"Human Nature" is only relevant to the Society at hand. There is no ingrained "nature". Different Societies spawn different behavorial characteristics.

[Publius]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

"Human Nature" is only relevant to the Society at hand. There is no ingrained "nature". Different Societies spawn different behavorial characteristics.

You can say it until you go blue in the face but you are still patently wrong.

Read the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. It will leave your beliefs lying bloody on the floor.

[Publius]

It is an often cited 'fact' that communism could not work because of 'human nature'. The argument goes that because humans are 'naturally' greedy, they would not share what they have. Or something like that. This argument fails on a number of points, firstly, you only need one example to disprove the statement, and there are many many examples (any number of long lived communistic communes). The fact that humans don't have a 'nature' that is so easily pointed out is another rebuttal.

Name for me some of these communistic societies.

And humans are naturally greedy. When given the oppurtunity, people hoard goods for their own good.

A number of experiments in behavioral economics prove this.

For example, people are given a set amount of money and told that they can either keep their money or put into a shared pot where the amount is doubled and given equally to all the participants in the game.

But people don't put their money in the pot and share it (Enriching everyone, including themselves.); they hoard it.

There is literally a mountain of evidence showing that humans are selfish and greedy, and that supposed acts of selflessness and sacrafice serve human greed, or at least our 'selfish genes'.

Humans also don't have to be ABSOLUTELY greedy for communism to fail, only SOMEWHAT greedy.

If say, 20% of society were totally greedy leaches, the society would probably fail, and this sort of avarice is a self-perpetuating situation.



However, there is another claim that is not quite that humans are 'naturally' greedy. It goes that humans 'naturally' hoard things. Again, it only takes on example to disprove this, but anyway. It is the case, that in times of scarcity many animals and humans hoard things. However, in times of plenty, this is less the case.

Humans hoard things all the time.

THe runs on the banks during depressions provide a perfect example.

IF people think the hoarding will benefit them, they will do it.

THe reason we all aren't out there hoarding bread now is because it would be pointless to do so. And it would cost us money.



An example, imagine that (keeping the current economic system otherwise) bread was suddenly provide for free by the government. I would expect that a number of people would rush out and get as much as they could to stick in their freezers. After a while, as bread continued to be free, these people would realise that they did not need to do this and will stop doing it. They would instead, when they needed bread, just pop down to the local store and pick some up, for free.

Flawed for a few reasons.

One, the demand for bread is quite finite. People only want so much of it, assuming they can get other foods.

Two, the initial run on bread would empty the shelves, creating a panic atmosphere. SOon EVERYONE would decide they had to run and get as much as they possibly could because the shelves were clearing.

Demand would skyrocket past product (There is a finite amount of wheat) and a shortage would assuredly occur.

IT's a self-fullfilling prophecy in action.

Three, the effect this would have on the overall economy, say by taking wheat from other products, would be diastrous. Even IF you could produce enough bread to satiate everyone's greed, it would come at a greater cost elsewhere.

Four, you're assuming bread production stays the same or goes up. Under communism, I predict overall production to go down. This leads to limits being placed, price controls and the like, etc, which helps to spur the panic.



In a situation of communism, it is expected that there would be plenty,

By ignorant foolds.



thus people would not hoard in the same way.

What a brilliant piece of economic deduction:

"We'll just produce so much stuff, that we can give it all away to everyone for free, and everyone will be rich! It's perfect!".

Nope, no glaring flaws in THAT logic.



But, what about famines or times of scarcity; what about when the resources start to run out? Well I guess you might see situations of hoarding, but then again, as is shown by previous experiments, it could be that all tighten their belts and starve together, rather then starving alone.

Or, under a price system, it would become profitable to bring in food to aid the famine.

Have you ever heard of Amartya Sen?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:28 PM


There is literally a mountain of evidence showing that humans are selfish and greedy, and that supposed acts of selflessness and sacrafice serve human greed, or at least our 'selfish genes'.


there is no such thing as "selfish genes" thats about the dumbest thing ive ever heard. i have never heard of any scientist finding a gene that relates to selfishness, you know why? because there isnt one!

about your little experiment, where were these people from? probably a capitalist country, to make it accurate you would have to raise test more than just people from capitalist/type societies.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Selfish genes, assuming that genes are the "base unit" of evolution, rather than organisms, makes the idea of an authentic altruism all the more realistic.
Of course, if a moron reads Dawkins, it's not as though he gets anythng from it.

[tunes]

Ah, the mysterious "Human Nature"! I think when someone brings up the "Selfish Gene", you really have to understand what they mean by selfish. It is not meant to convey the same meaning when we say "hoarding" or "greed". It is meant to explain the relationship between genes and the organism, in that some genes that are useless(our even detrimental) but still reproduce for no reason beneficial to our bodies. There is a huge misinterpretation of the theory, in that it is sometimes used to try and account for or explain behavior. The behavioral precedence of these "selfish" genes have such a limited impact when compared to things like our environment and learning history, it's not even a question.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, here's my handy counter-argument for this:

Water. So if you were stuck in flooded New Orleans and you had a gallon of tap-water you would probably horde it and try and keep it for yourself. Greedy right? But most of the time we can get tap water for free anytime from the tap. Does anyone horde water when the tap is running fine? No. So greed is a responce to circumstances rather than some kind of hard-wired behavior.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It is an often cited 'fact' that communism could not work because of 'human nature'. The argument goes that because humans are 'naturally' greedy, THIS IS FALSE Ask any socioligist or psychologist, there is no merrit to the statment, at the most Human Nature is adaptability and the creating of culture, but really its just instincts like any other animal. Find a book on sociology.

I think you totally misunderstood what was being said here.


You can say it until you go blue in the face but you are still patently wrong.

Read the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. It will leave your beliefs lying bloody on the floor. I think I already addressed this:"What human nature is could well be up for debate, although it is fairly accepted now that Locke style arguments of a blank slate are out of fashion. But regardless of what human impulses are, most of them rely on perception of a given situation, and are therefore largely owing to socialisation as well."

The experiments will of course prove this, the whole point is that this exists in todays world, as a result of that world. In order to do this fairly you would require a control group from various stages of history, back as far as many thousands of years ago. However what you have said I do not, and cannot disagree with. This is not a reason for the failure of collectivism however, as it is a philosophy advocating a new stage of society. After a few hundred years of collectivism you would be able to "prove" humans aren't greedy.

There is no blank slate, but again socialisation is also a major factor.

[Livetrueordie]

There is literally a mountain of evidence showing that humans are selfish and greedy, and that supposed acts of selflessness and sacrafice serve human greed, or at least our 'selfish genes'. There is a Large line between greed and helping yourself. no doubt there is no such thing as an unselfish act, that is not Greed...


I think you totally misunderstood what was being said here.
well i said it in an odd syntax put understood what was being siad and got my point across.

[KC]

Read the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. It will leave your beliefs lying bloody on the floor.


Instead of telling us to read it why don't you give us some quotes?



A number of experiments in behavioral economics prove this.

For example, people are given a set amount of money and told that they can either keep their money or put into a shared pot where the amount is doubled and given equally to all the participants in the game.

But people don't put their money in the pot and share it (Enriching everyone, including themselves.); they hoard it.


The test subjects grew up in a capitalist society, so naturally they are going to be greedy.



There is literally a mountain of evidence showing that humans are selfish and greedy, and that supposed acts of selflessness and sacrafice serve human greed, or at least our 'selfish genes'.

All these tests were done on people that have grown up in a capitalist society. There is no such thing as a 'selfish gene'. Please, tell me how killing yourself to save others serves human greed.




Humans hoard things all the time.

Because they live in a society of scarcity.



One, the demand for bread is quite finite. People only want so much of it, assuming they can get other foods.


Yes, but they would still hoard it. What do you think sales are all about?



Two, the initial run on bread would empty the shelves, creating a panic atmosphere. SOon EVERYONE would decide they had to run and get as much as they possibly could because the shelves were clearing.

Not if there is enough bread. Of course, this is somewhat of a bad example because there probably wouldn't be enough, as you say. But this wouldn't happen in a communist society.

[Publius]

there is no such thing as "selfish genes" thats about the dumbest thing ive ever heard. i have never heard of any scientist finding a gene that relates to selfishness, you know why? because there isnt one!

Presumably capital(IST!?) letters also raise your ire.

But Richard Dawkins does put forth a theory on 'selfish genes', not in the sense that genes make people selfish, but that genes have one goal: to spread themselves, and all human evolution and action is centered on this goal.

YOu cannot get people to deviate from it.

Read the book The Selfish Gene if you would like to better understand.




about your little experiment, where were these people from? probably a capitalist country, to make it accurate you would have to raise test more than just people from capitalist/type societies.

You miss the entire point of the experiment.

Tell me, what would you do?

[Publius]

Selfish genes, assuming that genes are the "base unit" of evolution, rather than organisms, makes the idea of an authentic altruism all the more realistic.
Of course, if a moron reads Dawkins, it's not as though he gets anythng from it.

Selfish genes can coincide with altruism, yes, but they certainly don't make the idea more realistic.

The key quotes here are: " "This book will show how both individual selfishness and individual altruism are explained by the fundamental law that I am calling gene selfishness." (p.6)

"I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity." (p.11)"

also note:

The selfish gene theory does not imply that biological, and therefore human, existence is basically selfish. Dawkins is well aware of co-operative behaviour and symbiosis. On the latter, he writes:

"In general, associations of mutual benefit will evolve if each partner can get more out than he puts in." (p.183)


also:

"When looked at from the point of view of gene-selection, many biological phenomena that in prior models were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. In other words, genes act "selfishly" to increase the number of copies of themselves and for no other reason. This is in contrast to a version of group selection, which was common in evolutionary genetics prior to the 1960s."


But the idea that complete altruism is ultimately beneficial to everyone is absurd. There are times when your altruism hurts you, and is therefore a bad idea.

[Publius]

Ah, the mysterious "Human Nature"! I think when someone brings up the "Selfish Gene", you really have to understand what they mean by selfish. It is not meant to convey the same meaning when we say "hoarding" or "greed". It is meant to explain the relationship between genes and the organism, in that some genes that are useless(our even detrimental) but still reproduce for no reason beneficial to our bodies. There is a huge misinterpretation of the theory, in that it is sometimes used to try and account for or explain behavior. The behavioral precedence of these "selfish" genes have such a limited impact when compared to things like our environment and learning history, it's not even a question.

I understand how the term 'selfish' is used in the context of the theory, though I doubt others on here do.

The point is that behavior that is beneficial will be passed down by 'selfish genes', and that these behaviors are anathema to communism.

Using the theory and applying to evolution, we get Evolutionary Psychology, Steven Pinker, and all the rest.

[Publius]

Ok, here's my handy counter-argument for this:

Water. So if you were stuck in flooded New Orleans and you had a gallon of tap-water you would probably horde it and try and keep it for yourself. Greedy right? But most of the time we can get tap water for free anytime from the tap. Does anyone horde water when the tap is running fine? No. So greed is a responce to circumstances rather than some kind of hard-wired behavior.

What advantage would hoarding it regularly coffer? None at all. It would be asinine to stock up on 300 gallons of water.

Greed is a means for survival, one that can't be ignored or denied.

[Publius]

Instead of telling us to read it why don't you give us some quotes?

Because you reading the book would more effectively make my point.

But I will quote some parts if you would like.




The test subjects grew up in a capitalist society, so naturally they are going to be greedy.

You really think 'society' has that much of an effect on greed?

Can you prove this?

And it's not just a societal thing, it's a logical thing. If everyone in the group puts their money and I don't, I come out ahead. De facto. There is NO good reason not to do this.



All these tests were done on people that have grown up in a capitalist society. There is no such thing as a 'selfish gene'. Please, tell me how killing yourself to save others serves human greed.

It serves human genes.



Because they live in a society of scarcity.

Yes, communism will totally destroy the concept of scarcity.

Logistics? We'll do away with those!

Conservation of mass? Bourgeious science! We'll just WILL matter into existence!~




Yes, but they would still hoard it. What do you think sales are all about?


Who 'hoards' bread at bread sales?




Not if there is enough bread. Of course, this is somewhat of a bad example because there probably wouldn't be enough, as you say.

No shit.

There wouldn't be enough of anything.

If you give something away for free, people will take it, and you'll be out if it. Cars, bread, drinking glasses, demand will SKYROCKET.



But this wouldn't happen in a communist society.

Well if you say so!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:39 PM


there is no such thing as "selfish genes" thats about the dumbest thing ive ever heard. i have never heard of any scientist finding a gene that relates to selfishness, you know why? because there isnt one!

Presumably capital(IST!?) letters also raise your ire.





about your little experiment, where were these people from? probably a capitalist country, to make it accurate you would have to raise test more than just people from capitalist/type societies.

You miss the entire point of the experiment.

Tell me, what would you do?

But Richard Dawkins does put forth a theory on 'selfish genes', not in the sense that genes make people selfish, but that genes have one goal: to spread themselves, and all human evolution and action is centered on this goal.

YOu cannot get people to deviate from it.

Read the book The Selfish Gene if you would like to better understand.

ill try and check it out, would it be in mainstream bookstores?
but does this theory have actual evidence, or is it just a "theory"


You miss the entire point of the experiment.

Tell me, what would you do?

well first of all if i was trying to do an experiment trying to prove wether people can live under communism as oppossed to being greedy, i wouldnt have money as a factor in the experiment.

what would i do? well first of all i dont think thats a realistic experiment because there would be bias.

think about it this way, you can raise the humyns to test in two different ways, in a capitalist society, or in a commune type society, either way you cant test the "true" way they would interact. because either way they will have bias.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:50 PM

The point is that behavior that is beneficial will be passed down by 'selfish genes', and that these behaviors are anathema to communism.

How is beneficial behavior(behavior that has allowed a species to reproduce), even at times labeled "altruistic" by Dawkins, anathema to communism?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:57 PM

Conservation of mass? Bourgeious science! We'll just WILL matter into existence!~

Perhaps you should consider converting to leninism :P

[Publius]

How is beneficial behavior(behavior that has allowed a species to reproduce), even at times labeled "altruistic" by Dawkins, anathema to communism?

Human's innate nature does not behoove them to be selfless.

[Publius]

ill try and check it out, would it be in mainstream bookstores?
but does this theory have actual evidence, or is it just a "theory

Any decent bookstore.

Border's has a few copies.




well first of all if i was trying to do an experiment trying to prove wether people can live under communism as oppossed to being greedy, i wouldnt have money as a factor in the experiment.


It's not 'about' money, it's about human greed.



what would i do? well first of all i dont think thats a realistic experiment because there would be bias.

I want your bias.



think about it this way, you can raise the humyns to test in two different ways, in a capitalist society, or in a commune type society, either way you cant test the "true" way they would interact. because either way they will have bias.

But none of this answers the human nature question.

I would say the fact that this type of society exists is evidence of its necessity, per human nature.

The 'true' way people would intereact is how 10 people randomly selected off the streets would act.

If humans were as easily malleable as you think, all the failed communistic states would have succeeded.

THe problem is, people CAN'T be molded that well.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:58 PM
Human's innate nature does not behoove them to be selfless.
Communism asks someone to live in a condition more selfless than capitalism? This is a surprise to me. Are you saying communism asks you to give a large percentage of your day's work to an owner because of property rights, regardless if you're hungry or without a home? That looks like a selfless, hopeless condition to me.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:01 PM


If humans were as easily malleable as you think, all the failed communistic states would have succeeded.

THe problem is, people CAN'T be molded that well.

A communist state is an oxymoron; you know that.

To the the average person living the leninist states, his or her life was the mirror image of people here; wake up, go to work, get ordered around, get a paycheck, and go home. With armies, police, bureaucrats, managers, money and an elite red bureaucracy, the leninist states were most certainly not an example of communism, but instead just another totalitarian class society.

If you did the "money pot" experiment in Soviet Russia, the experiment would have had the same results as here in America.

[Publius]

Communism asks someone to live in a condition more selfless than capitalism? This is a surprise to me. Are you saying communism asks you to give a large percentage of your day's work to an owner because of property rights, regardless if you're hungry or without a home? That looks like a selfless, hopeless condition to me.

As opposed to communism, where you work all day, and I don't, and I earn the same as you?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:01 PM


But none of this answers the human nature question.

I would say the fact that this type of society exists is evidence of its necessity, per human nature.

The 'true' way people would intereact is how 10 people randomly selected off the streets would act.

If humans were as easily malleable as you think, all the failed communistic states would have succeeded.

THe problem is, people CAN'T be molded that well.
so societies dont advance?

asking ten people off of the streets would not be "true" because of where they lived! they type of society they live in will affect what they think when it comes to tests about greed. if you took a native american they would most likely be less greedy than if you took a person from the USA

has capitalism succeeded? its functioning yes, but its constantly being fought against. you think it will always win? i dont.

people cant be molded that well? why cant they? fascists can mold people, marxist leninist states molded people. is that why they failed? no. why did they fail? for a number of reasons, but mainly because they werent ready in a materialist view, in which marxism works. it had nothing to do with "nature"

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:01 PM




A communist state is an oxymoron; you know that.

Collectivist then.

Regardless of the wrangling of the term, what they attempted was communism. Obviously they failed.



To the the average person living the leninist states, his or her life was the mirror image of people here; wake up, go to work, get ordered around, get a paycheck, and go home. With armies, police, bureaucrats, managers, money and an elite red bureaucracy, the leninist states were most certainly not an example of communism, but instead just another totalitarian class society.

Perhaps at least some of that is then a necessary part of the human condition?

Work is necessary. Being ordered around is necessary in some situations.

What was attempted was a classless, stateless society. They used the best techniques they knew to mold the lower classes into obedenience (If not for 'Communism', than to the state. But that's not relevent, for if people were that malleable, the Soviet system would have worked.).

If people can't be bent to conform to state, how they be bent to conform to a non-state?



If you did the "money pot" experiment in Soviet Russia, the experiment would have had the same results as here in America.

And would have had the same results at any previous point in human history, and will have the same one in all future points.

All it takes is one greedy person to 'ruin' the experiment and exploit the others. Who's to say this microcosm can't be extrapolated to society as a whole?

Everyone need not be greedy for greed to take hold.

Not to be fatalistic or anything (Even though I am), but I think your attempts at changing Human Nature so drastically are hopelessly naive.

Read the book, it's quite persuasive.

Hopefully you won't discount it out of hand and will give it a fair shake.

[Publius]

so societies dont advance?

Societies advance according to human nature, along with human nature, and within human nature; they don't change human nature itself, at least not without a significant amount of time to evolve the species.



asking ten people off of the streets would not be "true" because of where they lived!

And I ask if you can prove that because of where people 'live', their influences would change.

I don't think society can effect a person that much, and I could provide you with some scientific data showing this.

You state that society CAN mold a person that much; where's your evidence?

Marxists have forever worshipped the idol of the blank slate. The problem is, it's not true.



they type of society they live in will affect what they think when it comes to tests about greed.

Do you have any proof of this?

Is it society that makes people, or is it people that make society?

Are people greedy because of society, is is society a purveyor of greed because people ARE greedy?



if you took a native american they would most likely be less greedy than if you took a person from the USA

I sincerely doubt it.

Change 'money' to 'cornmeal' and you would doubtlessly get the same result.

The Indians were not as nice as you think (Steven Pinker also debunks the so-called ''Noble Savage" fallacy in the book.)



has capitalism succeeded? its functioning yes, but its constantly being fought against. you think it will always win? i dont.

Why is it being constantly fought against?



people cant be molded that well? why cant they? fascists can mold people, marxist leninist states molded people.

Did they?

HOw many of the children that were indoctrinated in those states still retain those beliefs?

Holding a gun to someone's head isn't 'molding' them. YOu can force anyone to do anything with physical violence, but that isn't the point.

People cannot be forced to do things that aren't in their nature, but killing, sadly enough, IS in our nature. It's easy to get people to kill one-another, or hate one-another. Evolutionary Psychology shows this as an adaptive trait used for protecting your 'clan' and attacking other 'clans'.

This isn't MOLDING human nature, it's exploiting it.

You say fascist states and marxists states molded people. HOw easily did they convert to capitalism? Now how easily did capitalists (Or others) convert to those states?



is that why they failed? no. why did they fail? for a number of reasons, but mainly because they werent ready in a materialist view, in which marxism works. it had nothing to do with "nature"

Bullshit.

The only reason the states failed was because individuals did not subscribe to them.

If people were easily molded, ANY system could work.

If people really believed the lies and really followed the orders coming out of Moscow, the Soviet Union would have succeded.

They didn't and it didn't.


There is a human nature, that can't be disputed (How else can you account for similarities between identical twins seperated at birth? Identical twins raised apart a more alike than fraternal twins raised together under the same parents who are equally as a like as two random people pulled off the street.

The effects of parenting only account for 0-10% of the variance between indivuals personalities and intelligence.

Genetics accounts for 40-50% and, what can best be described as peer groups, acount for the rest.

Note, 'society' as you would call it is included with 'peer groups' as socialization takes place in peer groups. Also included would be schools, ads, and anything that isn't parents or genes.

Does THIS allow us to mold humans into communists by use of peer groups? I doubt it.

One, communism goes against much of what's in the genes.

Two, society is reflection of those genes, in a very real way.

Three, 'peer groups' of children are not at all likely to spend their time talking about how totally rad communism is and how they want to get a beard just like Marx's. Kids are kids, not little adults.

Did you spend more of your time acting like your friends or your parents or Karl Marx growing up?

The only way you could engender a communistic society would be to already have a communistic society in place. Rather circular, is it not?

And if any part of communistic theory runs into human nature, communism loses. Simple as that.

Tell me, how would you go about molding people in a communist society? I would find any theories fascinating.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:01 PM

As opposed to communism, where you work all day, and I don't, and I earn the same as you?
You wouldn't work? Hoping everyone else will work for you, just like in capitalism?

[JKP]

The Soviet Union never even tried to begin to achieve Communism. After the war, Stalin recieved a plan on the transition to communism - he didn't like it and that was the end of that.

And what's this about "molding people". Forcing people to live a certain lifestyle is doomed from the start. The only way people will start acting differently is if there is a need and opportunity for it. Take the Spanish Civil war for instance. Millions of people took over the lands from their lords, and began forming communes, subsequently, production increased over 50%. As for the people who didn't initially join a commune, as time went on they would eventually join the commune because they saw it as a good idea.

And as for people being greedy throughout history? Not true.

In Israel, people lived in small scale Anarchist communes for centuries.

When Christopher Columbus came to America, he would write in his journal the astonishment he had for native Americans: “Nor have I been able to learn whether they held personal property, for it seemed to me that whatever one had, they all took shares of....They are so ingenuous and free with all they have that no one would believe it who has not seen it; of anything they possess, if it be asked of them, they never say no; on the contrary, they invite you to share it and show as much love as if their hearts went with it.”

According to William Brandon, a prominent historian of American Indians: “Many travelers in the heart of America, the Indian world real before their eyes, echoed such sentiments year after year, generation after generation. These include observers of the most responsible sort, the missionary Du Tertre for a random example, writing from the Caribbean in the 1650s: ‘...they are all equal, without anyone recognizing any sort of superiority or any sort of servitude....Neither is richer or poorer than his companion and all unanimously limit their desires to that which is useful and precisely necessary, and are contemptuous of all other things, superfluous things, as not being worthy to be possessed....’” And Montaigne wrote of three Indians who were in France in the late sixteenth century. They explained to him about the common Indian custom of dividing the people into halves, groups with special and separate duties for ritual or administrative reasons, such as the Summer and Winter people of the various North American tribes. The Indians were struck by the two opposing groups in France. “They had perceived there were men amongst us full gorged with all sorts of commodities and others which hunger-starved, and bare with need and povertie begged at their gates: and found it strange these moieties so needy could endure such an injustice, and they tooke not the others by the throte, or set fire on their house....”1

[Luís Henrique]

And humans are naturally greedy. When given the oppurtunity, people hoard goods for their own good.

Humans are also naturally disloyal. When given the opportunity, people will betray for their own good.

Hence, feudalism is impossible.

Oh, wait...

Luís Henrique

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:34 PM

As opposed to communism, where you work all day, and I don't, and I earn the same as you?

When communism is first formed, high level luxury goods will probably be given to those who work (especially unpleasant work) as an incentive. The goal is to provide as many goods obligation free as possible. Take staple crops for instance. The world's total agricultural production is running at only 10% capacity. The farms grow less to keep market prices high. We could untap the full potential of what we already have, and thus be able to provide staple foods for the world several times over. And as the means of production continue to improve, more and more goods will reach this status.

[Publius]

Humans are also naturally disloyal. When given the opportunity, people will betray for their own good.

Hence, feudalism is impossible.

Oh, wait...

Luís Henrique

People will betray for their own good, but I don't see how that invalidates fuedalism...

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:38 PM





The Soviet Union never even tried to begin to achieve Communism. After the war, Stalin recieved a plan on the transition to communism - he didn't like it and that was the end of that.

Lenin and Trotsky didn't attempt communism?

They ATTEMPTED, and they failed. Miserably.

Who's to say another Stalin won't arise? You think you could have stopped him?


And what's this about "molding people". Forcing people to live a certain lifestyle is doomed from the start. The only way people will start acting differently is if there is a need and opportunity for it. Take the Spanish Civil war for instance. Millions of people took over the lands from their lords, and began forming communes, subsequently, production increased over 50%. As for the people who didn't initially join a commune, as time went on they would eventually join the commune because they saw it as a good idea.

And sort of like the hundreds of Communes formed in the West that failed after an average of two years.

Like those, right?

But I'm sure they were all invalidated because of Stalin.




And as for people being greedy throughout history? Not true.

In Israel, people lived in small scale Anarchist communes for centuries.

If by 'centuries' you mean an average of 20 years, you are correct.

Kibbutzim broke up after an average of 20 years. How ironic that religion has you beat by a factor of 10.

Kibbutzim also got rid of their socialist underpinnings of the years. They were described by one kibbutznik as a 'paradise for parasites'.




When Christopher Columbus came to America, he would write in his journal the astonishment he had for native Americans: “Nor have I been able to learn whether they held personal property, for it seemed to me that whatever one had, they all took shares of....They are so ingenuous and free with all they have that no one would believe it who has not seen it; of anything they possess, if it be asked of them, they never say no; on the contrary, they invite you to share it and show as much love as if their hearts went with it.”

When you have nothing, it's easy to share.

Tell me, how would the concept of property rights have aided a small tribe of nomadic hunters?

THeir size makes enforcement of rules easy. If you don't help out, you starve. None is denying that people in your 'circle' are privilaged to sharing, as with the family, but do you trust Joe Blow like your mother or tribesmate you've known since birth?

They also had little in the way of valuable possessions and little to trade. What happend when they started trading with Westerners?

And they HAD to work together to hunt. It was an insurance policy and a means of procuring more difficult game.

And are you also going to tell me they didn't fight and lived peacefully with nature?


According to William Brandon, a prominent historian of American Indians: “Many travelers in the heart of America, the Indian world real before their eyes, echoed such sentiments year after year, generation after generation. These include observers of the most responsible sort, the missionary Du Tertre for a random example, writing from the Caribbean in the 1650s: ‘...they are all equal, without anyone recognizing any sort of superiority or any sort of servitude....Neither is richer or poorer than his companion and all unanimously limit their desires to that which is useful and precisely necessary, and are contemptuous of all other things, superfluous things, as not being worthy to be possessed....’” And Montaigne wrote of three Indians who were in France in the late sixteenth century. They explained to him about the common Indian custom of dividing the people into halves, groups with special and separate duties for ritual or administrative reasons, such as the Summer and Winter people of the various North American tribes. The Indians were struck by the two opposing groups in France. “They had perceived there were men amongst us full gorged with all sorts of commodities and others which hunger-starved, and bare with need and povertie begged at their gates: and found it strange these moieties so needy could endure such an injustice, and they tooke not the others by the throte, or set fire on their house....”1

And they were desperately, pitifully, uselessly poor.

If that's the price you're willing to pay for equality, than yes, we could all be equal.

What possible benefit could be had by 'capitalism' in such a society? None. It makes no sense whatsoever. Only with the ownership of property (Farming) does anything resembling capitalism make sense. How can one own the means of production when there are none? How can one labor for a wage when there is no wage to pay and he must spend his entire life working on getting food and not starving?

If all of society lived in groups of 50-60 in a hunting-gathering party, it could be expected that people would behave in a communal manner.

No benefit is conferred by people going off on their own; they'll starve to death.

Remember the law of comparitive advantage and division of labor.

Via this primitive communism they can enrich themselves just as via modern capitalism we can enrich ourselves.

Natives are anything but paragons of virtue, so attempting to portray them as such is both wrong and misrepresentative.

[Publius]

When communism is first formed, high level luxury goods will probably be given to those who work (especially unpleasant work) as an incentive. The goal is to provide as many goods obligation free as possible. Take staple crops for instance. The world's total agricultural production is running at only 10% capacity. The farms grow less to keep market prices high. We could untap the full potential of what we already have, and thus be able to provide staple foods for the world several times over. And as the means of production continue to improve, more and more goods will reach this status.

Agricultural capacity is only running at 10%? By who's measure?

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:33 PM


When communism is first formed, high level luxury goods will probably be given to those who work (especially unpleasant work) as an incentive. The goal is to provide as many goods obligation free as possible. Take staple crops for instance. The world's total agricultural production is running at only 10% capacity. The farms grow less to keep market prices high. We could untap the full potential of what we already have, and thus be able to provide staple foods for the world several times over. And as the means of production continue to improve, more and more goods will reach this status.

Agricultural capacity is only running at 10%? By who's measure?
The last time I heard that stat was 5 years ago. I'd give you a link if I could.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by JKP+Oct 11 2005, 09:55 PM--> (JKP @ Oct 11 2005, 09:55 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 02:34 PM

As opposed to communism, where you work all day, and I don't, and I earn the same as you?

When communism is first formed, high level luxury goods will probably be given to those who work (especially unpleasant work) as an incentive. The goal is to provide as many goods obligation free as possible. Take staple crops for instance. The world's total agricultural production is running at only 10% capacity. The farms grow less to keep market prices high. We could untap the full potential of what we already have, and thus be able to provide staple foods for the world several times over. And as the means of production continue to improve, more and more goods will reach this status. [/b]
What about as opposed to capitalism where you work all day, your boss dosn't and he earns and controlls more than you?

It's a common misconception that equality in socialism means a hierarchy similar to capitalism but where everyone gets paid the same wage. Communists arn't Republicans or Democrats offering workers lower taxes or better wages if we win; Communists want a whole change in the power of society from thoes who own and organize production to thoes who labor and create all the wealth.

So incentives might be given to attract people to jobs that are undesirable, but there will be a bigger incentive (from a worker's standpoint) to get rid of (or at least reduce as much as possible) undesireable jobs. Just as a ceo has the incentive to improve production in order to make more profits, workers would have the incentive to make their jobs better. If there is a necissary but undesireable job, then people will try and figure out more efficient or less time-consuming ways to get the same results; like more automation or rotating schedules so that unpleasant jobs would be done once a month by 30 induviduals rather than all the time by one induvidual.

Automatically, we'd be able to do away with sh** jobs like telemarketing that do nothing to help production but are there to basically help companies compete over shares of the same market.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by JKP+Oct 11 2005, 10:46 PM--> (JKP @ Oct 11 2005, 10:46 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 03:33 PM


When communism is first formed, high level luxury goods will probably be given to those who work (especially unpleasant work) as an incentive. The goal is to provide as many goods obligation free as possible. Take staple crops for instance. The world's total agricultural production is running at only 10% capacity. The farms grow less to keep market prices high. We could untap the full potential of what we already have, and thus be able to provide staple foods for the world several times over. And as the means of production continue to improve, more and more goods will reach this status.

Agricultural capacity is only running at 10%? By who's measure?
The last time I heard that stat was 5 years ago. I'd give you a link if I could. [/b]
Statistic or not, the very fact that there are agricultural subsities to pay farmers not to grow shows that there is the capacity to produce more than we are already... and this is before all the food which just sits on the shelves and just goes bad.

Work for a grocery store or resturant and see how much food is wasted; when you get off work, go outside and there will be a bum who will ask you for some chqange; then go home and think about how much sense this society makes.

I've read that Detroit automakers only produce somewhere in the range of 40-50% capacity (this was during the 90s) but I wouldn't know where to find more stats on this.

[Publius]

The last time I heard that stat was 5 years ago. I'd give you a link if I could.

I find it fishy for a number of reasons.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:57 PM





What about as opposed to capitalism where you work all day, your boss dosn't and he earns and controlls more than you?

There are different types of labor.

Someone who does no physical labor but organizes workers so that they increase their productivity can be, and often is, a greater boon to efficiency.

There is only so much that can be done in the way of production. To increase efficiency, other methods need to be established.



It's a common misconception that equality in socialism means a hierarchy similar to capitalism but where everyone gets paid the same wage. Communists arn't Republicans or Democrats offering workers lower taxes or better wages if we win; Communists want a whole change in the power of society from thoes who own and organize production to thoes who labor and create all the wealth.

Wealth cannot be created without labor, organization, control and ideas.

All communism accounts for is labor. It ignores the benefits of good organization (Which decidedly isn't democratic organization.), meaningful control of assets (Not collective control.) and effective use of ideas.



So incentives might be given to attract people to jobs that are undesirable, but there will be a bigger incentive (from a worker's standpoint) to get rid of (or at least reduce as much as possible) undesireable jobs. Just as a ceo has the incentive to improve production in order to make more profits, workers would have the incentive to make their jobs better. If there is a necissary but undesireable job, then people will try and figure out more efficient or less time-consuming ways to get the same results; like more automation or rotating schedules so that unpleasant jobs would be done once a month by 30 induviduals rather than all the time by one induvidual.

Wouldn't this be very innefficient? Remember, division of labor.

Why aren't said jobs automated now? Automation is generally cheaper than paying a worker.

Saying "We'll automate jobs" under communism is akin to saying "We'll invent magic to increase production".

It's a nice story, but I find it a farce.



Automatically, we'd be able to do away with sh** jobs like telemarketing that do nothing to help production but are there to basically help companies compete over shares of the same market.

Telemarketing only works because people allow it to work.

If you don't like telemarketing, don't buy from them.

They wouldn't exist if they weren't effective, as they apparently are.

[Publius]

Statistic or not, the very fact that there are agricultural subsities to pay farmers not to grow shows that there is the capacity to produce more than we are already... and this is before all the food which just sits on the shelves and just goes bad.

I would do away with any and every agricultural subsidy.



Work for a grocery store or resturant and see how much food is wasted; when you get off work, go outside and there will be a bum who will ask you for some chqange; then go home and think about how much sense this society makes.

If they're throwing the food away, why don't they just give it away?






I've read that Detroit automakers only produce somewhere in the range of 40-50% capacity (this was during the 90s) but I wouldn't know where to find more stats on this.

What does that even mean?

Why would the 'Detroit automakers' open up a plant and only run it at 40% capacity? That doesn't make any sense.

I can't take these statistics seriously without more information.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wealth cannot be created without labor, organization, control and ideas.

All communism accounts for is labor. It ignores the benefits of good organization (Which decidedly isn't democratic organization.), meaningful control of assets (Not collective control.) and effective use of ideas.Oragnizers can be picked democratically by workers if power rests with the laborers rather than a group of people with money. Just like a boss fires a manager if he's not doing a good job in the bosses interests, a workers could vote out an organizer who wasn't doing a good job in the worker's intrests.




Wouldn't this be very innefficient? Remember, division of labor.Some jobs can be done better with a division of labor, but often sh** jobs are so sh**ty because they are mundane and boreing. If you work in an office (each floor has about 50 people) why not have one different person from that floor spend 4 hours cleaning that floor and vaccuming and so on rather than subject one person to a full-time job cleaning all the time?


Why aren't said jobs automated now? Automation is generally cheaper than paying a worker.

Saying "We'll automate jobs" under communism is akin to saying "We'll invent magic to increase production".

It's a nice story, but I find it a farce.All I was suggesting was that worker's would have an incentive to automate in order to make their lives easier. Automation now goes to making profits. If a factory automates which allows production to increase, you still have guys working 8 hour days, there's probably just less of them left.




Automatically, we'd be able to do away with sh** jobs like telemarketing that do nothing to help production but are there to basically help companies compete over shares of the same market.

Telemarketing only works because people allow it to work.

If you don't like telemarketing, don't buy from them.

They wouldn't exist if they weren't effective, as they apparently are.Effective? Yes, but at doing what? They are effective in one phone company trying to take customers away from competeing companies. For anyone but that phone company it's a waste of time and contributes nothing productive... there arn't more phones being made or better communication, it's just people switching AT&T to MCI.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Statistic or not, the very fact that there are agricultural subsities to pay farmers not to grow shows that there is the capacity to produce more than we are already... and this is before all the food which just sits on the shelves and just goes bad.

I would do away with any and every agricultural subsidy.And the women would cheer as ticker-tape fell apon your head and the marching band whould play... fine fine. The point is the fact that we have subsities backs up the claim that agriculture dosn't produce to capcity.

[Publius]

Oragnizers can be picked democratically by workers if power rests with the laborers rather than a group of people with money. Just like a boss fires a manager if he's not doing a good job in the bosses interests, a workers could vote out an organizer who wasn't doing a good job in the worker's intrests.

You think democratically selected organizers would be best?

Look at the modern democracies; look at Bush.

Democracy isn't demonstrably better at running things, in fact, it's often worse.

The price incentive works; I have no evidence that Democracy does as all the ills in this country are caused by it.


Some jobs can be done better with a division of labor, but often sh** jobs are so sh**ty because they are mundane and boreing. If you work in an office (each floor has about 50 people) why not have one different person from that floor spend 4 hours cleaning that floor and vaccuming and so on rather than subject one person to a full-time job cleaning all the time?

A communist afraid to say 'shit'.

How quaint.

There is a reason janitors are janitors: They generally aren't skilled enough to be anything else.

Are you going to take your company's head economist (Unrealistic in a communist society, yes, but I'm projecting) and have him sweep floors? If I were the head economist, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself; I have production reports to make up and send to the Politburo.


All I was suggesting was that worker's would have an incentive to automate in order to make their lives easier.

Like not working at all.



Automation now goes to making profits. If a factory automates which allows production to increase, you still have guys working 8 hour days, there's probably just less of them left.

I can't follow your point here. I thought workers working less was GOOD?


Effective? Yes, but at doing what? They are effective in one phone company trying to take customers away from competeing companies. For anyone but that phone company it's a waste of time and contributes nothing productive... there arn't more phones being made or better communication, it's just people switching AT&T to MCI.

So you believe we should just have some sort of monopoly on phone service?

Wait a second...

I hate to tell you this, but people switching to AT&T from MCI and vice versa DOES help in better communication.

If one offers better services or lower cost, you go with them which spurs on creativity.

If there were only one player, as in communism, there would be no incentive to be more efficient.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You think democratically selected organizers would be best?If they were democratically chosen by the workers, it would probably be best for the workers.


Look at the modern democracies; look at Bush.Yeah, that what democracy looks like in a class society where we don't even have the democratic reforms like most European countries have.


Democracy isn't demonstrably better at running things, in fact, it's often worse.Many radicals here prbably don't think that democracy is good, but I think if any group of people want to decide something together, it's the best way to make decisions.


The price incentive works; I have no evidence that Democracy does as all the ills in this country are caused by it.Funny, I don't ever remember voting for a company to lay-off a bunch of workers. I don't remember being allowed to vote on companies dumping toxins into the water or air. These things are done in totalitarian governments without democracy, so obviously democracy dosn't create these ills. These things happened when there was government interference and before the government ever passed a single law or reform on business. The daily ills we see around us are the result of the market, not democracy.



A communist afraid to say 'shit'.

How quaint.I don't want to be accused of corrupting a minor if your parents see you reading my post. That's right, I won't write sh**, but I'll talk sh**.


There is a reason janitors are janitors: They generally aren't skilled enough to be anything else.

Are you going to take your company's head economist (Unrealistic in a communist society, yes, but I'm projecting) and have him sweep floors? If I were the head economist, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself; I have production reports to make up and send to the Politburo.Do you like having clean toilets, windows and floors? Clean it up once a month or everyother month, or sit in filth. Janitors will be too busy getting a free education and persuing the activities that intrest them to pick up your candy-wrapers anymore.

I'm not saying this is exactly what workers would decide, the point is, they'd be deciding things in their intrests instead of the intrests of their bosses being dictated to them.





All I was suggesting was that worker's would have an incentive to automate in order to make their lives easier.

Like not working at all.Well people will still work for the things that people need and want, but for some jobs, "not working at all" could be a very desireable goal. If you can automate a boreing job, then great, all thoes people can get more interesting jobs or get more education become a doctor or teacher or whatever... i.e. something more rewarding for the induvidual and more benificial for society in general.




Automation now goes to making profits. If a factory automates which allows production to increase, you still have guys working 8 hour days, there's probably just less of them left.

I can't follow your point here. I thought workers working less was GOOD?I know my spelling is bad, maybe my grammer is as well and you didn't understand. Working boring jobs less is good if you can still produce what people need and want and have a choice to work less or more. In capitalism, less workers is good for the bosses, but bad for all the fired workers who now have to go in debt or get a job that pays less because they lost seniority or loose their apprtment because they can't make rent and so on.





Effective? Yes, but at doing what? They are effective in one phone company trying to take customers away from competeing companies. For anyone but that phone company it's a waste of time and contributes nothing productive... there arn't more phones being made or better communication, it's just people switching AT&T to MCI.

So you believe we should just have some sort of monopoly on phone service?

Wait a second...

I hate to tell you this, but people switching to AT&T from MCI and vice versa DOES help in better communication.

If one offers better services or lower cost, you go with them which spurs on creativity.

If there were only one player, as in communism, there would be no incentive to be more efficient.Monopoly in capitalism is bad because companies are only acccountable to profits not to workers or the general public. If a company is state owned by a nationalist or dictatorial government, it could also become problematic because, again, it is unaccountable to the intrests of workers or users.

With all the money and energy wasted on competition between companies was in the hands of workers, wealth that goes into advertising and corporate espionage and buy-outs and so on could go back into production or used in some other more productive manner.

Additionally, competition dosn't always keep prices down: CDs are cheeper to produce than LPs or tapes, but CDs cost more. In the US we have many cell-phone companies, but their prices are generally much higher than mobile-phone services in Europe which are comperable to the cost of a regular home phone. Deregulation of energy companies in california resulted in black-outs and worse service for customers.

[Luís Henrique]

People will betray for their own good, but I don't see how that invalidates fuedalism...

Because feudalism is based upon loyalty ties?

Luís Henrique

[Freedom Works]

Because feudalism is based upon loyalty ties?
It was based on fear of punishment, opposed to capitalism which is based upon responsibility.

[quincunx5]

If they were democratically chosen by the workers, it would probably be best for the workers.


Except all the ones that voted the other way or not at all.

Compare that to a voluntary market democracy - where you get what you need, how and when you like it provided that you participate in it by doing something someone else values as well.



Many radicals here prbably don't think that democracy is good, but I think if any group of people want to decide something together, it's the best way to make decisions.


I agree. Democracy is great for deciding where to eat and what movie to watch with your friends.
It is only good for expedience, it is not a good way to run a society.



Janitors will be too busy getting a free education and persuing the activities that intrest them to pick up your candy-wrapers anymore.


You've made the assumption that the janitor can pass this free education. If he can not, then he is wasting somebody else's time. Believe it or not, your generic janitor can not understand Marxist diseconomic theories.

You'd also be surprised that this Janitor has no interest in pursuing activities that are mutually benefitial to many more people. He will be happy to sit and around and laze away.



Do you like having clean toilets, windows and floors? Clean it up once a month or everyother month, or sit in filth.


At home you do those things, at work someone else does it for you. Look up comparative advantage.



Funny, I don't ever remember voting for a company to lay-off a bunch of workers. I don't remember being allowed to vote on companies dumping toxins into the water or air.


And I don't remember you voting on what I do today. You get it?



The daily ills we see around us are the result of the market, not democracy.


The daily ills we see around us are the result of people, not people. That is what you are saying.
Democracy does not actually get anything done! The market does. One can use political democracy to shape the market - but in doing so you are perverting it and in essense creating the very ills that you speak of.



With all the money and energy wasted on competition between companies was in the hands of workers, wealth that goes into advertising and corporate espionage and buy-outs and so on could go back into production or used in some other more productive manner.


Competition creates jobs - political concentration eliminates them.

Wealth that goes into advertising creates more wealth. Unless you are stupid enough to think that advertisers, media, and IT people are not workers.



Deregulation of energy companies in california resulted in black-outs and worse service for customers.


You spelled Regulation incorrectly, there is no "De".



Monopoly in capitalism is bad because companies are only acccountable to profits not to workers or the general public. If a company is state owned by a nationalist or dictatorial government, it could also become problematic because, again, it is unaccountable to the intrests of workers or users.


True monopolies do not exist in a free market for any substantial time.

Those monopolies that you see today are heavily regulated and told what profit margins they are allows. IIRC, government contractors can only make 2.7% profit - not even enough to cover inflation.

[KC]

Marxist diseconomic theories.

Capital: Volume I. Chapter 5. First couple of pages:

Abstractedly considered, that is, apart from circumstances not immediately flowing from the laws of the simple circulation of commodities, there is in an exchange nothing (if we except the replacing of one use-value by another) but a metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity. The same exchange-value, i.e., the same quantity of incorporated social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the owner of the commodity, first in the shape of his own commodity, then in the form of the money for which he exchanged it, and lastly, in the shape of the commodity he buys with that money. This change of form does not imply a change in the magnitude of the value. But the change, which the value of the commodity undergoes in this process, is limited to a change in its money-form. This form exists first as the price of the commodity offered for sale, then as an actual sum of money, which, however, was already expressed in the price, and lastly, as the price of an equivalent commodity. This change of form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity of value, than does the change of a £5 note into sovereigns, half sovereigns and shillings. So far therefore as the circulation of commodities effects a change in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must be the exchange of equivalents. Little as Vulgar-Economy knows about the nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the case as regards the exchange-values. Here we must rather say, “Where equality exists there can be no gain.” [5] It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities [6], which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value. [7]

Hence, we see that behind all attempts to represent the circulation of commodities as a source of surplus-value, there lurks a quid pro quo, a mixing up of use-value and exchange-value. For instance, Condillac says: “It is not true that on an exchange of commodities we give value for value. On the contrary, each of the two contracting parties in every case, gives a less for a greater value. ... If we really exchanged equal values, neither party could make a profit. And yet, they both gain, or ought to gain. Why? The value of a thing consists solely in its relation to our wants. What is more to the one is less to the other, and vice versâ. ... It is not to be assumed that we offer for sale articles required for our own consumption. ... We wish to part with a useless thing, in order to get one that we need; we want to give less for more. ... It was natural to think that, in an exchange, value was given for value, whenever each of the articles exchanged was of equal value with the same quantity of gold. ... But there is another point to be considered in our calculation. The question is, whether we both exchange something superfluous for something necessary.” [8] We see in this passage, how Condillac not only confuses use-value with exchange-value, but in a really childish manner assumes, that in a society, in which the production of commodities is well developed, each producer produces his own means of subsistence, and throws into circulation only the excess over his own requirements. [9] Still, Condillac’s argument is frequently used by modem economists, more especially when the point is to show, that the exchange of commodities in its developed form, commerce, is productive of surplus-value. For instance, “Commerce ... adds value to products, for the same products in the hands of consumers, are worth more than in the hands of producers, and it may strictly be considered an act of production.” [10] But commodities are not paid for twice over, once on account of their use-value, and again on account of their value. And though the use-value of a commodity is more serviceable to the buyer than to the seller, its money-form is more serviceable to the seller. Would he otherwise sell it? We might therefore just as well say that the buyer performs "strictly an act of production,” by converting stockings, for example, into money.

Read on! (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm)

[Luís Henrique]

Let's also notice, hoarding in itself is not capitalistic - and, in fact, capitalism would not work if people were really into hoarding.

In a capitalist society, wealth must circulate. Hoarding is a problem; consumerism is the solution to that problem. Or, put in other words, capitalism has its own forms of potlacht. :lol:

Luís Henrique

[quincunx5]

Like I said: Marxist diseconomic theories.

[KC]

Nobody has disproven anything in capital successfully. If you would like to try you are more than welcome to.

[Publius]

Nobody has disproven anything in capital successfully. If you would like to try you are more than welcome to.

The Austrain economists tore it to shreds. For instance:



Böhm-Bawerk's critique

The Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk argued against both the Ricardian labor theory of price and Marx's theory of exploitation. On the former, he contended that return on capital arises from the roundabout nature of production. A steel ladder, for example, will be produced and brought to market only if the demand supports the digging of iron ore, the smelting of steel, the machines that press that steel into ladder shape, the machines that make and help maintain those machines, etc. Advocates of the labor theory will point out that every step in that process, however roundabout, involves labor. But Böhm-Bawerk said that what they missed was the process itself, the roundaboutness, which necessarily involves the passage of time.

Roundabout processes, Böhm-Bawerk maintained, lead to a price that pays for more than labor value, even the labor value of all the process involved added together statically, and given any empirical standard for the latter. This makes it unnecessary to postulate exploitation in order to understand the return on capital.

Marx might respond that this did not contradict his understanding of prices, in which sectors of the economy which have higher "capital intensity" (greater roundaboutness) have higher prices (see below). The difference, it seems, between Marx and Böhm-Bawerk concerns perspective: for Böhm-Bawerk, roundaboutness explains entrepreneurial profits on the microeconomic level, whereas for Marx, a society-wide institutional explanation is needed. To him, roundaboutness explains only those profits of the more capital-intensive operations relative to less capital-intensive ones.

Furthermore, in Böhm-Bawerk's development of a positive theory of interest he said that workers trade in their share of the end price for the more certain and soon wages paid by the entrepreneur. In other words, he claimed that profits compensated the entrepreneur for the willingness to bear risk and to wait to receive income.

Critics of Böhm-Bawerk's theory argue that workers are often exposed to risks such as injury on the job, a more profound kind of risk than the merely financial risk that the entrepreneur takes. A capitalist entrepreneur also has a greater ability to diversify (to minimize risk) than does the laborer because the latter has only one main asset, i.e., labor-power. Further, when the entrepreneurs' risk-taking does not pay off, this cost can be shifted to workers as wage cuts and/or layoffs. The existence of the "reserve army of the unemployed" means that even if they are aware of these risks, they often have little choice but to take them. In the Marxian view, this argument means that entrepreneurs have no right to compensation for bearing entrepreneurial risk.

Böhm-Bawerk and other Austrian economists replied to such critics by claiming that they played upon the ambiguities of the term "risk," that specifically financial risk must be isolated in order to understand the production process. Furthermore, the fact that capital markets lead to the control and minimization of financial risk is a valuable development in itself -- an argument for, not against, the overall social efficacy of capitalism.

Some critics take another tack, observing that not all risk-taking seems worth rewarding: for example, the invention and promotion of "crack" cocaine or e-mail spam were clearly a matter of risk-taking entrepreneurship, yet both seem to have more social costs than benefits. This is the problem of external costs, a form of market failure which (if serious enough) encourages people to seek non-market solutions.

as a refuation of LTV.

Or F.A. Hayek's article on market knowledge being superiour: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html


All of the main ideas of Capital could be refuted, probably by me.

[KC]

Ernest Mandel provided a very good response to Bohm Bawerk's critique in the introduction to Capital. I have the Penguin Classics edition, I'm not sure where else you could find it.

[Publius]

Ernest Mandel provided a very good response to Bohm Bawerk's critique in the introduction to Capital. I have the Penguin Classics edition, I'm not sure where else you could find it.

You could give me the jist, but I think we're just going to hopelessly disagree on the issue.

I can't see either of us giving any ground.

[quincunx5]

Nobody has disproven anything in capital successfully.


If that were the case then every reader would be a communist, eh?

[encephalon]

The concept of "greed" began with the agricultural revolution in Ancient Mesopotamia (which, interestingly, is also when the first instances of warfare appeared). As populations grew around these agricultural centers, more land was necessary for greater harvests. Sooner or later, since ariable land was limited, the different city-states began attacking each other over the land. Oila, the concept of property was born to justify destroying the other nation-states ability to survive.

More interestingly, the agricultural revolution led to the very first instance of surplus in human history, allowing for planning of the future. This, in turn, led to the first instances of a class system: those who controlled the surplus controlled society. It wasn't human nature to be greedy: the historical conditions that created the class system reinforced greed as a means to controlling the labor and direction of the city-state. The highest class, which remained so throughout most of human history, was the elite military class; not because of their ability to manage the future for the betterment of the people, but because of their ability to effectively take and keep property, an agricultural necessity of the early nation-state. In that sense, they differed very little from modern capitalists, and modern corporations differ little from early nation-states.

In any case, you are projecting the cultural values of today's society, shaped by material circumstances, onto humanity as a whole throughout history despite facts to the contrary. Propensity towards greed is a learned condition reinforced by cultural norms, not an ingrained facet of human existence.

[Hiero]

Publius you are wrong about Communism failing.

Since under Stalin everything was most socialised and collectivised. Prices, buying and selling quotas of raw materials and manufactured were all decided between the workplace and the central system. This way decisions were made in regards to the whole country.

When Khrushchev came to power he decided to allow workplaces more power to decide on what they will buy and sell. This relaxation continued all the way to the folding of the USSR as a political unit and then the complete privatisation.

Under Stalin there was growth, under Khrushchev there was some growth to begin with, but the USSR begin to go downhill from then on.

So it contradicts your theory since the succesfull USSR was in a time when collectivity and socialism were more strong.

Also the author Steven Pinker is psychologist. I haven't read the book, just reviews. I can assume where he is coming from. He probally does all research on individuals and ignores the social context. Psychologist are trained to find answers in the individuals actions and motives . So if he ignores the society the individual lives in.

They also ignore what cultural meaning actions of humans have. So for example if you offer food to someone and they take it and take alot you can assume they are greedy. You can do this test to thousands of individuals and they all do they same. Then you can come the conclusion they are greedy. You can ask them why they did this, and come to the conclusion they are greedy. What the anthropologist and Sociologist may look it is what is their society like. And you may find that in there culture it is polite to take what is offered and take as much to show gratiditude. Can you then assume they are greedy?

As i said i haven't read this book, but i am pessimistic about it. I will be assuming that he will ignore the society. If people go into a subject with a aim to prove something, rather then to study something then they are going to miss points out. If you are going to prove human nature exists then you have no motive to look at the Anthropological and Sociological points of view. Why would you, they look at society, you need to look at the individual.

I will try to have a look at this book. I wont read it all, i will read the parts on rape. I think that will be interesting. Thats if i have time i might jsut see if its at the libary.

I think for a good study on human nature, one needs to not argue in favour or agree on what is human nature. It seem studies are done to say "yes there is greed, capitalism is the best system and the highest production of society".

I think what needs to be done is why humans all do so similair things. As you may guess im study Anthropology. The thing that amazes me, most cultures broken down, all humans have similar logic to culture.

No matter what religion, all religious at the core are just a way of discribing evil. The vodoo man wants to know why he is feeling sick, oh its because he annoyed someone and they are causing a curse on him so he better be nice to that person. The christian when he wants to know why he is sick, oh its because God is punishing him or showing him something. So he better change for good. Both want to know why bad things are happening to them, not someone else, and not at a different time. This is similar in other cultural actions.

Things like this, that show there is some univerisal logic at a certian level. Like why all children learn to talk, and use a logic to talk rather then repitition and why this is similar in all people(evidence for this is that many infants suffixs like ing or s, though they never heard it, how many adults say "fishes" but many infants dom its because they use a logic).

These people trying to find if greed is human nature, are just out to prove a economic and social theory are correct. It leads them onto a witch hunt.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 9 2005, 01:58 AM
...what about when the resources start to run out? Well I guess you might see situations of hoarding, but then again, as is shown by previous experiments, it could be that all tighten their belts and starve together, rather then starving alone.
If everyone is in the boat together, everyone will work to make it float. The conditions in a classless society are different. In times of scarcity, hoarding simply means your neighbor will die and you will have less people to work on fixing your problems but there comes a point technologically, that this really is irrelevant (we have more than enough food now).

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:26 AM




The concept of "greed" began with the agricultural revolution in Ancient Mesopotamia (which, interestingly, is also when the first instances of warfare appeared). As populations grew around these agricultural centers, more land was necessary for greater harvests. Sooner or later, since ariable land was limited, the different city-states began attacking each other over the land. Oila, the concept of property was born to justify destroying the other nation-states ability to survive.

I VERY much doubt your assertion about warfare.

Can you back that up?


More interestingly, the agricultural revolution led to the very first instance of surplus in human history, allowing for planning of the future. This, in turn, led to the first instances of a class system: those who controlled the surplus controlled society. It wasn't human nature to be greedy: the historical conditions that created the class system reinforced greed as a means to controlling the labor and direction of the city-state. The highest class, which remained so throughout most of human history, was the elite military class; not because of their ability to manage the future for the betterment of the people, but because of their ability to effectively take and keep property, an agricultural necessity of the early nation-state. In that sense, they differed very little from modern capitalists, and modern corporations differ little from early nation-states.

'It wasn't human nature to be greedy'.

Tell me, what then, is in our nature?

I would say, to transfer our genetic material, and to serve that end, ANYTHING can evolve, including greed.

Greed is extraordinarily useful in evolutionary terms; greedy people live, 'nice' people don't, they share their genetic material. Voila.

Humans instinctively only care about themselves and those with the same genetic information (Family). They can extend this to tribe mates, as working with a tribe increases your chance of survival.



In any case, you are projecting the cultural values of today's society, shaped by material circumstances, onto humanity as a whole throughout history despite facts to the contrary. Propensity towards greed is a learned condition reinforced by cultural norms, not an ingrained facet of human existence.

Do you have any evidence of this? Do you have any PROOF that our psyche's our 'shaped by material circumstances', as opposed to our material circumstances being created by our psyche's?

Do you have any PROOF that greed is 'learned'?

[Scottish_Militant]

An example, imagine that (keeping the current economic system otherwise) bread was suddenly provide for free by the government. I would expect that a number of people would rush out and get as much as they could to stick in their freezers. After a while, as bread continued to be free, these people would realise that they did not need to do this and will stop doing it. They would instead, when they needed bread, just pop down to the local store and pick some up, for free.

I suppose it's like tap water, you pour a cup of water from the tap when you are thirsty. when you aren't you dont keep pouring cups of water, you only take it when you need it.

On "human nature" I wrote this a while back...

It’s just “human nature”… (http://www.marxismonline.com/modules.php?name=Universal&op=ViewItems&vid=23)

[Freedom Works]

I suppose it's like tap water, you pour a cup of water from the tap when you are thirsty. when you aren't you dont keep pouring cups of water, you only take it when you need it.
That is absurd. Why do you think there are water shortages in so much of the country when their are droughts?

Here's a hint: collectivism.

[Scottish_Militant]

That is absurd. Why do you think there are water shortages in so much of the country when their are droughts?

"The Country"

What country?

I'm from Scotland, there's never been a water shortage here, and by the looks of the rain outside there wont be anytime soon either.


Here's a hint: collectivism.

what are you on about?

[Freedom Works]

What country?
The most powerful mercantilist one.



what are you on about?
The US has Water Communism: that's why we have shortages.

[Scottish_Militant]

The US has Water Communism: that's why we have shortages.

That is probably the funniest thing i've ever heard in my life!

[Freedom Works]

Unfortunately, it's true.

[Scottish_Militant]

:lol:

I suppose you have "air communism" too which prevents companies from selling oxygen to the population?

[Freedom Works]

It prevents individuals from suing large multinational corporations for damaging the air they breathe and instead leads to regulations on business, which does not give them any incentive to pollute less; except out of altruism, which is an extremely weak motivater.

[Scottish_Militant]

You should do a stand up show in a comedy club :lol:

[Freedom Works]

You should come up with a better argument than 'haha'.

[Scottish_Militant]

The things you say are too absurd to take seriously.

[Freedom Works]

Sorry for being logical!

Seriously, come up with a better argument.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 09:52 AM
You should come up with a better argument than 'haha'.
"Haha" is a perfectly reasonable response to an inane abstract statement like "The US has Water Communism: that's why we have shortages."

You might as well say "The US has dirt Communism: that's why famines happen," and for that matter, everything bad that happens is because communism is happening. Why are so many world leaders advocating classless society and social justice these days? :rolleyes:

absurd rhetoric!

[Freedom Works]

"Haha" is a perfectly reasonable response to an inane abstract statement like "The US has Water Communism: that's why we have shortages."

Yes, from an idiot that can't defend their point.


"The US has dirt Communism: that's why famines happen,"
Land is owned, so there isn't dirt Communism. Water is for some reason considered owned by all and none at the same time, and with no incentives to protect it except altruism and force, the result is worse than property rights.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 05:50 PM

"Haha" is a perfectly reasonable response to an inane abstract statement like "The US has Water Communism: that's why we have shortages."

Yes, from an idiot that can't defend their point.
Flaming isn't a viable response to debate either; so I am issuing you a warning point for the infraction.



"The US has dirt Communism: that's why famines happen,"
Land is owned, so there isn't dirt Communism. Water is for some reason considered owned by all and none at the same time, and with no incentives to protect it except altruism and force, the result is worse than property rights.

Exactly, "altruism and force" is not communistic in any way, just as the regulations on water usage are property rights. Your argument is unfounded.

[Freedom Works]

Flaming isn't a viable response to debate either; so I am issuing you a warning point for the infraction.
Wow, that's a flame? I wonder what you'll give Armchair.Socialism. for directly calling me a twat, and not just barely implying it, as I did.
Nothing is my guess.


Exactly, "altruism and force" is not communistic in any way
Haha, that's great.


just as the regulations on water usage are property rights.
Not if an individual doesn't own it. It's like saying Communes have property rights because they ban smoking.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 23 2005, 06:26 PM

Flaming isn't a viable response to debate either; so I am issuing you a warning point for the infraction.
Wow, that's a flame? I wonder what you'll give Armchair.Socialism. for directly calling me a twat, and not just barely implying it, as I did.
Nothing is my guess.
You are completely right here; because I didn't see him do so and you have had many chances obviously, as you now have 4 warning points.
This is quite a convenient argument for you to use, as you didn't send me a PM to notify me that you were flamed and now you want to use it as some sort of immunity. No; there is no immunity for you; I cannot see every post; deal with it.



Exactly, "altruism and force" is not communistic in any way
Haha, that's great.

You just called yourself an idiot :lol:



just as the regulations on water usage are property rights.
Not if an individual doesn't own it. It's like saying Communes have property rights because they ban smoking.

If you profit off of a product, you have a measure of ownership over it. Do I need to explain capitalism to you?

[Freedom Works]

This is quite a convenient argument for you to use, as you didn't send me a PM to notify me that you were flamed and now you want to use it as some sort of immunity. No; there is no immunity for you; I cannot see every post; deal with it.
That's because I'm a big boy! Heh, I just don't care about flaming, and honestly don't see why it should matter in the first place. Only often repeated extreme flaming should be considered worth a 'warning point'.


You just called yourself an idiot
How? It necessarily has to be altruism, force, or both.


If you profit off of a product, you have a measure of ownership over it.
What does this have to do with water held in common?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom Works+Oct 23 2005, 07:33 PM--> (Freedom Works @ Oct 23 2005, 07:33 PM)
This is quite a convenient argument for you to use, as you didn't send me a PM to notify me that you were flamed and now you want to use it as some sort of immunity. No; there is no immunity for you; I cannot see every post; deal with it.
That's because I'm a big boy! Heh, I just don't care about flaming, and honestly don't see why it should matter in the first place. Only often repeated extreme flaming should be considered worth a 'warning point'. [/b]
I must disagree with you; I find flaming to be disruptive to a quality discussion setting and I find it particularly offensive when it is a substitute for counter-point.



You just called yourself an idiot
How?


Here you go

"Haha" is a perfectly reasonable response to an inane abstract statement...

Yes, from an idiot that can't defend their point.
...a few posts later...


Exactly, "altruism and force" is not communistic in any way
Haha, that's great.[/b][/quote]


It necessarily has to be altruism, force, or both.

No, it doesn't. Those in no way cover the span of human motivation and you of all people should know that people are also driven by the desire to better their conditions, as capitalists exploit this.
My point though, was that communism is not defined with any of these. If you want to debate thier implication, you would have to make a specific case relating motivation to the conditions of a classless society.



If you profit off of a product, you have a measure of ownership over it.
What does this have to do with water held in common?

Your comment was on water, being both public and private.

[Hiero]

I like this quote from a July 30, 1971, Bejing Review. The topic was about proletariat art and the revisionist who proclaim their is art above politics and classes, a human nature art.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/br/br073071upholdmarxist.html (Uphold the Marxist Theory of Classes, Criticize the "Theory of Human Nature" )



In his Talks , Chairman Mao in a clear-cut way exposed and criticized the nature of this reactionary theory of human nature. He pointed out: "There is only human nature in the concrete, no human nature in the abstract. In class society there is only human nature of a class character; there is no human nature above classes. We uphold the human nature of the proletariat and of the masses of the people, while the landlord and bourgeois classes uphold the human nature of their own classes, only they do not say so but make it out to be the only human nature in existence." Since the emergence of class society, there has never been such a thing as "common human nature"; there is only the class nature of different classes. The literature and art of each class can only reflect the interests, aspirations and demands of that class, but can in no way reflect the so-called "common interests of all mankind." As Engels said: "What is a boon for the one is necessarily a bane for the other; each new emancipation of one class always means a new oppression of another class." The interests of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes lie in ruthless exploitation and oppression of the proletariat and other working people whose interests on the other hand, lie in eliminating such exploitation and oppression as well as all exploiting classes, abolishing private property and ultimately liberating all mankind. Since the two are incompatible and opposed to each other, how can there be "common [p. 10] interests"? In advocating that literature and art should reflect the "common interest of all mankind." Liu Shao-chi, Chou Yang and other political swindlers were actually striving to win a place for the landlord and capitalist classes, making revolutionary literature and art reflect their interests and turning them into tools serving those classes.

[upstanding conservative]

So if your claiming everything would be free given out by the govermernt and no one would have to work how would the things be produced?
Also you mentioned bread what if i wanted a tv,a computer,a car,dvd's,collectibles and other stuff would all that stuff be eliminated or greatly reduced?

[KC]

So if your claiming everything would be free given out by the govermernt and no one would have to work how would the things be produced?
Also you mentioned bread what if i wanted a tv,a computer,a car,dvd's,collectibles and other stuff would all that stuff be eliminated or greatly reduced?

First off, government in the sense of the word you are thinking of isn't the same thing as government in a communist society. Government in a communist society is direct democracy.

The things would be produced by people working. When people aren't forced to work jobs they hate, and can choose whichever profession they want and do something they enjoy, they work a lot harder.

If you wanted a tv, a computer, a car, dvd's, collectibles and other stuff all you would have to do would be to go down to the store and pick it up. It's free. There is no money.

[Freedom Works]

The topic was about proletariat art and the revisionist who proclaim their is art above politics and classes, a human nature art.
Too bad the entire Marxist theory of exploitation can be thrown out; the Labor Theory of Value is absurd. If the LTV is incorrect, so is Marx's class analysis.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 08:08 PM
So if your claiming everything would be free given out by the govermernt and no one would have to work how would the things be produced?
No-one is governed under Communism, and the state becomes superflous since class struggle no longer exists and withers away by itself.

"Working" would only be 3-4 hours a day to today's standards, we really don't need to work 8 hours a day, its only since our bastard bosses wants to us to work more...to make more profit.

[Freedom Works]

"Working" would only be 3-4 hours a day to today's standards, we really don't need to work 8 hours a day, its only since our bastard bosses wants to us to work more...to make more profit.
So why don't you start up a business then, and have 4 hour shifts?

[tunes]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 3 2005, 02:02 AM

So why don't you start up a business then, and have 4 hour shifts?
Obviously a producer who tries and accounts for workers' health in the hourly sense cannot produce nearly as much as those producers who ignore that health. Those who produce more have the opportunity to sell products at a lower price, effectively lowering the demand for our humanitarian producer's products. In order for a new business like this to survive, they would now need to lower their price, through lowering costs, in order to account for the lower prices our other exploitative producers threw on the market. How would they lower cost? By lowering wages. By increasing the intensity of the workday. But no, this business is not about that. It would have to simply resign in the face of the exploitative producers, and realize such a healthy possibility can only come about in the absence of those exploiters....in the absence of exploitation.

[Freedom Works]

Why do you assume you can only compete in price? Compete by saying 'I treat my workers fairly' and offer good service.

[Tungsten]

Zingu

"Working" would only be 3-4 hours a day to today's standards,

How on earth did you come by that figure?

tunes

Obviously a producer who tries and accounts for workers' health in the hourly sense cannot produce nearly as much as those producers who ignore that health.
A workplace with a bad reputation for safety is not going to be place people will queue up to work at. Such a place will not last long when any serious competition for jobs arises.

Lazar

The things would be produced by people working. When people aren't forced to work jobs they hate, and can choose whichever profession they want and do something they enjoy, they work a lot harder.

I can see this leading to a gross misallocation of labour and resources. A world where everyone is a professional TV critic with no one collecting the trash or unblocking drains.

[KC]

Why do you assume you can only compete in price? Compete by saying 'I treat my workers fairly' and offer good service.

The workers are still being exploited.



I can see this leading to a gross misallocation of labour and resources. A world where everyone is a professional TV critic with no one collecting the trash or unblocking drains.

The trash can be taken out by the people that made it. The drain can be unblocked by the people that blocked it. People can take care of themselves.

[Freedom Works]

The workers are still being exploited.
Nope, see my sig.

Inherent exploitation of workers is a myth.

[KC]

The completely just proposition that the worker is to receive the entire value of his product can be reasonably interpreted to mean either that he is to receive the full present value of his product now or that he is to get the entire future value in the future. But Rodbertus and the socialists interpret it to mean that the worker is to receive the entire future value of his product now.

The value of the product now is more than what the workers receive. I believe Bohm-Bawerk's critiques were torn apart by Mandel and Hilferding, among others.