How can a large modern society [Archive]

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 16:13

You're the one who asked how a mopdern society can function without property rights, implying the positive assertion that property rights are neccessary. From a rational perspective, perhaps you should explain why these "rights" are needed in modern society.

Indeed, the burden of proof is mine. Without property rights and a way to enforce them, violence and chaos will run rampant. For example: suppose, for the sake of argument, a man and I are both dying of an arbitrary disease. I discover the cure, but am only able to produce enough medication to cure one man. Obviously, it is in each of our best interest to have the medication. Without property rights, the other man is free to take my medication and cure himself, which would kill me. However, I am not about to allow this. I would react violently and probably kill the man to preserve myself. This is an extreme situation, but the principle can be applied to anything, including a food shortage or any other type of shortage, including even those that don't threaten anyone's life. Clearly, whenever someone creates something that is needed by someone else, he or she will have to violently protect it if he or she wants to benefit from it.

Dimentio

11th January 2007, 16:53

www.technocracyeurope.eu

Property rights will be replaced with usership rights.

Pow R. Toc H.

11th January 2007, 17:57

It would seem that as long as there is a surplus or abbundance of whatever is needed that propery rights are not needed. If there were to ever be a shortage of something neccessary to survive than I would say property rights are needed. I think it would depend on the situation and that they would enforced accordingly.

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 18:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:53 pm
www.technocracyeurope.eu

Property rights will be replaced with usership rights.
That site loads slowly and I don't see anything immediately about what you're suggesting. Either quote from it or make your own argument.

It would seem that as long as there is a surplus or abbundance of whatever is needed that propery rights are not needed. If there were to ever be a shortage of something neccessary to survive than I would say property rights are needed. I think it would depend on the situation and that they would enforced accordingly.

Who is going to decide when there is a shortage of something? What are the necessary qualifications for something to be called a shortage? The lines would be entirely arbitrary, and it would take time to enact the property rights, during which time legal looting and plunder could occur without anyone being allowed to do anything about it.

Pow R. Toc H.

11th January 2007, 18:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:07 pm

Who is going to decide when there is a shortage of something? What are the necessary qualifications for something to be called a shortage? The lines would be entirely arbitrary, and it would take time to enact the property rights, during which time legal looting and plunder could occur without anyone being allowed to do anything about it.
Who is going to decide when there is a shortage of something? Are you fucking retarded? There is a shortage of something when the demand is higher than the supply. Nobody decides it thats just how it is. The lines would not be abitrary in anyway it is simple math that when a product is in higher demand than the supply can cover there is a shortage.

Looting would never be legal.
And even if there was a shortage for a brief period of time. I would be surprise that if it was a matter of survival people didnt protect their shit.

MrDoom

11th January 2007, 18:25

cormacobear

11th January 2007, 18:25

Neither of you should have it, it should be preserved in order that it can be studied and hopefully reproduced. If the two of you are going to start killing people to get a medicine your community will punish you both for your greed selfishness and arrogance.

calgary recently passed a law making spitting outside illegal. Just because a law is passed neither makes it nescessary, or just. Will property laws keep you from killing for that medicine now? Obviously the laws against muder wouldn't so why would the vague notion of ownership. You use public transit yet you don't Own it, your children live with you rather than other people yet you don't 'OWN' children. there are always organizational alternatives.

The simplest answer is it goes to whover needs it most. and work to maintain surpluses, rather than the capitalist notion of maintaining scarcity to keep production profitable. Unprofitable and more affordable are synonyms. People stop looking for oil or steel when it's no longer profitable that doesn't mean steal and oil are all of a sudden unescessary.

When Keynes spoke of available investment capital and manipulating the market to convince wealthy individuals to invest he completely overlooked the fact that the government as the political wing of the the working classes revolutionary capabilities, the government is free to collect surplus wealth and invest it themselves, preventing recession and depression before they occur.

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 18:30

Who is going to decide when there is a shortage of something? Are you fucking retarded? There is a shortage of something when the demand is higher than the supply. Nobody decides it thats just how it is. The lines would not be abitrary in anyway it is simple math that when a product is in higher demand than the supply can cover there is a shortage.

Obviously someone is going to need to declare that there is a shortage so that the people know they have the right to hold on to something of theres. I don't see how anyone plans on determining exactly what the supply and demand are so that they can be compared. They can at best be approximated, as they are by the capitalists, but they cannot be known to such a degree that someone could stick them into a simple mathematical formula to decide if property rights should be enabled.

Looting would never be legal.

Everything belongs to everyone, so if I decide I want to walk into a store and take everything, it's ok, right?

I would be surprise that if it was a matter of survival people didnt protect their shit.

Hence the unnecessary violence I talked about earlier. Also, what if it isn't a matter of survival? What if I really just want to hold on to this thing I have?

Dimentio

11th January 2007, 18:35

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 11, 2007 06:07 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ January 11, 2007 06:07 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 04:53 pm
www.technocracyeurope.eu

Property rights will be replaced with usership rights.
That site loads slowly and I don't see anything immediately about what you're suggesting. Either quote from it or make your own argument.

It would seem that as long as there is a surplus or abbundance of whatever is needed that propery rights are not needed. If there were to ever be a shortage of something neccessary to survive than I would say property rights are needed. I think it would depend on the situation and that they would enforced accordingly.

Who is going to decide when there is a shortage of something? What are the necessary qualifications for something to be called a shortage? The lines would be entirely arbitrary, and it would take time to enact the property rights, during which time legal looting and plunder could occur without anyone being allowed to do anything about it. [/b]
Read the article "Technocracy for dummies"

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 18:36

It is a purely technical problem when dealing with biologically neccessary items in shortage. A human needs X quantity of something to survive, anything below that is shortage.

And if people happen to want what they don't absolutely need, they will then be allowed to just take it from someone else?

Neither of you should have it, it should be preserved in order that it can be studied and hopefully reproduced. If the two of you are going to start killing people to get a medicine your community will punish you both for your greed selfishness and arrogance.

Ok, we've both been bitten by a snake and our nervous systems are failing. I knew snakes lived around me, so I kept a vile of anti-venom always. However, in the other man's foolishness, he did not keep any anti-venom.

Will property laws keep you from killing for that medicine now?

The problem is that I'm not justified in defending my medicine, so I will be killed (or otherwise punished) later on for killing for my medicine.

MrDoom

11th January 2007, 18:38

It must be made clear that personal property is that which you possess and use. Private property is that which you own, regardless of use and use to produce profit. Communism and technocracy abolish private property only, not that which is personal or self-aquired.

Everything belongs to everyone, so if I decide I want to walk into a store and take everything, it's ok, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_credits

An Energy-credit, sometimes called an energy certificate, is a hypothetical accounting unit, proposed by the Technocratic movement, which would record the Energy used by Citizens in a Technocracy, or Technate as the movement calls it. Energy-credits would replace money in a Technate, but unlike traditional money or currencies, energy-credits could not be saved or earned, only distributed evenly among a populace. The amount of credits given to each citizen would be calculated by determining the total productive capacity of the technate and dividing it equally. The reason for the use of energy-credits serves to ensure equality among the Technate’s citizenry as well as prohibit a spending that is beyond the productive capacity of the technocracy.

The system is usually referred to as Energy Accounting.

Under the energy-credit system, a car, for example, would be valued by the energy it takes to create the product (energy to run and supply the factory plus the energy to transport all materials and the final product). In this way, ecological costs are accounted for since energy is the main non-renewable resource consumed by humans. Any system which produces a car using less energy would be cheaper in price and cost fewer energy-credits. In this way, quality and efficiency are maximized through careful review of their toll on the total reserve of energy available to the population.

Another example of why technocrats support the energy-credit system is that they say it eliminates social problems which are caused by the current Price system. Since the productive capacity of the technate is evenly distributed, technocrats state that things such as theft, gender inequality, and even racial hierarchies would be greatly discouraged.

Since technology is continuously evolving, there is much debate on what method would be used to distribute energy credits among the populace. In any case, people will have to use technology to eliminate security risks and make the process seamless.

cormacobear

11th January 2007, 18:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:30 pm

Looting would never be legal.

Everything belongs to everyone, so if I decide I want to walk into a store and take everything, it's ok, right?

I would be surprise that if it was a matter of survival people didnt protect their shit.

Hence the unnecessary violence I talked about earlier. Also, what if it isn't a matter of survival? What if I really just want to hold on to this thing I have?
Everything belongs to everyone collectively nothing belongs to one person individualy. You'd be free to take everything from the stores if you'd received concent to do so from your community.

Violence isn't legal to protect your property in most countries. In Canada you can use violence to defend life, not property. If you shoot an burglar in your house for stealing and he was no physical threat to you you'd both be charged in Canada. Only cavemen and Americans think violence is acceptable in the maintenance of greed.

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 18:41

MrDoom

11th January 2007, 18:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:41 pm

It must be made clear that personal property is that which you possess and use. Private property is that which you own, regardless of use and use to produce profit. Communism and technocracy abolish private property only, not that which is personal or self-aquired.

How are you distinguishing ownership from possession? Are they not the same thing?
People who rent or lease apartments or cars, for example, possess but do not own.

A man who has ten cars in his garage and drives one owns but does not possess nine of those cars.

And if people happen to want what they don't absolutely need, they will then be allowed to just take it from someone else?

No, of course not. There must be some form of control mechanism, and to that end is the technocratic proposal of the energy credit system.

cormacobear

11th January 2007, 18:50

When you ride the Bus do you own it?

You don't need to own something to have it in your possesion do you? You can live in an apartment and not own it.

Why isn't your anti-venmom at the hospital where people who no how to administer it, and how to respond if there is a negative reaction. Why should the people who know how to make anti-venom allow you to carry it around when someone whose child is bitten may die because it's in your pocket not the Hospital.

Anti-Venom something else you can't just BUY because you WANT it. A Dr. is required to prescribe it. You continue to operate under the belief that the way the US does things is the only way most other contries have more humane property laws than the US and survive without your chaos just fine. Where are the Cuban riots and the hoarding? They don't happen because there future is collectively ensured hoarding became unescessary to ensure you're future and the future of your children.

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 20:12

People who rent or lease apartments or cars, for example, possess but do not own.

A man who has ten cars in his garage and drives one owns but does not possess nine of those cars.

So..if someone isn't using something at one exact time, he doesn't possess it? What if he needs to use it in the future?

No, of course not. There must be some form of control mechanism, and to that end is the technocratic proposal of the energy credit system.

If I spend my energy credits on something, does it become mine?

When you ride the Bus do you own it?

No, but why would I want to?

You don't need to own something to have it in your possesion do you? You can live in an apartment and not own it.

Point proven. However, I still dislike the idea of not being able to own anything because if I own something, I am guaranteed to be able to use it in the future when I need to. If I merely possess something, it can be taken away from me if my community decides someone else needs it more, despite the fact that I may have created it for my own purpose.

Why isn't your anti-venmom at the hospital where people who no how to administer it, and how to respond if there is a negative reaction. Why should the people who know how to make anti-venom allow you to carry it around when someone whose child is bitten may die because it's in your pocket not the Hospital.

There is anti-venom at the hospital. However, the nearest hospital is an hour away and I could very well die any minute. There is no shortage of anti-venom, so the people who make it don't care if I have some. The other man simply didn't care enough to go get any.

Anti-Venom something else you can't just BUY because you WANT it. A Dr. is required to prescribe it.

Sure it is. It's not hard to pay off a doctor to write a prescription. I'm sure any even slightly corrupt doctor would have no problem prescribing me some anti-venom for $1000.

Where are the Cuban riots and the hoarding?

I don't know anything about cuba, so I couldn't tell you. For all I know, there might be hoarding and riots that you're not telling me about.

MrDoom

11th January 2007, 20:26

wtfm8lol

11th January 2007, 20:57

That's not what I mean. Possession is use or regular use. No one is going to take your home when you go to the post office because you "weren't living there at the time".

And if I go on vacation for a weekend? Or perhaps for a whole week? Who decides what counts as regular use and what counts as wasting living space?

In the sense that it is for your use, and it is a product of your share of society's energy-conversion pool, yes.

If I spend my energy credits on something I don't "regularly use", can someone come along and take it from me?

t_wolves_fan

15th January 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:15 pm
function without property rights?
It won't.

Property is clearly defineable: you own lot A, so the rights and protections inherent in ownership of lot A are easily defineable.

"Usership rights" are fool's gold along with technocracy (sorry Serpent). Instead of clear lines of ownership, you are told by some controlling authority how much of something you "need". If that level is too low, you can't do the things you actually need to do. If that level is too high, there is economic waste. The problem of course is that level of "need" is not going to be the same for everyone, and it ignores "want". When you ignore wants, you get a black market and the economy collapses.

Communist economics pretends that communists can and should determine for others how much they need or want, and that everyone will be just hunky-dory with whatever allotment they receive.

Fools. Gold.

Anarcho

20th January 2007, 04:02

In this way, ecological costs are accounted for since energy is the main non-renewable resource consumed by humans.

I admit to not knowing much of the Technocratic ways, but this statement is one hundred percent false.

In fact, The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

And now, off to read more about this.

On a side note, boy, things changed while I was gone. HEhehe...

MrDoom

20th January 2007, 04:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 am

In this way, ecological costs are accounted for since energy is the main non-renewable resource consumed by humans.

I admit to not knowing much of the Technocratic ways, but this statement is one hundred percent false.

In fact, The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

And now, off to read more about this.

On a side note, boy, things changed while I was gone. HEhehe...
No, it is quite true when the Second Law of Thermodynamics is taken into acount.

It is not the energy itself that is nonrenewable, it is energy conversion and entropic states that are nonrenewable. For any energetic change to occur, there must be a heat difference. And in any thermodynamic system entropy always increases.

wtfm8lol

20th January 2007, 04:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 am

In this way, ecological costs are accounted for since energy is the main non-renewable resource consumed by humans.

I admit to not knowing much of the Technocratic ways, but this statement is one hundred percent false.

In fact, The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

And now, off to read more about this.

On a side note, boy, things changed while I was gone. HEhehe...
lol, do you think anyone over the age of 15 doesn't know about the law of conservation of mass-energy?

dogwoodlover

20th January 2007, 09:02

The abolition of private property refers to the means of production.

It's not the abolition of personal possessions.

It means that greedy fool A can't own the factory that produces everyone's clothes and deprive poor wretch B, C, and D of clothes that will keep them from freezing to death.

It's not a question of whether someone is going to steal your house or not.

Now, if you lived in a mansion by yourself, while the rest of your neighbors were living in shacks, then your community might at its next assembly decide that you need to share your house with some of your neighbors.

The question of your neighbor stealing your personal possessions however is ridiculous. In a communist society, the means of production would be owned by the community as a whole; the community is not also going to own your grandma's diamond necklace that she gave you.

wtfm8lol

20th January 2007, 21:54

The abolition of private property refers to the means of production.

It's not the abolition of personal possessions.

Who is going to draw the distinction? Is, say, a hammer a personal possession or a means of production? Whose right is it to a hammer that I made away from me because I need it for a less communal purpose than someone else?

It means that greedy fool A can't own the factory that produces everyone's clothes and deprive poor wretch B, C, and D of clothes that will keep them from freezing to death.

And if greedy fool A made himself the hammer with abundant supplies but poor wretch B, C, and D were too lazy to make themselves hammers?

It's not a question of whether someone is going to steal your house or not.

You contradict yourself in 5...4...3...2...1...

Now, if you lived in a mansion by yourself, while the rest of your neighbors were living in shacks, then your community might at its next assembly decide that you need to share your house with some of your neighbors.

Well fuck that. If I built my house by myself or with the help of a few of my friends, why is it my responsibility to house some lazy shits who didn't feel like making themselves decent houses? Why is it my responsibility to make sure that everyone is housed?

the community is not also going to own your grandma's diamond necklace that she gave you.

What if the community decides that my grandma's diamond necklace can be used in some way to help production but I want to keep it for sentimental or other such purposes?

Jazzratt

21st January 2007, 00:10

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 20, 2007 04:59 am--> (wtfm8lol @ January 20, 2007 04:59 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 am

In this way, ecological costs are accounted for since energy is the main non-renewable resource consumed by humans.

I admit to not knowing much of the Technocratic ways, but this statement is one hundred percent false.

In fact, The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

And now, off to read more about this.

On a side note, boy, things changed while I was gone. HEhehe...
lol, do you think anyone over the age of 15 doesn't know about the law of conservation of mass-energy? [/b]
lol. do you know anyone incapable of reading a reply on a message board? Or is it that they used scary words like 'entropy'? Is your secondry school education failing you?

Did you simply not comprehend what MrDoom was saying?

wtfm8lol

21st January 2007, 00:23

Did you simply not comprehend what MrDoom was saying?

I was simply making fun of the person for trying to point out that what MrDoom said was wrong when that person had no idea what he was talking about. I know what MrDoom was saying and for the record, entropy generally doesn't scare people who are studying physics in university (well..I can see the concept of entropy could scare certain people, but not the word itself).

Jazzratt

21st January 2007, 00:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:23 am
entropy generally doesn't scare people who are studying physics in university (well..I can see the concept of entropy could scare certain people, but not the word itself).
AH see I assumed you were an imbecile rather than someone doing physics at uni.

wtfm8lol

21st January 2007, 00:33

AH see I assumed you were an imbecile rather than someone doing physics at uni.

understandable mistake. you're forgiven.

Qwerty Dvorak

21st January 2007, 00:36

AH see I assumed you were an imbecile rather than someone doing physics at uni.
The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive ;)

Pow R. Toc H.

21st January 2007, 00:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:33 am

AH see I assumed you were an imbecile rather than someone doing physics at uni.

understandable mistake. you're forgiven.
Wow, your studying phsyics at a university. Your given complete immunity for being a dick-head.

Jazzratt

21st January 2007, 00:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:36 am

AH see I assumed you were an imbecile rather than someone doing physics at uni.
The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive ;)
In the case of being afraid of the word 'entropy' because it sounds too scientific I think it is.

wtfm8lol

21st January 2007, 05:24

Wow, your studying phsyics at a university. Your given complete immunity for being a dick-head.

Sweet deal.

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 14:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:02 am
The abolition of private property refers to the means of production.

It's not the abolition of personal possessions.

It means that greedy fool A can't own the factory that produces everyone's clothes and deprive poor wretch B, C, and D of clothes that will keep them from freezing to death.

It's not a question of whether someone is going to steal your house or not.

Now, if you lived in a mansion by yourself, while the rest of your neighbors were living in shacks, then your community might at its next assembly decide that you need to share your house with some of your neighbors.

The question of your neighbor stealing your personal possessions however is ridiculous. In a communist society, the means of production would be owned by the community as a whole; the community is not also going to own your grandma's diamond necklace that she gave you.
This is rich.

"Communism isn't about abolishing private ownership, but about private ownership of the means of production. It stops there. Oh, but if the community decides it needs your privately-owned home, it can take it. But seriously, it stops there. I swear."

:lol:

Dr Mindbender

22nd January 2007, 16:29

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 11, 2007 03:15 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ January 11, 2007 03:15 pm) function without property rights? [/b]
I may have misinterpreted the communist manifesto to others, but nowhere in it can i find where Marx condemns property per se, merely the ownership of the means of production by the beourgiouse class and the way its used to exploit labour.

Ive just realised this has been said already so whoops. In answer to t wolves fan why would the community want to take my house if it doesnt produce anything? Only the factories produce goods so there would be nothing to gain by seizing the homes of individuals.
Communism/socialism deprives no man of his individuality, merely his ability to exploit the labour of others. In fact it increases individuality by removing them from the system of wage slavery in order that they can invest their faculties in areas which demand talent and personal passions.

dogwoodlover

It means that greedy fool A can't own the factory that produces everyone's clothes and deprive poor wretch B, C, and D of clothes that will keep them from freezing to death.
;) greedy fool A cant run the factory without the labour of poor wretch B, C and D

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 18:26

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 22, 2007 04:29 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 22, 2007 04:29 pm) In answer to t wolves fan why would the community want to take my house if it doesnt produce anything? Only the factories produce goods so there would be nothing to gain by seizing the homes of individuals.

[/b]
Ask Dogwood Lover:

dogwoodlover
Now, if you lived in a mansion by yourself, while the rest of your neighbors were living in shacks, then your community might at its next assembly decide that you need to share your house with some of your neighbors.

He's the one who said it.

Um...

Communism/socialism deprives no man of his individuality, merely his ability to exploit the labour of others. In fact it increases individuality by removing them from the system of wage slavery in order that they can invest their faculties in areas which demand talent and personal passions.

This suggests people would be free to do whatever profession they want without consideration of which goods and services are needed or wanted by society.

If I want to be a Tuba player even though nobody wants to listen to me, and society needs more farmers or else quite a few people are going to starve to death this winter, what do you envision happening?

wtfm8lol

22nd January 2007, 18:36

If I want to be a Tuba player even though nobody wants to listen to me, and society needs more farmers or else quite a few people are going to starve to death this winter, what do you envision happening?

The communist spirit will enter your body and you will be motivated to work day and night until you know everyone will be fed :P

ZX3

22nd January 2007, 22:15

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 11:29 am
;) greedy fool A cant run the factory without the labour of poor wretch B, C and D
How does greedy fool A benefit by NOT selling the clothes his factory produces to poor wretch B,C and D?

The mysteries of socialism analysis of capitalism deepens.

anti-theist

22nd January 2007, 22:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:53 pm
www.technocracyeurope.eu

Property rights will be replaced with usership rights.
Technocracy is one of the most insane ideas, ever.

t_wolves_fan

23rd January 2007, 13:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:26 pm
If I want to be a Tuba player even though nobody wants to listen to me, and society needs more farmers or else quite a few people are going to starve to death this winter, what do you envision happening?
This key question remains unanswered.

Dr Mindbender

23rd January 2007, 18:07

Originally posted by dogwoodlover+--> (dogwoodlover)Now, if you lived in a mansion by yourself, while the rest of your neighbors were living in shacks, then your community might at its next assembly decide that you need to share your house with some of your neighbors.[/b]
In response to t wolves fan again, equal resources committed to each others houses would mean that the one guy wouldnt have a 'bigger' or 'better' house than the other guy. The only reason people live today in 'shacks' and 'mansions' is because of the disproportionate amount of resources that go into building your home depending what class you were born into.

t wolves fan

This suggests people would be free to do whatever profession they want without consideration of which goods and services are needed or wanted by society.

If I want to be a Tuba player even though nobody wants to listen to me, and society needs more farmers or else quite a few people are going to starve to death this winter, what do you envision happening?

its really a philosophical debate, if we build a society where we're just going to be miserable all the time because we're railroaded into soul destroying alienating jobs is it really worth building?

Personally, (ive explained this to you before in a previous thread) that i subscribe to a version of socialism, where initially the labour resources of each person are utilised in order to free more spare time for each individual. This time can then be invested into the faculties of the workforce, improving their techical or more demanding skills. We will reap the benefits through scientific progress, therefore production methods which are more efficient, reliable and one day the species could mature to a stage where human labour could be taken from the equation altogether so we could invest all our energy into improving as a species.

Dr Mindbender

23rd January 2007, 18:12

Originally posted by ZX3+January 22, 2007 10:15 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 22, 2007 10:15 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 11:29 am
;) greedy fool A cant run the factory without the labour of poor wretch B, C and D
How does greedy fool A benefit by NOT selling the clothes his factory produces to poor wretch B,C and D?

The mysteries of socialism analysis of capitalism deepens. [/b]
What does greedy fool A contribute to warrant a higher wage or better standard of living than poor wretch B, C and D? (other than being born into the beourgiouse class?)

Answers on a postcard, folks ;)

t_wolves_fan

23rd January 2007, 19:10

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 06:12 pm
What does greedy fool A contribute to warrant a higher wage or better standard of living than poor wretch B, C and D? (other than being born into the beourgiouse class?)

Answers on a postcard, folks ;)
He identified the market need, took the risk of starting the company (either using his own capital, borrowed capital for which he's on the hook, or other people's capital), and put the pieces in place to create a successful firm.

To summarize:

Risks taken by the entrepeneur: great.
Risks taken by the worker: not so great.

Benefit to the consumer of the entrepeneur's risk: great.
Benefit to the consumer of the worker who creates the product identified by the entrepeneur: medium, because the entrepeneur had to take the risk to meet the customer's need. This does not work vice-versa: a worker's output does not guarantee that the customers' needs will be met, as workers could very easily simply produce that which the consumer does not want or need.

Those things being the case, just what does he deserve and is he really a parasite?

wtfm8lol

23rd January 2007, 20:28

In response to t wolves fan again, equal resources committed to each others houses would mean that the one guy wouldnt have a 'bigger' or 'better' house than the other guy. The only reason people live today in 'shacks' and 'mansions' is because of the disproportionate amount of resources that go into building your home depending what class you were born into.

Suppose that manpower is the limiting resource in this case. If I decide to spend more manpower building my house than other people have available to them, am I going to be punished?

t_wolves_fan

23rd January 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 08:28 pm
In response to t wolves fan again, equal resources committed to each others houses would mean that the one guy wouldnt have a 'bigger' or 'better' house than the other guy. The only reason people live today in 'shacks' and 'mansions' is because of the disproportionate amount of resources that go into building your home depending what class you were born into.

Does an equal house change in size over time based on changing conditions? Or do we mandate that forever and ever, everyone's house will be exactly 1,500 square feet, regardless of family size?

If 1,500 square feet becomes too small, do we simultaneously demolish every house on the planet and rebuild every house at the same time in equal size and material so that nobody feels bad?

I can't wait to move into my People's Glorious Dormitory #A305NW, that in the name of efficiency and equality is an ugly concrete high rise that looks just like everyone else's.

http://www.chicagoamren.com/images/THEGREEN.JPG

It'll be swell.

:D

its really a philosophical debate, if we build a society where we're just going to be miserable all the time because we're railroaded into soul destroying alienating jobs is it really worth building?

You're not required to work a soul crushing, alienating job in capitalism. If you don't like what you do, quit and find another job. If you can't find another job that pays the bills, start your own business. If you're not into materialist stuff then you have an advantage because you don't need to find a career that pays well; but I don't see how it's your business if others are into materialistic crap and live their lives in a way you wouldn't like for youself.

You're trying to eliminate risk, which is impossible.

Personally, (ive explained this to you before in a previous thread) that i subscribe to a version of socialism, where initially the labour resources of each person are utilised in order to free more spare time for each individual. This time can then be invested into the faculties of the workforce, improving their techical or more demanding skills. We will reap the benefits through scientific progress, therefore production methods which are more efficient, reliable and one day the species could mature to a stage where human labour could be taken from the equation altogether so we could invest all our energy into improving as a species.

You also said we could do the jobs we want to do, and I want to be a Tuba player regardless of anyone's interest in listening to me play Tuba. Can I do it? If not and I have to do something else for the good of society, have you not just traded my previous master for a new one?

Qwerty Dvorak

23rd January 2007, 21:51

If 1,500 square feet becomes too small, do we simultaneously demolish every house on the planet and rebuild every house at the same time in equal size and material so that nobody feels bad?
Houses would be built according to the spacial needs (and aesthetic tastes) of those who are going to be living in them, and upgraded as more space is needed, for example in the case of a new birth into the family.

You're not required to work a soul crushing, alienating job in capitalism. If you don't like what you do, quit and find another job. If you can't find another job that pays the bills, start your own business.
Actually the vast majority of workers don't have the education or the startup capital to start a new business; if they try, the business will just fail and they will go bankrupt and starve and die.

You also said we could do the jobs we want to do, and I want to be a Tuba player regardless of anyone's interest in listening to me play Tuba. Can I do it? If not and I have to do something else for the good of society, have you not just traded my previous master for a new one?
Actually playing the tuba is not a job, it's a pastime, and so sitting around playing tuba all day would be equivalent to sitting around not working and contributing nothing to society. This violates the basic principle of a socialist society, that each works according to their ability and receives according to their need. As such you would get nothing from society, so you would starve, so you would die.

If I want to be a Tuba player even though nobody wants to listen to me, and society needs more farmers or else quite a few people are going to starve to death this winter, what do you envision happening?
Well a shortage of farmers implies a shortage of food, so does it not make logical sense that one might get tired of the rumbling in one's stomach and decide to try and fix the problem? Many things will be different in a socialist society, but we can assume people would still prefer not to starve to death in Winter.

wtfm8lol

23rd January 2007, 22:13

As such you would get nothing from society, so you would starve, so you would die.

How do you know if someone has been contributing or not? Remember, we are still assuming a large modern society in which you don't know the vast majority of the people you economically interact with.

Qwerty Dvorak

23rd January 2007, 22:18

Well if someone walks around all day playing a tuba while everybody else works, you can safely assume they're not contributing much. And it would be very easy to set up a system to measure the contributions of individuals, such a task would be undertaken by the body responsible for the distribution of goods, who would obviously interact with everyone.

wtfm8lol

23rd January 2007, 22:31

Well if someone walks around all day playing a tuba while everybody else works, you can safely assume they're not contributing much.

Not really. Perhaps he is just enjoying himself during the day and does his real work during the night.

And it would be very easy to set up a system to measure the contributions of individuals, such a task would be undertaken by the body responsible for the distribution of goods, who would obviously interact with everyone.

Who runs this body? How do they decide what is a contribution and what is not? Would a theoretical physicist whose work does not immediately contribute to society be allowed to live or would he be forced to do some other type of labor for the majority of his time, severely lowering his research time and stunting his ability to contribute to theoretical physics overall?

t_wolves_fan

23rd January 2007, 22:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:51 pm
Houses would be built according to the spacial needs (and aesthetic tastes) of those who are going to be living in them, and upgraded as more space is needed, for example in the case of a new birth into the family.

Sweet! I'll take a large master suite with his-n-her sinks, a whirlpool jet tub and a tile shower. I'll take a 3 car garage for the SUV, the station wagon, and the boat. And a nice big living room with a 54-inch plasma screen television and a leather recliner. And of course a nice big kitchen with stainless steel appliances, a good size formal dining room and a huge deck with outdoor bbq grill and smoker pit, along with the usual swimming pool and jacuzzi.

Because "...based on their need" allows us to determine our own needs, right?

Actually the vast majority of workers don't have the education or the startup capital to start a new business;

Then find like-minded workers and pool assets or take out a business loan, or get a government grant.

if they try, the business will just fail and they will go bankrupt and starve and die.

Yes, I forgot. Nobody succeeds. Failure, doom all around. Only the lucky make it. It's best to just give up all hope. I'm with ya.

Actually playing the tuba is not a job, it's a pastime, and so sitting around playing tuba all day would be equivalent to sitting around not working

No, he said we would get to do jobs for which we had talent and passion. I have a talent and passion for playing the tuba, therefore in order to maximize my individuality as promised, I shall choose to play the Tuba.

Or are you now telling me that my individuality will not be maximized, and that my talents will be put to work by society as it sees fit for its benefit?

I'm confused here, which is it? Because it seems highly unfair for one communist to tell me that I'll get to choose my profession based on my talents and my passion and then have another tell me that I can excercise my passion in my spare time once society has decided I've worked hard enough for them.

Hey wait...I'm starting to worry that maybe I'm not even going to be allowed to determine my own needs. Instead of getting the master suite with the jet tub, the plasma screen TV in the luxury living room and the deck with the sweet bbq set, I'm going to end up having my needs determined by society too, aren't I?

So tell me, exactly what am I going to get to determine for myself?

Again, it's logical for me to work for a business owner to receive an income to feed my family just as it's logical for me to work as a farmer so I don't starve, so I really am trading one master for another, aren't I? Except with the previous master, I had an opportunity to leave and pursue a better career so I could afford the master suite with the jet tub. With this new master, I'm not even going to be allowed to have the master suite, am I?

Why would I make the trade again?

Qwerty Dvorak

23rd January 2007, 22:52

Because "...based on their need" allows us to determine our own needs, right?
Nope. Sorry.

Then find like-minded workers and pool assets or take out a business loan, or get a government grant.
Right, so 1 worker with no education or startup capital + 1 worker with no education or startup capital = 1 worker with a PhD in commerce and hundreds of thousands in startup capital.

Yes, I forgot. Nobody succeeds. Failure, doom all around. Only the lucky make it. It's best to just give up all hope. I'm with ya.
Thanks, now I don't feel as bad about my sarcastic comment.

No, he said we would get to do jobs for which we had talent and passion. I have a talent and passion for playing the tuba, therefore in order to maximize my individuality as promised, I shall choose to play the Tuba.
Exactly; he said you would get to do jobs for which you had talent and passion. Not pastimes.

Duh.

Or are you now telling me that my individuality will not be maximized, and that my talents will be put to work by society as it sees fit for its benefit?
No, your talents will be put to work by society as you see fit for your and society's mutual benefit.

I'm confused here, which is it? Because it seems highly unfair for one communist to tell me that I'll get to choose my profession based on my talents and my passion and then have another tell me that I can excercise my passion in my spare time once society has decided I've worked hard enough for them.
Well naturally, I'm right and he's wrong. Of course, he might give you a different explanation.

Hey wait...I'm starting to worry that maybe I'm not even going to be allowed to determine my own needs. Instead of getting the master suite with the jet tub, the plasma screen TV in the luxury living room and the deck with the sweet bbq set, I'm going to end up having my needs determined by society too, aren't I?
Holy expropriation, Batman!! Yes, you are going to have your needs determined by society. Problem?

So tell me, exactly what am I going to get to determine for myself?
How you contribute to society, and what you do in your spare time. Which is really all the personal freedom you could ever need.

Again, it's logical for me to work for a business owner to receive an income to feed my family just as it's logical for me to work as a farmer so I don't starve, so I really am trading one master for another, aren't I?
Well yes, assuming of course that your master is logic, which is your problem, and to be perfectly honest ain't that bad.

Except with the previous master, I had an opportunity to leave and pursue a better career so I could afford the master suite with the jet tub. With this new master, I'm not even going to be allowed to have the master suite, am I?
Well it depends, you see all the material wealth generated under capitalism is going to be redistributed more or less evenly, so you never know, there just might be enough master suites to go around.

Do you think that a realistic possibility?

wtfm8lol

23rd January 2007, 22:57

Holy expropriation, Batman!! Yes, you are going to have your needs determined by society. Problem?

Yes, it is a problem, and I will be more than willing to take up arms and put some bullets in the skulls of the revolutionary filth if the time ever comes to prevent that from happening.

Qwerty Dvorak

23rd January 2007, 23:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:57 pm

Holy expropriation, Batman!! Yes, you are going to have your needs determined by society. Problem?

Yes, it is a problem, and I will be more than willing to take up arms and put some bullets in the skulls of the revolutionary filth if the time ever comes to prevent that from happening.
OMG U MEAN DER WIL B OPPOSITION 2 D REVOLUTION?!?!?!?! OMG OMG ABORT ABORT!!!!!

wtfm8lol

23rd January 2007, 23:17

OMG U MEAN DER WIL B OPPOSITION 2 D REVOLUTION?!?!?!?! OMG OMG ABORT ABORT!!!!!

Yes. Generally, when a bunch of lunatics try to drive society into the ground, people do what they can to stop them.

t_wolves_fan

24th January 2007, 15:43

Because "...based on their need" allows us to determine our own needs, right?
Nope. Sorry.

Who does?

I don't get to determine my own needs, yet this is a society that values individualism.

Explain that, if you could.

Then find like-minded workers and pool assets or take out a business loan, or get a government grant.
Right, so 1 worker with no education or startup capital + 1 worker with no education or startup capital = 1 worker with a PhD in commerce and hundreds of thousands in startup capital.

Basically, yes.

No, he said we would get to do jobs for which we had talent and passion. I have a talent and passion for playing the tuba, therefore in order to maximize my individuality as promised, I shall choose to play the Tuba.
Exactly; he said you would get to do jobs for which you had talent and passion. Not pastimes.

Duh.

Tuba playing is a job. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801257.html)

A society that values individuality would let people pick their own jobs, wouldn't it?

Or are you now telling me that my individuality will not be maximized, and that my talents will be put to work by society as it sees fit for its benefit?
No, your talents will be put to work by society as you see fit for your and society's mutual benefit.

Who decides if the job I see fit to do is to my benefit, or society's benefit?

I want to be a Tuba player. Playing the tuba makes me feel good, therefore it's to my benefit.

Holy expropriation, Batman!! Yes, you are going to have your needs determined by society. Problem?

What if I disagree?

So tell me, exactly what am I going to get to determine for myself?
How you contribute to society,

Fine, then I want to play the tuba. Good.

Well it depends, you see all the material wealth generated under capitalism is going to be redistributed more or less evenly, so you never know, there just might be enough master suites to go around.

How do we distribute a house with a master suite evenly when there are not enough such houses to go around?

Do you think that a realistic possibility?

Not at all because what you're telling me is a contradiction that makes no sense: This society values individuality and I am free to work for the common good as I see fit, except that I cannot determine for myself how I will work nor can I determine my own needs.

You seriously do not see that? Read my signature, it matches your attitude exactly.

ZX3

24th January 2007, 15:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:18 pm
Well if someone walks around all day playing a tuba while everybody else works, you can safely assume they're not contributing much. And it would be very easy to set up a system to measure the contributions of individuals, such a task would be undertaken by the body responsible for the distribution of goods, who would obviously interact with everyone.
Okay. So set up such a system. Describe it.

Qwerty Dvorak

24th January 2007, 16:54

Who does?
Well logic, or the state if you prefer that term.

I don't get to determine my own needs, yet this is a society that values individualism.

Explain that, if you could.
Actually, economically speaking a Socialist society would lean more towards collectivism. I actually can't believe you didn't get that.

Basically, yes.
You fail.

Tuba playing is a job.
Good for her, she'd make a good glass blower in a Socialist society. Of course, whenever society or the state needed a tuba player for whatever purpose, she'd be the first one to know.

Who decides if the job I see fit to do is to my benefit, or society's benefit?
It's usually fairly obvious...

I want to be a Tuba player. Playing the tuba makes me feel good, therefore it's to my benefit.
Right, and it makes society that much better off how?

What if I disagree?

Then you can appeal the decision of the state-run body that has assessed your needs in a court of law.

Fine, then I want to play the tuba. Good.
Right, and it makes society that much better off how?

How do we distribute a house with a master suite evenly when there are not enough such houses to go around?
My point exactly. No other system has ever been able to provide a master suite to everyone who wants one. I'm afraid Socialism is no different in this regard.

Not at all because what you're telling me is a contradiction that makes no sense: This society values individuality and I am free to work for the common good as I see fit, except that I cannot determine for myself how I will work nor can I determine my own needs.
You are able to work for society in whatever way you see fit, provided you actually work for society. No example you have given has constituted working for society. Also, determination of your needs really has nothing to do with how you work for society, so I don't see how that constitutes a contradiction at all.

Okay. So set up such a system. Describe it.
No. There has not yet been a successful Socialist revolution, so I can't possibly know the exact material and social circumstances into which this system will be born. Are you denying the feasibility of such a system's existence?

wtfm8lol

24th January 2007, 17:05

Of course, whenever society or the state needed a tuba player for whatever purpose, she'd be the first one to know.

So now you need society or the state to approve of what you do?

Are you denying the feasibility of such a system's existence?

I don't think anyone is denying that it could exist; instead, they're denying that it would be non-oppressive.

Qwerty Dvorak

24th January 2007, 17:09

So now you need society or the state to approve of what you do?
No, she can play the tuba all she wants in her spare time.

I don't think anyone is denying that it could exist; instead, they're denying that it would be non-oppressive.
Well the other guy asked how it would work, implying that he doesn't think it could. Although it really doesn't differ all that much from the taxation system in place today.

24th January 2007, 17:17

Who does?

I don't get to determine my own needs, yet this is a society that values individualism.

Explain that, if you could.

The answer is obviously that you get to determine your own needs. RedStar1916 is obviously wrong.

Well logic, or the state if you prefer that term.

That's absurd. The state won't exist so it can't determine anything.

wtfm8lol

24th January 2007, 17:17

No, she can play the tuba all she wants in her spare time.

I apologize. I mean what you do as your profession.

Well the other guy asked how it would work, implying that he doesn't think it could.

I'd say that if a system has become oppressive, it hasn't worked.

Although it really doesn't differ all that much from the taxation system in place today.

It differs in that the government doesn't care what you do to get money as long as you're not breaking its laws, but its similar in that excessive taxation is oppressive just like your socialized system.

wtfm8lol

24th January 2007, 17:46

The answer is obviously that you get to determine your own needs. RedStar1916 is obviously wrong.

And this is precisely why no one has to worry about a communist revolution: they will kill themselves before fighting us since none of them can agree on very much.

t_wolves_fan

24th January 2007, 19:04

So the state decides my job. Awesome. Can't wait for that.

So much for individuality.

I don't get to determine my own needs, yet this is a society that values individualism.

Explain that, if you could.
Actually, economically speaking a Socialist society would lean more towards collectivism. I actually can't believe you didn't get that.

Right, the individual becomes a faceless cog with no rights.

Prole #126456: "Honey, let's go to the People's glorious state park this weekend?"

Telescreen: "Prole #126456, report to the People's glorious work center for assignment. Your labor is required for the glorious people's good."

Prole $126456: Well, no fun weekend for me.

Who decides if the job I see fit to do is to my benefit, or society's benefit?
It's usually fairly obvious...

Then answer the question.

Fine, then I want to play the tuba. Good.
Right, and it makes society that much better off how?

They get to hear good music and I feel good about myself.

Explain with specifics how you expect people's individual jobs to be assigned based on an objective criteria of the social good.

How do we distribute a house with a master suite evenly when there are not enough such houses to go around?
My point exactly. No other system has ever been able to provide a master suite to everyone who wants one. I'm afraid Socialism is no different in this regard.

There's nothing wrong with not being able to provide a master suite to everyone.

In the current system, I have chance to eventually get a master suite. In yours, since everyone must be equal so that nobody feels bad, I'm going to end up with a non-descript hovel, aren't I.

Wow, what an improvement.

You are able to work for society in whatever way you see fit, provided you actually work for society. No example you have given has constituted working for society. Also, determination of your needs really has nothing to do with how you work for society, so I don't see how that constitutes a contradiction at all.

Then explain how my needs will be determined and how it will be decided what I do at the work camp this week.

Are you denying the feasibility of such a system's existence?

Outside of your head, yes. The ideas you offer are patently absurd.

"Hey everyone! Join me in a system where you don't get to choose your job for the "common good", which I and my friends will determine, and where you can live in a non-descript concrete high-rise so that you're just like everyone else! Because we know you people are essentially ants who have no self interest or subjective opinions of your own, and you'll be ever so excited to be managed by our group of uneducated teenagers! It will be swell!"

You can probably just bring one piece of paper and a barely-sharpened pencil for the sign-up sheet, ace because that's all you're going to need.

Do you understand that, at all?

Qwerty Dvorak

24th January 2007, 19:09

Has anyone picked up on the fact that Zampano and I obviously have different views? Because you treat us as if we're one and the same. He is obviously an anarchist, unless he is arguing from the point of view of a society that has already transcended the need for a state, which is actually just moronic because such a society will probably come about in circumstances vastly different to any which we have previously seen.

I will respond to your respective arguments in time, but I need to make sure you guys understand this first.

Guerrilla22

24th January 2007, 19:24

The same way it did hundreds of years ago.

Qwerty Dvorak

24th January 2007, 19:25

The answer is obviously that you get to determine your own needs. RedStar1916 is obviously wrong.
When the revolution comes, remind me that you are actually fighting for a society of homeless, starving tuba-players so that I can shoot you.

That's absurd. The state won't exist so it can't determine anything.
We are of course talking about a Socialist state here, that will be present in society before society transcends the need for a state. Or at least, the sane people are.

I apologize. I mean what you do as your profession.
No, as long as your profession contributes to society in some way. I've stressed that time and time again.

I'd say that if a system has become oppressive, it hasn't worked.
Both that statement and the statement that any such system would even be oppressive in the first place are subjective.

It differs in that the government doesn't care what you do to get money as long as you're not breaking its laws, but its similar in that excessive taxation is oppressive just like your socialized system.
But theoretically possible, yes? I think that answers ZX0 (or whoever)'s question.

And this is precisely why no one has to worry about a communist revolution: they will kill themselves before fighting us since none of them can agree on very much.
Alas, 'tis true.

Right, the individual becomes a faceless cog with no rights.

Prole #126456: "Honey, let's go to the People's glorious state park this weekend?"

Telescreen: "Prole #126456, report to the People's glorious work center for assignment. Your labor is required for the glorious people's good."

Prole $126456: Well, no fun weekend for me.
Yes. That is exactly what will happen in a Socialist society. Verbatim.

Or, the state would not take away people's names and force them to work 24/7 against their will, as this would not be required to sustain the survival of society.

[b]Then answer the question.
Well, if you are better off as the result of an action, then that action benefits you. If society is better off as the result of an action, it benefits society. That's how it will be decided.

[b]
Explain with specifics how you expect people's individual jobs to be assigned based on an objective criteria of the social good.
They will apply for the job they want, and assuming it benefits society in some way, they will be granted the job.

In the current system, I have chance to eventually get a master suite. In yours, since everyone must be equal so that nobody feels bad, I'm going to end up with a non-descript hovel, aren't I.
Not if capitalism generates enough wealth to provide society as a whole with a decent standard of living.

Then explain how my needs will be determined and how it will be decided what I do at the work camp this week.

Well I'm assuming there will be the basic resources that will be granted to each individual, and this will be expanded on based on any special needs you might have, children, spouse, etc. As for the other demand, it's a completely absurd, trollish question as it is impossible for me to know that.

Outside of your head, yes. The ideas you offer are patently absurd.
It's a lot like the tax system, really. Is the tax system patently absurd? Or does it exist outside my head?

"Hey everyone! Join me in a system where you don't get to choose your job for the "common good", which I and my friends will determine, and where you can live in a non-descript concrete high-rise so that you're just like everyone else! Because we know you people are essentially ants who have no self interest or subjective opinions of your own, and you'll be ever so excited to be managed by our group of uneducated teenagers! It will be swell!"
You have ignored everything I have said in the course of this debate. What I want to say to right now would offend Jazzratt.

wtfm8lol

24th January 2007, 19:58

No, as long as your profession contributes to society in some way. I've stressed that time and time again.

you never explained how the state decides who is contributing and who isn't

But theoretically possible, yes? I think that answers ZX0 (or whoever)'s question.

it could exist if you convinced a sufficient number of people it would work, but it certainly wouldn't end up working in the end without resorting to oppression.

t_wolves_fan

24th January 2007, 20:21

Then answer the question.
Well, if you are better off as the result of an action, then that action benefits you. If society is better off as the result of an action, it benefits society. That's how it will be decided.

I meant with specifics, not slogans.

Explain with specifics how you expect people's individual jobs to be assigned based on an objective criteria of the social good.
They will apply for the job they want, and assuming it benefits society in some way, they will be granted the job.

How is it determined whether or not it benefits society in some way,
Who does the hiring,
Who determines how many workers are needed,
How is it determined how much output is needed,
How is it guaranteed that the worker will work less than they do today?

I mean c'mon, these are not trite little details. You're suggesting we abandon the status quo for an entirely new economic and political process. You cannot seriously expect to tell people "it will be decided whether you are benefitting society or not" while asking them to give up what they already have.

Not if capitalism generates enough wealth to provide society as a whole with a decent standard of living.

This suggests to me your system cannot generate wealth, since you give capitalism the responsibility for generating the wealth you require.

So whenever your rapture...I'm sorry revolution is scheduled to occur, you will be asking me to look at the wealth generated by capitalism over the past 150-200 years and decide that where we are at now is fine, except all the wealth currently generated is to be split evenly among the world's 6 billion or so people.

Because if your system were capable of generating wealth, you'd not need this requirement.

And,

who decides when a "decent standard of living" can be provided?

Then explain how my needs will be determined...

Well I'm assuming there will be the basic resources that will be granted to each individual, and this will be expanded on based on any special needs you might have, children, spouse, etc.

So what are we talking?
6 pounds of flour a week? Eggs?
A 12X12 cell for single people?
What do you envision?
Will a supercomputer determine how much each person gets?
Based on what variables?
What constitutes a "need" and what constitutes a want?
Do we engineer a conference call among all 6 billion people to determine needs vs. wants by consensus?
Or does a vanguard decide?
Party elite?
Why them?
Or do you, since you're clearly enlightened and brilliant enough to engineer a system that has such specifics as "it will be decided"?

Cmon sport, you're the one pushing a new, glorious global political and economic system, and you can't even tell me how my monthly ration of gruel will be determined?

and how it will be decided what I do at the work camp this week.

As for the other demand, it's a completely absurd, trollish question as it is impossible for me to know that.

So you're telling me that:

A> this system will work, you know it will, it can be proven or logically expected to work.

B> It will work by requiring people to work "for the common good"

C> As yet, you have no idea how it will be determined what job I will be given for how long at any given time.

Do you at least have some concept of why people might be skeptical?

Outside of your head, yes. The ideas you offer are patently absurd.
It's a lot like the tax system, really. Is the tax system patently absurd? Or does it exist outside my head?

WTF? The existence of something that has actually been implemented proves that your ideology which has not yet been implemented and for which you have no specifics beyond "it will be determined if it benefits society" will work? On what planet does that make any sense?

...you'll be ever so excited to be managed by our group of uneducated teenagers! It will be swell!"
You have ignored everything I have said in the course of this debate. What I want to say to right now would offend Jazzratt.

I haven't ignored a single thing you've said. You haven't said much at all really, except that apparently I'm supposed to look at what I have now and what I could have in the future and leave it for what you think will work based on vague notions of what you think is good for society.

So really, why don't you tell me what you think now. Offending Jazzratt isn't an accomplishment. Jazzratt is the kind of person who seeks out offense over which to be self-righteously indignant. If she wasn't offended she literally would have no idea what to do with herself. If she could be paid to be offended it would be her dream job.

Lay it on me sport.

Ol' Dirty

24th January 2007, 21:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:15 am
function without property rights?
Define property rights, please.

wtfm8lol

24th January 2007, 21:47

Originally posted by Muigwithania+January 24, 2007 09:41 pm--> (Muigwithania @ January 24, 2007 09:41 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 10:15 am
function without property rights?
Define property rights, please. [/b]
Err..the right to own private property?

Qwerty Dvorak

24th January 2007, 22:39

t_wolves, your post doesn't really make any new points, all it does is demand much much more specifics, specifics no single person could possibly provide. This is an obvious attempt to enforce a stalemate, that is, silencing me by demanding more than I can possibly provide. While I would love to heed your demands for information and specifics, I actually just don't have the time. And besides, I don't think necessary; I don't think there is anything I have suggested which is inherently impossible, and I have provided a fair idea of the way things would be conducted in a Socialist society.

Your demands for absolute attention to every minute detail are utterly juvenile; there will of course be governmental bodies set up to handle the tasks in question, and these bodies will be manned by those most able for the job (and, usually, those most committed). It is not within my ability or my duty to explain how every single one of these bodies will be formed and run. I quite simply don't know, just as I don't know how some currently existing bodies are run. However, there is nothing to suggest that the existence of such bodies is impossible.

Also, it's not hard to tell whether something benefits someone or not, and in fact I gave you a perfectly logical answer to your question and you shrugged it off as being not specific enough, even going so far as to label it a "slogan" (which is odd, since I've never ever heard that being used as a slogan by anyone, ever).

As for assessment of individual needs, again you have purposely asked to much, obviously the assessment would first establish the basic biological needs of the individual and then expand on this taking into account any special circumstances, all the while abiding to the principle of equal distribution of wealth. Apart from that, this is a circumstantial engineering problem and would be not only excessively tiring and time-consuming, but actually impossible to determine at this point in time.

As regards generation of wealth, of course Socialism would be capable of generating wealth, but it is generally accepted by Socialists that the main role of capitalism is to develop and advance the means of production to the extent that they could support a Socialist economy. This theory causes a lot of problems as regards revolution; I for one do not believe that capitalism has advanced the global economy enough to support a Socialist economy at the moment. In keeping with this view, no, I do not advocate we abandon the status quo, Socialism is quite simply something I believe will come about eventually, whether you want it to or not.

Ol' Dirty

24th January 2007, 23:34

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 24, 2007 04:47 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ January 24, 2007 04:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:41 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 10:15 am
function without property rights?
Define property rights, please.
Err..the right to own private property? [/b]
Thank you.

In that case, it could function right proper. A society with socialized farming (capital) and industry would better be able to meet the demands of the citizenry. I imagine that one would own ones utensils and such.

wtfm8lol

25th January 2007, 00:44

A society with socialized farming (capital) and industry would better be able to meet the demands of the citizenry.

Great..an assertion with nothing to back it up.

I imagine that one would own ones utensils and such.

And ones tools? And ones house? And ones automobiles?

t_wolves_fan

25th January 2007, 00:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:34 pm
A society with socialized farming (capital) and industry would better be able to meet the demands of the citizenry.
I realize this is frowned upon on this board, but can you explain how?

25th January 2007, 04:38

He is obviously an anarchist

:lol:

unless he is arguing from the point of view of a society that has already transcended the need for a state

That I am.

hich is actually just moronic because such a society will probably come about in circumstances vastly different to any which we have previously seen.

I don't understand how you can speak of the time period that you do when the inquiry was about communist society.

pandora

25th January 2007, 04:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:20 pm
When you ride the Bus do you own it?

You don't need to own something to have it in your possesion do you? You can live in an apartment and not own it.

Why isn't your anti-venmom at the hospital where people who no how to administer it, and how to respond if there is a negative reaction. Why should the people who know how to make anti-venom allow you to carry it around when someone whose child is bitten may die because it's in your pocket not the Hospital.

Anti-Venom something else you can't just BUY because you WANT it. A Dr. is required to prescribe it. You continue to operate under the belief that the way the US does things is the only way most other contries have more humane property laws than the US and survive without your chaos just fine. Where are the Cuban riots and the hoarding? They don't happen because there future is collectively ensured hoarding became unescessary to ensure you're future and the future of your children.
Quite right, we are entering the largest time period of not owning the world has ever owned. Allayed by the fact that the renters are able to buy a latte, but have no land for growing food or holding live stock.

Peasants had more land rights.

wtfm8lol

25th January 2007, 04:58

but have no land for growing food or holding live stock.

thanks, but i'd prefer a latte to having to grow my own food and raise my own animals. not to mention that it isn't very difficult to own land unless you choose to live in a big city.

Edit: gratz on 100 m8

RGacky3

25th January 2007, 05:51

Many land owners DO live in the big city. Thats the point, they are gaining the benefits of the land without ever working it, people can profit from land they've never seen.

I realize this is frowned upon on this board, but can you explain how?

Its simple logic, Socialist farming would be done for the benefit of Society as a whole, not for profit, not to compete, rather to take care of Societies needs. The idea that a system based on selfishness and competition will benefit Society more than a system based on Solidarity and Social equality its both logically and empirically silly. Capitalist systems right now export food being produced in lands where the people are starving, but here in the US farmers destroy crops to keep prices stable, now tell me how Capitalism benefits Society more than a System where goal of production is Social needs rather than Profit?

wtfm8lol

25th January 2007, 17:44

Socialist farming would be done for the benefit of Society as a whole

By who? Do you think it's fun to be a farmer?

not for profit, not to compete

Excellent. Now no one has to pay any attention to the quality of his or her work.

The idea that a system based on selfishness and competition will benefit Society more than a system based on Solidarity and Social equality its both logically and empirically silly.

It's also based on the freedom of people to make mutually beneficial trades. Competition assures that the best products will be available at the lowest prices to the consumers. A lack of competition takes this away, so high-quality and efficiently made products are not guaranteed.

Capitalist systems right now export food being produced in lands where the people are starving

And? Why should anyone be obligated to help anyone around him or her who can't help back? If a farmer starts giving his food away, he won't be able to pay for his family to live.

but here in the US farmers destroy crops to keep prices stable

The crops belong to them so they're free to do what they want with them. They're not obligated to sell everything they make and they're not obligated to use every inch of their land to grow. That aside, as far as I'm concerned, there is far too much government involvement in the agriculture industry.

now tell me how Capitalism benefits Society more than a System where goal of production is Social needs rather than Profit?

Capitalism achieves its goals whereas your system does not, so no matter how nice your goals are, they don't matter.

t_wolves_fan

25th January 2007, 17:51

Originally posted by Pandora+--> (Pandora)Quite right, we are entering the largest time period of not owning the world has ever owned. Allayed by the fact that the renters are able to buy a latte, but have no land for growing food or holding live stock.

Peasants had more land rights.[/b]

Not that the first sentence makes any sense, but renters don't have land for growing food or livestock because they haven't bought any land for that purpose. Most of them are quite satisfied to rent an apartment and purchase their food at the grocery store so they can pursue a career they actually want to do, instead of farming. This is why so many of them reject your ideology, where presumably on occasion upon reporting to the work center in their drab green uniform they discover they are to pick beets for the week.

RGacky3
Its simple logic, Socialist farming would be done for the benefit of Society as a whole, not for profit, not to compete, rather to take care of Societies needs.

No, I asked HOW.

Explain HOW this is done.

Dimentio

25th January 2007, 17:56

Simply. Industrialise the farming and professionalise it. We could actually combine that with a cut of subsidizes for inefficient agriculture and thus make it hard for liberals to criticise us.

t_wolves_fan

25th January 2007, 18:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:56 pm
Simply. Industrialise the farming and professionalise it. We could actually combine that with a cut of subsidizes for inefficient agriculture and thus make it hard for liberals to criticise us.
How is it determined who gets how much food?

Here is the problem I see with your technocractic answer:

Say it takes 100 energy credits to grow the year's total crop of food. That is divided up among the 100 residents of technoland. The assumption is made that 1 credit worth of food is enough for one person for the year.

What happens when 1 of the citizens uses 2 energy credits on food? Now you have 98 available credits of food for 99 people.

You cannot simply transfer technology, since the technology required to grow food is quite different from that required to make consumer products. Not to mention that growing seasons are only so long - if you find out halfway through that you're on pace to have a shortage, you're hosed.

Dimentio

25th January 2007, 18:17

Food is not distributed by central planners. It is you who decide how much food you want to have by the usage of your energy certifikate. Some food would probably be quite cheaper than today, as grain for example does not cost much in KWh to produce.

Given that Europe and the US today scraps a lot of the foods the farmers are producing before it reaches the market, scarcity seems rather unlikely.

t_wolves_fan

25th January 2007, 18:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:17 pm
Food is not distributed by central planners. It is you who decide how much food you want to have by the usage of your energy certifikate.
But what's on your energy certifikate is determined by adding up all the energy used to produce every product over a given timeframe, I thought?

dogwoodlover

26th January 2007, 02:39

not for profit, not to compete

Excellent. Now no one has to pay any attention to the quality of his or her work.

The idea that a system based on selfishness and competition will benefit Society more than a system based on Solidarity and Social equality its both logically and empirically silly.

It's also based on the freedom of people to make mutually beneficial trades. Competition assures that the best products will be available at the lowest prices to the consumers. A lack of competition takes this away, so high-quality and efficiently made products are not guaranteed.

Competition ensures nothing of the kind. In fact, the drive for profit ensures that products will be made in the cheapest way possible in order to maximize profits. Pick up a dictionary and lookup "planned obsolescence." Companies intentionally make products that break down and wear out so that consumer will be compelled to purchase more of their product in order to replace it.

Go buy an iPod and see how long it lasts.

Monopolies, the result of competition, cancel out any possible benefits of competition,
and instead leave us with products being made that have no real, comparable alternative, and are produced purely with profit in mind.

Capitalist systems right now export food being produced in lands where the people are starving

And? Why should anyone be obligated to help anyone around him or her who can't help back? If a farmer starts giving his food away, he won't be able to pay for his family to live.

What if jobs aren't available? Do you think a poor peasant could offer a farmer more money than a large corporation could? Furthermore, what rights does the farmer have to being able to work the land for subsistence that a poor peasant does not?

but here in the US farmers destroy crops to keep prices stable

The crops belong to them so they're free to do what they want with them. They're not obligated to sell everything they make and they're not obligated to use every inch of their land to grow. That aside, as far as I'm concerned, there is far too much government involvement in the agriculture industry.

If not for government paying the agriculture industry to burn their excess crops, what do you think would happen when the farmers produced too much and refused to sell their crops because they were unable to make a profit on them? Again, what rights does the farmer have to monopolize parts of the earth for his gain, while others have no share of the earth and starve because of it.

now tell me how Capitalism benefits Society more than a System where goal of production is Social needs rather than Profit?

Capitalism achieves its goals whereas your system
does not, so no matter how nice your goals are, they don't matter.

First of all, please define capitalism's "goals". If the goal of an economic system is to distribute resources where they are needed then capitalism is an utter failure.

Secondly, as far as I know, no true socialist economy with workers' control has ever been implemented, so I'm not sure how you can make that assessment.

t_wolves_fan

26th January 2007, 03:41

Competition ensures nothing of the kind. In fact, the drive for profit ensures that products will be made in the cheapest way possible in order to maximize profits.

Not true at all. The parts used in a BMW are of significantly better quality and the craftsmanship is significantly better than those that go into a Kia.

Generally, if it's more expensive it's of higher quality. Naturally there are some products on which you'll be ripped off (i.e. a Lexus is merely a flashy Toyota), but you have to do your research.

Of course, for people like you who hear slogans that sound good and decide they're truth, this is asking too much.

Pick up a dictionary and lookup "planned obsolescence." Companies intentionally make products that break down and wear out so that consumer will be compelled to purchase more of their product in order to replace it.

Explain the trend in longer and more comprehensive warranties in the auto market.

The rest of your post is nonsense. It's obvious you read some like totally rad websites and thought you like totally had it figured out, man.

:redstar2000:

wtfm8lol

26th January 2007, 04:42

that's it..i've entirely lost motivation to try to reason with them.

dogwoodlover

26th January 2007, 06:27

Competition ensures nothing of the kind. In fact, the drive for profit ensures that products will be made in the cheapest way possible in order to maximize profits.

Not true at all. The parts used in a BMW are of significantly better quality and the craftsmanship is significantly better than those that go into a Kia.

BMW and Kia compete with other manufacturers for completely different markets. Honda, Toyota, and Kia all use the cheapest parts they can within the given boundaries of competition. The same goes for BMW and Mercedes. Hummer and Land Rover.

Pick up a dictionary and lookup "planned obsolescence." Companies intentionally make products that break down and wear out so that consumer will be compelled to purchase more of their product in order to replace it.

Explain the trend in longer and more comprehensive warranties in the auto market.

Cars are made to crumple and crush when you get into an accident. They don't want your car to breakdown on the roadside, because then it's their fault. But, if you hit someone and it bends the frame, then they can blame you. Take a look at cars from the 60's and 70's, they hold up way better in accidents.

The rest of your post is nonsense. It's obvious you read some like totally rad websites and thought you like totally had it figured out, man.

Unfortunately for you, dismissing someone's argument as "nonsense," does not constitute critique. If there is actual substance to what you say, then that's another matter.

wtfm8lol

26th January 2007, 21:57

Cars are made to crumple and crush when you get into an accident. They don't want your car to breakdown on the roadside, because then it's their fault. But, if you hit someone and it bends the frame, then they can blame you. Take a look at cars from the 60's and 70's, they hold up way better in accidents.

moron, they crumple so you don't die. obviously you've never taken a course in physics.

dogwoodlover

27th January 2007, 08:28

No, in fact, I haven't.

I withdraw my argument.

Dr Mindbender

27th January 2007, 15:21

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 23, 2007 07:10 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 23, 2007 07:10 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 23, 2007 06:12 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 23, 2007 06:12 pm) What does greedy fool A contribute to warrant a higher wage or better standard of living than poor wretch B, C and D? (other than being born into the beourgiouse class?)

Answers on a postcard, folks ;) [/b]
He identified the market need, took the risk of starting the company (either using his own capital, borrowed capital for which he's on the hook, or other people's capital), and put the pieces in place to create a successful firm.

To summarize:

Risks taken by the entrepeneur: great.
Risks taken by the worker: not so great.

Benefit to the consumer of the entrepeneur's risk: great.
Benefit to the consumer of the worker who creates the product identified by the entrepeneur: medium, because the entrepeneur had to take the risk to meet the customer's need. This does not work vice-versa: a worker's output does not guarantee that the customers' needs will be met, as workers could very easily simply produce that which the consumer does not want or need.

Those things being the case, just what does he deserve and is he really a parasite? [/b]

Apologies for late reply not been able to get online...

All the above mentioned points are faculties of value in a labour-capital system and would therefore be of no merit in a society where the onus is collective security as opposed to wealth accumulation for the social elite.

t wolves [email protected]

You're not required to work a soul crushing, alienating job in capitalism. If you don't like what you do, quit and find another job. If you can't find another job that pays the bills, start your own business. If you're not into materialist stuff then you have an advantage because you don't need to find a career that pays well; but I don't see how it's your business if others are into materialistic crap and live their lives in a way you wouldn't like for youself.
I beg to differ; the job variety we have available is dictated primarilly by market influences, ie seperate private businesses competing with each other. For example, If i want to be a chef but i cant cause theres too many restaurants in the area competing with each other who wont hire any more chefs and i cant afford to move, then I'll probably be forced to continue a job i dont want to do.

In a society where we can concentrate on improving and working on everyones talents, (as i described before) The interests of everyone will be benefited. A happy workforce is a productive workforce.

t wolves fan

You're trying to eliminate risk, which is impossible.
capitalism maximises risk (for everyone) which is foolish.

wtfm8lol

28th January 2007, 05:03

I beg to differ; the job variety we have available is dictated primarilly by market influences, ie seperate private businesses competing with each other. For example, If i want to be a chef but i cant cause theres too many restaurants in the area competing with each other who wont hire any more chefs and i cant afford to move, then I'll probably be forced to continue a job i dont want to do.

are you suggesting that in communism, you would be able to become a chef in this instance? i dont see how allowing an excess of any profession will not harm a community.

capitalism maximises risk (for everyone) which is foolish.

capitalism creates risk for individuals. communism maximizes risk for the entire community.

peaccenicked

28th January 2007, 06:39

capitalism creates risks for the individual.
Certainly does especially if you are a soldier in Iraq. That is brilliant. I am so happy for every soldier. What if you are working in a sweat shop, would you really need health and safety. No, Let us just be joyous in the fact that capitalism creates risks for the individual.

Communism, an international system would abolish wars. How risky is that? Soldiers would have to redployed doing something really useful. Other than killing some other mothers son or daughter.
On Health, despite the horrible monstorous caricatures of socialism of the states that born out of third world revolutions, for instance Cuba.
All began welfare states. Hmm have a look a this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,712720,00.html

So even poor representations of what, socialism would be like,make the health of their population as a priority. That sounds like real risk taking.

communism maximizes risk for the entire community.
What sort of risk not being killed, not being treated in hospital.
not being educated into understanding the meaning of the word 'risk'

Publius

28th January 2007, 15:11

Its simple logic, Socialist farming would be done for the benefit of Society as a whole, not for profit, not to compete, rather to take care of Societies needs.

Which would explain why there were no great famines in the Ukraine, or in China.

Perfectly sensible.

The idea that a system based on selfishness and competition will benefit Society more than a system based on Solidarity and Social equality its both logically and empirically silly.

Intent doesn't matter. At all. You seem to think that it matters one fuck whether or not people care about each other; it doesn't. And if your system requires that it does, it'll fail because most people are selfish assholes.

Go the other direction.

Capitalist systems right now export food being produced in lands where the people are starving, but here in the US farmers destroy crops to keep prices stable, now tell me how Capitalism benefits Society more than a System where goal of production is Social needs rather than Profit?

I don't know, compare the famines in China that happen now and that happened under Mao. Oh, wait.

OK, compare the famines that happened in India under socialist government and the famines that happen now...

Hmm.

Compare the famines in the modern Ukraine vs. the one under Stalin.

Obviously the starvation rates should be much higher in these countries now, under the tyrannical capitalists.

Just because "production for need" is a nice sentiment doesn't mean its a good practical policy.

the_sociallist

29th January 2007, 00:14

It is not possible in a large or even a small society...democratic, imperialist, socialist or communist none of that matters, property rights is a big topic of discussion, but at the end of day everyone must own something or have a sense of ownership...if not what do we slave our lives away for.

If we lived in a world where there were no property rights, what would stop my neighbor from walking into my apartment and taking the new 52" tv I have been saving a year to buy....nothing! You might contend that people will not need to buy something if there was no such thing as proprty rights. And you are right, but at the same time you must realize that proprty rights, whether it is real estate, cars, tv's, clothes, food, jewerly, boats...etc Is the very thing that gives our economic system a foundation to rest upon. I don't care which system of goverment you are running, property rights need to be defined and enforced. Otherwise what good is money if you cannot buy anything with it. You might contest and say that if the goverment gives you everything you need, than you should not want. But everyone is differnt and no one wants the same things as the next guy.

example...Lets say you and I both got paid 1000$ a month. After living expenses each of us had 500$ left over. You choose to spend your money on CD's and a new bike. But that may not be a want of mine and thus I can save my money if I choose for a new computer.

Without property rights, there would be no economic system...with out an economic system there would be no goverment and choas would run rament. A country in choas will not survive.....property rights must be defined in order for a goverment to survive.

t_wolves_fan

29th January 2007, 14:01

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 27, 2007 03:21 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 27, 2007 03:21 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:10 pm
Those things being the case, just what does he deserve and is he really a parasite?

Apologies for late reply not been able to get online...

All the above mentioned points are faculties of value in a labour-capital system and would therefore be of no merit in a society where the onus is collective security as opposed to wealth accumulation for the social elite.
[/b]
No problem but you did not answer my question: given the risks and the management undertaken by the capitalist vis-a-vis the worker, is he or she really a parasite?

t wolves fan

You're not required to work a soul crushing, alienating job in capitalism. If you don't like what you do, quit and find another job. If you can't find another job that pays the bills, start your own business. If you're not into materialist stuff then you have an advantage because you don't need to find a career that pays well; but I don't see how it's your business if others are into materialistic crap and live their lives in a way you wouldn't like for youself.
I beg to differ; the job variety we have available is dictated primarilly by market influences, ie seperate private businesses competing with each other. For example, If i want to be a chef but i cant cause theres too many restaurants in the area competing with each other who wont hire any more chefs and i cant afford to move, then I'll probably be forced to continue a job i dont want to do.

In a society where we can concentrate on improving and working on everyones talents, (as i described before) The interests of everyone will be benefited. A happy workforce is a productive workforce.

See Publius' question: what if too many people want to be chefs or any other position?

This is the big problem you socialists and communists have: you promise that people will get to do whatever job they want to do but when pressed on the question of how this can ensure that labor will be distributed properly to meet society's material needs, you avoid the question or end up admitting that yeah, *sometimes* people *may* have to do jobs they *don't want to do* for the *good of society*, at which point it's like what's the difference?

Dr Mindbender

29th January 2007, 16:48

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)Which would explain why there were no great famines in the Ukraine, or in China.

Perfectly sensible.[/b]
Great point, except for the small detail that none of these countries were ever communist/socialist (despite what the stalinists may tell you), they were state-capitalist.
(A beorgiouse government who owns all the industries seperately from the trade unions)

Originally posted by t wolves fan+--> (t wolves fan)No problem but you did not answer my question: given the risks and the management undertaken by the capitalist vis-a-vis the worker, is he or she really a parasite?[/b]
Absolutely, since the only member beneficiary of the present establishment to produce little or no labour is the beourgiouse capitalist. The 'risks' that the beourgiouse take to preserve their position are only put on a pedestal by the existing status quo and would be of no merit in a society run in the interests of collective need and worker's security. Beourgiouse luxury is the fruit of proletarian sweat and misery.

t wolves [email protected]

See Publius' question: what if too many people want to be chefs or any other position?

This is the big problem you socialists and communists have: you promise that people will get to do whatever job they want to do but when pressed on the question of how this can ensure that labor will be distributed properly to meet society's material needs, you avoid the question or end up admitting that yeah, *sometimes* people *may* have to do jobs they *don't want to do* for the *good of society*, at which point it's like what's the difference?
It is silly to assume that everyone will want to work in the same profession. The reality is, if you were to talk to any menial worker or any other worker within society that the beourgiouse doesnt deem 'worthy' to have an equal status of living will more likely give you a completely different answer to the next one to how they'd rather spend their working lives. Capitalism concentrates on mass production via humans and the way in which it requires this to survive is the way in which it deprives all those but its beneficiaries of their 'individualist' roles.
Human beings are as we all acknowledge different and communism/socialism would embrace this diversity simply by liberating the collective knowledge available in the workplaces and utilising it to the benefit of society at large.

t wolves fan

whenpressed on the question of how this can ensure that labor will be distributed properly to meet society's material needs, you avoid the question or end up admitting that yeah, *sometimes* people *may* have to do jobs they *don't want to do* for the *good of society*, at which point it's like what's the difference
The beourgiouse, limited in number will be forced with the choice of wether they want to contribute or to alienate themselves from the legitimate choice of the majority, which by definition is true democracy. Socialism will mature society through an equal share of labour per worker which will dramatically decrease the amount of hours that each person has to put in under capitalism; already improving the lives of the proletariat. Furthermore it will utilise the potential workforce that capitalism squanders by encouraging them to stew on social security. Each person will be actively encouraged, and have ready access to educational utilities that will benefit the collective intelligence of society. The next stage would involve scientific progress that could replace human labour with intensive, efficient machinery that could match the production load already in existence. Once this is acheived, then all human beings would be in a position to take up enriching, stimulating roles which will give all an equal sensation of contribution and worth.

Any more questions?

t_wolves_fan

29th January 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 29, 2007 04:48 pm
Any more questions?
Yes.

The same ones I had before, because you didn't even touch them at all.

Again:

1>Given the actual roles of the bourgeoisie in taking risks to identify market needs, creation of ideas and market plans, management and allocation of labor and resources within a firm, are they really "useless parasites".

2>The question about careeer choice did not make the assumption that everyone would want the same career; it makes the valid assumption that, given the individual choice of career promised by communists and socialists, freed from market forces people are going to choose careers that may not line up with actual need. In other words, if society needs a lot more of a certain profession to meet its needs, how are people convinced to go into that profession if they don't want to while still delivering on your promise that people will get to do the jobs they want to do?

Keep in mind that one communist already admitted that people will not have a choice of what career they want to pursue.

Dr Mindbender

29th January 2007, 17:30

Originally posted by t wolves fan+--> (t wolves fan)
Yes.

The same ones I had before, because you didn't even touch them at all.

Again:[/b]
Yes i did, I can only deduce that you didnt bother to read my responses or couldnt understand them. However they do fully explain how certainly in my interpretation how socialism could function (successfully).

Originally posted by t wolves fan+--> (t wolves fan)

1>Given the actual roles of the bourgeoisie in taking risks to identify market needs, creation of ideas and market plans, management and allocation of labor and resources within a firm, are they really "useless parasites".[/b]
-These 'risks' you keep referring to would be irrelvant because there would be no 'markets' under socialism. Everything would be owned by the party of the proletarian and everything would be controlled in it's interests.
In the initial stage post revolution, only those willing to make a practical contribution to society by means of scientific, artistic engineering or labour contributions (with the exception of those with handicaps) would not be regarded as 'parasites'. The capitalist produces none of the above resources and would therefore be redundant under socialism.

t wolves [email protected]

2>The question about careeer choice did not make the assumption that everyone would want the same career; it makes the valid assumption that, given the individual choice of career promised by communists and socialists, freed from market forces people are going to choose careers that may not line up with actual need. In other words, if society needs a lot more of a certain profession to meet its needs, how are people convinced to go into that profession if they don't want to while still delivering on your promise that people will get to do the jobs they want to do?
The point I was making the variation in human nature means that, it makes common sense to presume that the numbers varying to choose each profession will be roughly balanced. In any case theres 2 other points the 'needs' of society will be dictated by its members ie those choosing to go into whatever profession they want. Capitalism already fails dismally to meet the 'needs' of society hence thats why theres so many people going without food or basic shelter, education etc.
My other point is that your assertions are made on the basis of a society dictated by markets. The advance of science, and the liberation of people from the factories will make these irrelevant.

t wolves fan

Keep in mind that one communist already admitted that people will not have a choice of what career they want to pursue.
Not all 'communists' have the same interpretation. Holding us all accountable for the same view is like blaming Jesus for the crusades.

t_wolves_fan

29th January 2007, 18:29

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 29, 2007 05:30 pm

Good grief, Ulster.

I did not ask what the role of the bourgeoisie would be under your utopian dream, I asked what you think of their role as it exists now.

Are they genuinely parasites right now, or do they actually have a productive role to play?

The point I was making the variation in human nature means that, it makes common sense to presume that the numbers varying to choose each profession will be roughly balanced.

That's a huge risk.

You really believe that if we did away with capitalism, people would just magically gravitate towards those fields in need of people instead of the fields they want to enter?

In any case theres 2 other points the 'needs' of society will be dictated by its members ie those choosing to go into whatever profession they want.

So....everyone will go into the profession they want to go into, and if nobody/too few people choose(s) to clean up vomit, help the developmentally disabled, shovel pig manure, shave sheep, dig coal, sort files and any other of many less-than-enjoyable jobs, then society will have determined that those consumer (i.e.) demand needs need not be met. Supply will trump demand.

Is that your position?

Do you think that will lead to an effective and efficient use of resources, to let people work to create a supply of stuff that may not actually be wanted or needed on the demand side?

My other point is that your assertions are made on the basis of a society dictated by markets. The advance of science, and the liberation of people from the factories will make these irrelevant.

You really believe that your system will make people stop wanting stuff?

With all due respect, your fantasies are not well thought out, have no connection to any reality other than how you wish it existed, and are laughably naive. I mean, I'm sure you're a nice guy and you mean well, but maybe you should look at writing fiction for a living or something.

Guerrilla22

29th January 2007, 19:34

Keep in mind that one communist already admitted that people will not have a choice of what career they want to pursue.

Oh really? When did this occur?

wtfm8lol

29th January 2007, 20:28

Guerrilla22

29th January 2007, 20:32

One communist doesn't speak for communist in general. Under communism people will actually have more freedom to do what they actually want to do as a proffession, than they would in a capitalist society,m where one's opprotunities are largely limited to one's socioeconomic status. However, there will be limitations, i.e. the person who wants to be an artist, but has no artistic talent what so ever, won't be able to function in society as an artist.

wtfm8lol

29th January 2007, 20:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:32 pm
One communist doesn't speak for communist in general. Under communism people will actually have more freedom to do what they actually want to do as a proffession, than they would in a capitalist society,m where one's opprotunities are largely limited to one's socioeconomic status. However, there will be limitations, i.e. the person who wants to be an artist, but has no artistic talent what so ever, won't be able to function in society as an artist.

One communist doesn't speak for communist in general.

thank fuck for that. imagine how irritating you would all be if you could agree with each other and combine your prepubescent voices.

Under communism people will actually have more freedom to do what they actually want to do as a proffession, than they would in a capitalist society,m where one's opprotunities are largely limited to one's socioeconomic status. However, there will be limitations, i.e. the person who wants to be an artist, but has no artistic talent what so ever, won't be able to function in society as an artist.

that makes no fucking sense. who decides if i'm a good enough artist? obviously, the market decides in capitalism. does my community take a vote? is there a panel specifically for judging an artist's merit? what if my style of art isn't considered good by the majority, but a minority like it and think I should be allowed to spend my time creating it? or in the case of the panel, what if the panel prefers a different style of art?

t_wolves_fan

29th January 2007, 20:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:34 pm

Keep in mind that one communist already admitted that people will not have a choice of what career they want to pursue.

Oh really? When did this occur?

In this very thread. Page 3 Red Star says in response to my question about how people will get jobs,

They will apply for the job they want, and assuming it benefits society in some way, they will be granted the job.

IOW, people only get jobs if it's determined by someone that it benefits society. Ergo, choice is restricted.

Of course, you say the same thing in your subsequent post:

However, there will be limitations, i.e. the person who wants to be an artist, but has no artistic talent what so ever, won't be able to function in society as an artist.

Are communists who say that people will have a choice in their profession incorrect or not?

Do people have to work or starve in communism? How is their labor allocated?

I am still seeking answers to these questions, after all these years. Alas, the only response I've gotten essentially says "everyone will just magically agree to do exactly that which is needed out of the goodness of their hearts".

t_wolves_fan

29th January 2007, 20:43

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 29, 2007 08:40 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ January 29, 2007 08:40 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 08:32 pm
One communist doesn't speak for communist in general.

thank fuck for that. imagine how irritating you would all be if you could agree with each other and combine your prepubescent voices.

[/b]
:lol:

That's going in the signature.

Under communism people will actually have more freedom to do what they actually want to do as a proffession, than they would in a capitalist society,m where one's opprotunities are largely limited to one's socioeconomic status. However, there will be limitations, i.e. the person who wants to be an artist, but has no artistic talent what so ever, won't be able to function in society as an artist.

that makes no fucking sense. who decides if i'm a good enough artist? obviously, the market decides in capitalism. does my community take a vote? is there a panel specifically for judging an artist's merit? what if my style of art isn't considered good by the majority, but a minority like it and think I should be allowed to spend my time creating it? or in the case of the panel, what if the panel prefers a different style of art?

The question the communist cannot seem to answer.

ZX3

29th January 2007, 23:35

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 29, 2007 12:30 pm
-These 'risks' you keep referring to would be irrelvant because there would be no 'markets' under socialism. Everything would be owned by the party of the proletarian and everything would be controlled in it's interests.
In the initial stage post revolution, only those willing to make a practical contribution to society by means of scientific, artistic engineering or labour contributions (with the exception of those with handicaps) would not be regarded as 'parasites'. The capitalist produces none of the above resources and would therefore be redundant under socialism.

So there is no risk in a project a socialist community endeavors to engage in?
If they wish to build a concrete factory, then by definition that was correct decision to make. If the community wished to build a factory to produce copper piping, by definition they made the right choice? The socialist is never wrong? Errors are impossible?
Explain that, please.

Guerrilla22

29th January 2007, 23:49

thank fuck for that. imagine how irritating you would all be if you could agree with each other and combine your prepubescent voices.

wow, how clever. <_< Its not as though capitalist ever repeat the same arguments over and over either.

that makes no fucking sense. who decides if i'm a good enough artist? obviously, the market decides in capitalism. does my community take a vote? is there a panel specifically for judging an artist's merit? what if my style of art isn't considered good by the majority, but a minority like it and think I should be allowed to spend my time creating it? or in the case of the panel, what if the panel prefers a different style of art?

Actually it is very logical. If you have no artistic talent, then logically you won't be able to perform as an artist and therefore will be useless to society, however if one excels say in the areas of science relatwed to medicine, logically that person will train and be able to function as a doctor.

I am still seeking answers to these questions, after all these years. Alas, the only response I've gotten essentially says "everyone will just magically agree to do exactly that which is needed out of the goodness of their hearts".

There is no exact blueprint as to how a communist society should function right down to the most minute detail, these things will have to be determined by societies based on what is best for society in general.

ZX3

30th January 2007, 00:08

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 29, 2007 11:48 am
It is silly to assume that everyone will want to work in the same profession. The reality is, if you were to talk to any menial worker or any other worker within society that the beourgiouse doesnt deem 'worthy' to have an equal status of living will more likely give you a completely different answer to the next one to how they'd rather spend their working lives. Capitalism concentrates on mass production via humans and the way in which it requires this to survive is the way in which it deprives all those but its beneficiaries of their 'individualist' roles.
Human beings are as we all acknowledge different and communism/socialism would embrace this diversity simply by liberating the collective knowledge available in the workplaces and utilising it to the benefit of society at large.

The question has always been: What if there is no need for what you would rather being doing?

ZX3

30th January 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:49 pm

Actually it is very logical. If you have no artistic talent, then logically you won't be able to perform as an artist and therefore will be useless to society, however if one excels say in the areas of science relatwed to medicine, logically that person will train and be able to function as a doctor.

WHY? WHY? WHY? remains the magical question. WHY is it "logical" that if you have no artistic talent, you will be unable to perform as an artist?

Qwerty Dvorak

30th January 2007, 00:18

Originally posted by ZX3+January 30, 2007 12:11 am--> (ZX3 @ January 30, 2007 12:11 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 06:49 pm

Actually it is very logical. If you have no artistic talent, then logically you won't be able to perform as an artist and therefore will be useless to society, however if one excels say in the areas of science relatwed to medicine, logically that person will train and be able to function as a doctor.

WHY? WHY? WHY? remains the magical question. WHY is it "logical" that if you have no artistic talent, you will be unable to perform as an artist? [/b]
You see, this is the kind of childish shit that made me opt out of this conversation. Once you demolish their arguments, they demand you explain the core basics of the English language to them.

wtfm8lol

30th January 2007, 00:26

That's going in the signature.

nice :D

Actually it is very logical. If you have no artistic talent, then logically you won't be able to perform as an artist and therefore will be useless to society, however if one excels say in the areas of science relatwed to medicine, logically that person will train and be able to function as a doctor.

you've entirely ignored my questions. read my post again and then respond again.

ZX3

30th January 2007, 00:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:25 pm

Then answer the question.
Well, if you are better off as the result of an action, then that action benefits you. If society is better off as the result of an action, it benefits society. That's how it will be decided.

And my questions have been childish??

ZX3

30th January 2007, 00:41

Originally posted by ZX3+January 29, 2007 07:27 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 29, 2007 07:27 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 02:25 pm

Then answer the question.
Well, if you are better off as the result of an action, then that action benefits you. If society is better off as the result of an action, it benefits society. That's how it will be decided.

And my questions have been childish?? [/b]
Another way of asking the question:

How do you know if you are better off as a result of that action?

What sort of information tells you so?

t_wolves_fan

30th January 2007, 14:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:49 pm

There is no exact blueprint as to how a communist society should function right down to the most minute detail, these things will have to be determined by societies based on what is best for society in general.
Problem sparky, we're not asking for blueprints right down to the minute detail.

We're asking some fundamental and basic questions. That you don't understand why these issues are fundamental and basic exposes your naivete and complete lack of understanding of the complexity of economic decisions made by people.

How can it logically be determined that Van Gogh's art is of value to society while my random and talent-less sketches are not if there's no value placed on either?

How do you ensure that, given the opportunity to pursue whatever career they want, enough people will go into glory-less yet necessary fields such as farming, janitorial, mining, fishing, cooking, and so on?

How do you know that people won't still be as greedy and materialistic as they are now? How do you know that given the chance to not work and receive the same material rewards as those who do, an overwhelming number of people will choose to not work?

Your answers and the answers of your fellow naive teenagers is always the same: because I say so.

You don't know this yet sport, but the world does not work that way. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll understand why your system won't work.

Do you at least accept that, given your age and lack of experience in the real world, you probably don't have a great understanding of every economic force that drives people's choices and behaviors? That life does not fit neatly into a slogan?

t_wolves_fan

30th January 2007, 14:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:18 am
You see, this is the kind of childish shit that made me opt out of this conversation. Once you demolish their arguments, they demand you explain the core basics of the English language to them.
Again, what is the argument?

"It'll all shake out the way I plan because it sounds good to me."

I guess it's hard to refute how your utopia would work if it all happened the way you think it would, but I hope you understand why it's easy to be skeptical.

Demogorgon

30th January 2007, 14:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:06 pm
2>The question about careeer choice did not make the assumption that everyone would want the same career; it makes the valid assumption that, given the individual choice of career promised by communists and socialists, freed from market forces people are going to choose careers that may not line up with actual need. In other words, if society needs a lot more of a certain profession to meet its needs, how are people convinced to go into that profession if they don't want to while still delivering on your promise that people will get to do the jobs they want to do?

You might not have found the answer here but plenty, of socialist writers have answered this question before.

It is impossible for everybody to simply take any job they want. For example my damaged back precludes me from certain jobs and no political system is going to change that. All we can offer is a bit more choice.

In way of example, a proposal I heard that doesn't sound so bad is that in a university, the academics should spend a small amount of their time (perhaps 5-10%) helping with routine cleaning and maintenance. This frees up a bit of time for the people employed to do these tasks full time and they could then be offered a few free classes a week to help expand their own knowledge base and make them more able to pursue a better career in the future. This system would lead to the academics taking a less elitist aproach and the cleaners and maintenence workers being able to move on towards better jobs they want more. That example is as I heard it, using a University, but in various ways, iit can be expanded to other fields too.

Now people wanting jobs that do not line up with societies needs. Well here the good old Marxist phrase comes in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Obviously societies needs should determine what jobs are on offer (with as I implied above a little less division of Labour) and people's abilities determining what jobs they perform.

Is that much different from now? In principle it isn't. In practice though, by the more skilled spending a small amount of their time doing the less wonderful tasks it becomes more egalitarian and by giving the less skilled more opportunities to expand their skill base it gives them more opportunities to gain a job they want.

As for another point you made which I can't be bothered to find and quote about people who refuse to work. Well I don't think people who refuse to work should starve, but that doesn't mean they should get the same level of benefit as those who do work. There would be an obvious incentive to work.

wtfm8lol

30th January 2007, 20:59

Demogorgon

30th January 2007, 21:32

your university proposal would work, but only under the assumption that everyone's potential skill level is nearly the same. for example, a trained janitor can clean faster and better than a university student, whereas a university student can learn faster and better than a janitor can. therefore, if you force a university student to perform janitorial duties, more total man hours would be spent cleaning than would need to be.Trust me mate, I spent enough time in detention at school to know anyone can do a bit of janatorial work with some supervising them :lol: Seriously. I am not saying it should be pulled exactly. Just that academics do a little bit of maintenance work to keep things egalitarian and maintenence staff get a bit of education to herlp them get on and also make them feel a bit more empowered.

HOW? that is the question I've been asking this entire time and you haven't answered me. HOW does society know exactly what the needs and wants of its entire population are? What happens if the majority decide society has more important things to do than, for example, create and play video games? Now you've stopped video game designers from doing what they want and you've stopped the part of society that wants them from having them.
Now this is an enormously complicated question and I suspect no matter how hard i try to answer this one you will say it isn't enough. For proof of that try and explain how jobs are allocated now. People spend lifetimes studying it. It's further complicated by the fact that the answer to this question depends on exactly what form of society future socialism might take. An answer which is far from clear. Nonetheless, I tend to favour the views of Dr. David Schweickart. You can read about them here: http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/democracy.htm Anyway I will give it a go.

In any given society you will have the population wishing to fulfill their wants and needs. First of all how do we fulfill needs? That's the easier of the two as it is much easier to identify needs as we more or less know what they are. There is foood clothing and shelter and I would argue things like healthcare and education also fall under this banner. This sort of thing is best dealt with I think by the side of the economy that might be planned rather than worker controlled firms. Taking healthcare as an example, to make a hideously complicated procedure sound easy, imagine it has been identified that we need a new hospital somewhere. Right so what do we need for the hospital? We need someone to build it, then we need doctors nurses, administrative staff, cleaners. We need equippment and medicine for it as well. So we have identified a whole bunch of jobs needing done. The authority in charge of healthcare xcan then offer these jobs.

Wants no, a trickier business. I am not sure how much I should write here, because it is covered in the article I linked to and there is something coming on television I want to watch soon, but basically it is the job of the workers co-operatives to find a viable market for their product and to anticipate who is going to want it and then offer it.

As for your videogame example. Well even if the majority don't want them, a minority still do, so as long as there are people willing to make them and people willing to play them they could continue to exist.

Why should this be so? If I happen to be an amazing mathematician but I can't stand mathematics, will my abilities determine that I will be a mathematician despite not wanting to be one? Well you would have to do something else then, wouldn't you?

yes, it is. now, you have the freedom to test and try new ideas and products without having to get permission from society first.Who said anything about having to get permission from society? Right now most people don't really have the freedom to try out a new product, they do in theory pf course, but in practice they don't have sufficient access to the resources to do this. By democraticing the control of capital this makes it much easier to try new ideas.

who decides what the incentive is and whether a job deserves an incentive or if that job is really just a hobby?Well the incentive is you get rewarded for the fruits of your labour. If you don't work you can just get the equivalent to unemployment benefit. And there is pretty obvious distinction between a job and a hobby in my book.

wtfm8lol

30th January 2007, 23:30

Trust me mate, I spent enough time in detention at school to know anyone can do a bit of janatorial work with some supervising them laugh.gif Seriously.

You've missed or avoided my point. I know everyone can do a bit of janitorial work. My criticism is that someone with a lot of janitorial experience will do the work more efficiently and much better than someone with little experience, so more total time will be spent doing the job than what actually needs to be spent, and the students will be wasting valuable time when they could be learning. Consider this scenario: If a farmer can grow 10 units of corn in 1 hour of labor and 20 units of grain in 1 hour of labor, whereas another farmer can grown 20 units of corn in that same hour but only 10 units of grain, does it make any sense for both farmers to grow both when they can trade?

Nonetheless, I tend to favour the views of Dr. David Schweickart.

i have neither the time nor the desire to read all of that. give me a summary of it.

By democraticing the control of capital this makes it much easier to try new ideas.

Bullshit. if control of capital is democratized, you need permission from a majority of the people in order to use the resources. if you save up to get your own resources or even convince a single person with resources that your idea is good, you are able to try it. i'd rather not have to get permission from my fucking neighbors to do something.

Well the incentive is you get rewarded for the fruits of your labour. If you don't work you can just get the equivalent to unemployment benefit. And there is pretty obvious distinction between a job and a hobby in my book.

you didn't even remotely answer my question

Demogorgon

31st January 2007, 00:27

You've missed or avoided my point. I know everyone can do a bit of janitorial work. My criticism is that someone with a lot of janitorial experience will do the work more efficiently and much better than someone with little experience, so more total time will be spent doing the job than what actually needs to be spent, and the students will be wasting valuable time when they could be learning. Consider this scenario: If a farmer can grow 10 units of corn in 1 hour of labor and 20 units of grain in 1 hour of labor, whereas another farmer can grown 20 units of corn in that same hour but only 10 units of grain, does it make any sense for both farmers to grow both when they can trade?Not in that case but they are not analaguous. The short terms effect oon efficiency is minimal and the long term effect positive because it expands the skill of the overall workforce.

i have neither the time nor the desire to read all of that. give me a summary of it.I am not to blame if you won't educate yourself. But don't go criticisng what I am saying, if you are not going tot ake the time to understand it. Had you read it, you could have avoided this silly post:

Bullshit. if control of capital is democratized, you need permission from a majority of the people in order to use the resources. if you save up to get your own resources or even convince a single person with resources that your idea is good, you are able to try it. i'd rather not have to get permission from my fucking neighbors to do something.Of course knowing what democratising capital means, could have allowed you to avoid it as well.

you didn't even remotely answer my questionYes I did. All through the post in fact. If somebody does not work they do not gain the benefit from working. That is where the incentive to work is. It isn't hard.

wtfm8lol

31st January 2007, 03:45

Not in that case but they are not analaguous. The short terms effect oon efficiency is minimal and the long term effect positive because it expands the skill of the overall workforce.

i don't think you understand: someone will always naturally be better at being a janitor and someone will always naturally be a better scholar. it doesn't make sense to force each to perform the duties of their other in the name of humility.

if you are not going tot ake the time to understand it.

i'm sorry, i've got far too much work to read every long pile of nonsense you guys post.

Yes I did. All through the post in fact. If somebody does not work they do not gain the benefit from working. That is where the incentive to work is. It isn't hard.

but you haven't explained to me how it's decided if what someone does counts as working or not.

t_wolves_fan

31st January 2007, 14:34

Just that academics do a little bit of maintenance work to keep things egalitarian and maintenence staff get a bit of education to herlp them get on and also make them feel a bit more empowered.

You obviously haven't met many academics, because nearly every one I've met doesn't know the difference between a lightbulb and a wrench. As wtfm8lol says, you're ignoring specialization and division of labor in order to make people feel good. Sounds nice but is incredibly inefficient.

Now this is an enormously complicated question and I suspect no matter how hard i try to answer this one you will say it isn't enough. For proof of that try and explain how jobs are allocated now. People spend lifetimes studying it.

They spend lifetimes studying the forces that put people into jobs, but the actual allocation of labor is quite simple. Where there is a demand for labor, wages will be paid and people will do the job. The mystery of the market is complex, but the overall effect is quite simple to identify.

The problem with what you propose is that it takes the mysterious and hard-to-pin-down forces of the market and pretends we can centrally plan and control those forces. As the good Dr. Hayek says and as you point out in your "lifetimes" comment, it's too complex to plan and control effectively.

I do give you credit for posting an article that contains some specifics, (http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/democracy.htm) or at least more specifics that people like Manic Expression are willing or capable of putting thought into. I give you and the author credit for understanding that markets exist and are powerful forces for efficiency.

But this article and the plan it contains have serious flaws.

The first that I see is this law requiring a depreciation fund for a firm to replace capital infrastructure. There are already corporate accounting standards that require firms to identify depreciation. Given that the firm would better know its capital needs than the government, why should there be a requirement for a certain amount of depreciation and capital replacement? Are we going to get into a situation where the government requires a firm to spend $20 billion on new equipment when only $10 billion is needed, and so on? I'm not sure the author even knows what depreciation is, because he says the fund would be set up to keep the "value of assets from declining". Assets by definition - except real estate - decline in value due to age. Depreciation charges are taken to ensure a firm saves enough over the life of the asset to replace it, not to keep up its value.

The bigger problem is the Socialization of Capital idea. This is a recipe for economic inefficiency and disaster. The author complains that capital flows through private means and that private citizens make economic choices about where and in what to invest. Well duh! This is the market in action. It ensures that capital seeks the most efficient uses and also that it takes risks. This system has two major flaws:

One, it sets up a scenario where the local population, fearful of losing a major industry, votes to use this federal "property tax" to subsidize that industry. This creates the possibility (or probability) that a dying, inefficient industry is kept alive for political purposes.

Two, it taxes the businesses it extolls in the first section to likely subsidize their competition in another part of the country.

Three, governments already take these steps by taxing individuals and businesses to support public-interest infrastructure (i.e. freeways) in ways that are far more efficient than doling out money on a per-capita basis. For instance, freeways cost a lot of money. Local governments can tax local businesses and people to pay part of the cost, while the federal government can transfer tax revenues from one part of the country to another based on need for those dollars, not on per-capita population.

If, as the author states, a region can be ensured of capital dollars without competing, it creates an incentive for that region to spend that money. Why not build a new public works project regardless of need or invest in a speculative venture regardless of its chances for success? It's going to get more money next year anyway.

In other words, creating a "right" to capital based on population regardless of actual need in the region is inherently wasteful from an economic standpoint.

There is also a normative manner that I think is the crux of this debate, and naturally it centers around private property. This author proclaims that profits are public property. I find this claim dubious. Whether a firm is privately held or employee-owned, the fact is its profits are the result of the risk it has taken, the work it has done, and the private economic decisions made by its customers. If I never drink Coca-Cola and am not employed by Coca-Cola, I have no claim to its profits. I didn't work to make Coca-Cola profitable at all. How are its profits my property, again?

Then there is investment and savings. This article assumes that society can better manage my money than I can. It places my economic future in the hands of society at large and eliminates any responsibility on my part to be economically intelligent. First, I reject the idea that society can better manage my money than I can (look at Social Security). Second, eliminating an incentive for people to be economically intelligent ensures that they'll act economically stupid.

The fair trade section is admirable but frought with peril. NGOs can be as wasteful with charity dollars as can governments. If an NGO starts writing checks to the citizens of country A when goods and food are very cheap in that country, it ruins their market.

Your article is a good start, but it's got a lot of problems.

Guerrilla22

1st February 2007, 10:42

you've entirely ignored my questions. read my post again and then respond again.

Yeah I did. I don't know how much simpler I can possibly make this for you, its like talking to a five year old. If you do not possess the necessary skill to perform a certain job, then LOGICALLY you won't be able to perform that job. If you do possess the necessary skill then you will be able to perform the job, it doesn't have anything to do with the market.

Also, I didn't realize that everyone in capitalist societies are doing exactly what they wanted. Only 30% of the US population actually has a B.A. or higher, which means the majority of people in the US are just doing what ever they can to earn a living.

t_wolves_fan

1st February 2007, 14:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:42 am
If you do possess the necessary skill then you will be able to perform the job, it doesn't have anything to do with the market.

So if I am skilled at growing ginseng, I can grow ginseng regardless of how much ginseng is needed.

Makes sense, I guess.

Also, I didn't realize that everyone in capitalist societies are doing exactly what they wanted. Only 30% of the US population actually has a B.A. or higher, which means the majority of people in the US are just doing what ever they can to earn a living.

:huh:

Uh, plenty of people in the United States did not want to go to college.

Some do what they want, some do what they have to do as directed by the market. But they always have the opportunity to do something they want eventually.

Which does communism do...let people work wherever they want regardless of the need for their talents, or require people to work where they are needed for the good of society?

Guerrilla22

1st February 2007, 22:06

So if I am skilled at growing ginseng, I can grow ginseng regardless of how much ginseng is needed.

Makes sense, I guess.

you're missing the point of what I'm saying. If you had the skill and know how to successfully plant and grow ginseng, then you realistically would have the ability to perform this function as a job. Its not a difficult concept to grasp, although wtfm8lol can't seem to comprehend this. Communism only advocates producing what is needed for society, not producing gross surpulses to sell for profit.

Uh, plenty of people in the United States did not want to go to college.

Some do what they want, some do what they have to do as directed by the market. But they always have the opportunity to do something they want eventually.

Which does communism do...let people work wherever they want regardless of the need for their talents, or require people to work where they are needed for the good of society?

Most people in the US have to do their job because if they don't, they'll be out on the street. How many people do you know that actually like their job, or wouldn't rather be doing something else for a living. No in a communist society one wouldn't necessarily get to do what one wants, however the opprotunity to do what one wants would be much greater because you would not be forced to work a low paying job just to get by.

wtfm8lol

2nd February 2007, 00:07

although wtfm8lol can't seem to comprehend this.

it's not that i don't comprehend what you're suggesting. i do understand what you're suggesting. you just don't seem to understand what i'm getting at with my questions.

here, read them again:

who decides if i'm a good enough artist? obviously, the market decides in capitalism. does my community take a vote? is there a panel specifically for judging an artist's merit? what if my style of art isn't considered good by the majority, but a minority like it and think I should be allowed to spend my time creating it? or in the case of the panel, what if the panel prefers a different style of art?

answer them carefully, please.

Guerrilla22

2nd February 2007, 00:14

Ok, I'll try to put this a simple as possible for you. In a communist society merit will be based on ability to perform, not the markets. People will choose their occupation based on what they are skilled at. In a communist society an artist would work to do something that would contribute to the well being of society, whatever that may be, i.e. a graphic artist. An artist who makes pieces of art for enjoymnet, would be making art for that reason alone, not to make a profit. Your problem is you can't comprehend a society where people are producing to make a profit.

wtfm8lol

2nd February 2007, 00:17

Most people in the US have to do their job because if they don't, they'll be out on the street.

yes, we know that if people don't work, they starve. thats how it always is no matter what you do.

How many people do you know that actually like their job, or wouldn't rather be doing something else for a living.

i'd rather be sitting on my ass all day for a living, but sadly, no one wants to pay to see me do that. you are not entitled to anyone else's living. you are entitled to try to make a living in whatever way you want provided you're not forcing anyone into anything.

however the opprotunity to do what one wants would be much greater because you would not be forced to work a low paying job just to get by.

this argument, as i've said before, is bullshit. if i need the community's approval to do what i want for a job, my opportunity is not greater than it would be in capitalism.

wtfm8lol

2nd February 2007, 00:20

In a communist society merit will be based on ability to perform, not the markets.

ok. again, who decides who has an ability to perform and who doesn't?

ZX3

2nd February 2007, 00:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:14 pm
Ok, I'll try to put this a simple as possible for you. In a communist society merit will be based on ability to perform, not the markets. People will choose their occupation based on what they are skilled at. In a communist society an artist would work to do something that would contribute to the well being of society, whatever that may be, i.e. a graphic artist. An artist who makes pieces of art for enjoymnet, would be making art for that reason alone, not to make a profit. Your problem is you can't comprehend a society where people are producing to make a profit.

And I think you keep missing the point: If everyone was good at doing "X" does that mean they will all do "X?" if they so choose?

But what if there is not enough demand for what "X" does?

Which does the communist value more? The ability for individuals to do whatever they wish, or the ability for society to get what they wish?

Guerrilla22

2nd February 2007, 00:56

A communist society won't function that way. It won't be a supply and demand economy. Nothing will be produced for the purpose of being sold. What is produced will be produced strictly on a need basis. As to how this would work, obviously there would need to be calculations involved.

ZX3

2nd February 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:56 pm
A communist society won't function that way. It won't be a supply and demand economy. Nothing will be produced for the purpose of being sold. What is produced will be produced strictly on a need basis. As to how this would work, obviously there would need to be calculations involved.

Great! Let's see these calculations might look.

dogwoodlover

2nd February 2007, 09:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:07 am

who decides if i'm a good enough artist? obviously, the market decides in capitalism. does my community take a vote? is there a panel specifically for judging an artist's merit? what if my style of art isn't considered good by the majority, but a minority like it and think I should be allowed to spend my time creating it? or in the case of the panel, what if the panel prefers a different style of art?

answer them carefully, please.
The well-known communist slogan is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The socialist slogan (the transitionary stage between capitalist and communist society), is however "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed."

Meaning that, in a socialist society, people are remunerated for the value of what they do. This means, that if you are doing a job that is unecessary, or is worthless to society, that you won't be remunerated for it.

In a democracy (democracy is a must under socialism, as you can't socially own or control something unless you have a form of democracy), decisions are made by the majority. So, if the majority makes a decision that your art does not benefit society or is generally worthless, then chances are you'd likely not be remunerated for your artwork. As to what kind of body would make these decisions, be it city councils, workers' councils, art boards, etc. I do not know. I don't spend my free time laying out structural plans for a socialist society--these things would be created and setup on a need-basis.

My own opinion is this: Artists are in general, worthless to society (in the sense of profession). I understand that things like paintings, music, etc. are all very fine things, as I appreciate them often on a daily basis. However, I would like to think that rather than being professions in a socialist society, people with artistic abilities and creativity would be able to cultivate them freely, outside of their occupation. Under capitalism, many people do not have access to the resources to cultivate artistic creativity (such as instruments/tools, formal instruction, spare time to hone their skills, etc.) and so they do not refine and enrich their natural talents for artistic creativity. In a socialist society, where there would be shorter work weeks, free education, etc. people desiring to create art would be free to cultivate their talents and could use their free time for artistic expression. Making money off of it, would be a different matter. In regards to that, anyone who is an artist understands that someone who makes art purely to pursue profit, is in fact not an artist, but is instead a businessman.

ZX3

2nd February 2007, 12:54

t_wolves_fan

2nd February 2007, 14:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:02 am

In a democracy (democracy is a must under socialism, as you can't socially own or control something unless you have a form of democracy), decisions are made by the majority. So, if the majority makes a decision that your art does not benefit society or is generally worthless, then chances are you'd likely not be remunerated for your artwork.
So let me get this straight.

In a commune of say 100,000, we're going to have 100,000 seperate votes on the work done by everyone to determine its value based on some yet-to-be-determined formula that is created by a yet-to-be-determined body.

After those 100,000 votes are complete, apparently we will hold...

daily?
monthly?
quarterly?
yearly?

votes on how much of every single product is needed by the population.

So, I guess the agenda will look something like this:

-paper clips
-push pins
-staplers
-staples
-thumbtacks
-post-it notes
-legal pads
-spiral notebooks
-blue fine-point pens
-blue felt-tip pens
-blue roller ball pens
-black fine-point pens
-blue sharpies
-black sharpies
-blue permanent makers

and so on and so on and so on.

That's a lotta voting! And I'm sure the average schmoe knows how many paper clips are needed by society and is in a good position to help determine that for everyone else.

Now go through that process for every single product.

Maybe everyone will be done voting by July, at which point we can begin production, and start burying the bodies of the people who have starved or frozen to death in the meantime.

Sounds super! Sign me up!

wtfm8lol

2nd February 2007, 20:46

In a socialist society, where there would be shorter work weeks, free education, etc.

does that "etc" include flying unicorns for transportation?

dogwoodlover

2nd February 2007, 22:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 am
The well-known communist slogan is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The socialist slogan (the transitionary stage between capitalist and communist society), is however "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed."

Meaning that, in a socialist society, people are remunerated for the value of what they do. This means, that if you are doing a job that is unecessary, or is worthless to society, that you won't be remunerated for it.

In a democracy (democracy is a must under socialism, as you can't socially own or control something unless you have a form of democracy), decisions are made by the majority. So, if the majority makes a decision that your art does not benefit society or is generally worthless, then chances are you'd likely not be remunerated for your artwork. As to what kind of body would make these decisions, be it city councils, workers' councils, art boards, etc. I do not know. I don't spend my free time laying out structural plans for a socialist society--these things would be created and setup on a need-basis.

The question continues to be unanswered:

How does the majority determine the value of what is done? What is the information used to make this decision?

Listen, I said it once, and I really don't know how else I could make it more clear for you... I'm not an economist, nor am I a political scientist. I haven't sat down and laid out a detailed plan for the structuring of a future socialist gov't... I don't have the time, patience, or really even the mental capacity to sit down and plan out something like that.

Do you think in 1775 the founding fathers of America were laying out detailed plans for municipal, state, and the federal governments? Those kinds of structures were only very loosely laid out after they had already won the revolutionary war, by large congresses of some of the brightest minds in the country. Most of what consists of our government today (in all forms) has been created once it became a necessity. Do you think the founding fathers laid out the voting process in city council? They didn't.

I have no interest delving into the theoretical-structural details of a future, non-existent society. Much of what the American government is today was not laid out in some formulaic writings prior to 1776, it was created through debate and experimentation.

Guerrilla22

3rd February 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by dogwoodlover+February 02, 2007 09:02 am--> (dogwoodlover @ February 02, 2007 09:02 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 12:07 am

who decides if i'm a good enough artist? obviously, the market decides in capitalism. does my community take a vote? is there a panel specifically for judging an artist's merit? what if my style of art isn't considered good by the majority, but a minority like it and think I should be allowed to spend my time creating it? or in the case of the panel, what if the panel prefers a different style of art?

answer them carefully, please.
The well-known communist slogan is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The socialist slogan (the transitionary stage between capitalist and communist society), is however "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed."

Meaning that, in a socialist society, people are remunerated for the value of what they do. This means, that if you are doing a job that is unecessary, or is worthless to society, that you won't be remunerated for it.

In a democracy (democracy is a must under socialism, as you can't socially own or control something unless you have a form of democracy), decisions are made by the majority. So, if the majority makes a decision that your art does not benefit society or is generally worthless, then chances are you'd likely not be remunerated for your artwork. As to what kind of body would make these decisions, be it city councils, workers' councils, art boards, etc. I do not know. I don't spend my free time laying out structural plans for a socialist society--these things would be created and setup on a need-basis.

My own opinion is this: Artists are in general, worthless to society (in the sense of profession). I understand that things like paintings, music, etc. are all very fine things, as I appreciate them often on a daily basis. However, I would like to think that rather than being professions in a socialist society, people with artistic abilities and creativity would be able to cultivate them freely, outside of their occupation. Under capitalism, many people do not have access to the resources to cultivate artistic creativity (such as instruments/tools, formal instruction, spare time to hone their skills, etc.) and so they do not refine and enrich their natural talents for artistic creativity. In a socialist society, where there would be shorter work weeks, free education, etc. people desiring to create art would be free to cultivate their talents and could use their free time for artistic expression. Making money off of it, would be a different matter. In regards to that, anyone who is an artist understands that someone who makes art purely to pursue profit, is in fact not an artist, but is instead a businessman. [/b]
Which is what I've been trying to get across for a while now. In a socilist or communist an artist would use his/her talents not to produce artistic works, but for something that will contribute to society. Any art works i.e. paintings, sculptures would be produced purely for enjoyment, not for monetary gains, unlike in a capitalist society.

wtfm8lol

3rd February 2007, 00:55

Listen, I said it once, and I really don't know how else I could make it more clear for you... I'm not an economist, nor am I a political scientist. I haven't sat down and laid out a detailed plan for the structuring of a future socialist gov't... I don't have the time, patience, or really even the mental capacity to sit down and plan out something like that.

ok, so you admit you don't know anything about the subject and are just hoping your system will work because it sounds nicer than the current one.

Do you think in 1775 the founding fathers of America were laying out detailed plans for municipal, state, and the federal governments? Those kinds of structures were only very loosely laid out after they had already won the revolutionary war, by large congresses of some of the brightest minds in the country. Most of what consists of our government today (in all forms) has been created once it became a necessity. Do you think the founding fathers laid out the voting process in city council? They didn't.

a government needs to protect property rights and keep order. it doesn't change the way society works. it does not promise to keep everyone fed, clothed, and sheltered. if a government falls, a new one takes over rapidly and the people move on. if an economic system fails, people starve and freeze to death and fight over resources until a new one can take effect.

I have no interest delving into the theoretical-structural details of a future, non-existent society.

ahh..ok. "I believe deep in my heart that my system will work..but i dont feel like thinking it through..i'll just leave that to someone else"

Which is what I've been trying to get across for a while now. In a socilist or communist an artist would use his/her talents not to produce artistic works, but for something that will contribute to society. Any art works i.e. paintings, sculptures would be produced purely for enjoyment, not for monetary gains, unlike in a capitalist society.

This is entirely insignificant. The predicament can be applied to any number of occupations or means of production.

dogwoodlover

3rd February 2007, 08:42

wtfm8lol

3rd February 2007, 18:05

However, I have absolutely zero interest in discussing obscure, irrelevant issues--in a purely theoretical society.

I don't think issues like determining who does what job and who does the jobs not enough people want are irrelevant when you take into account that you must persuade an entire population that your society will work and that many people doubt you will be able to find a fair, non-oppressive way to handle this situation which won't leave people without something they want or need.

peaccenicked

3rd February 2007, 19:32

I don't think issues like determining who does what job and who does the jobs not enough people want are irrelevant when you take into account that you must persuade an entire population that your society will work and that many people doubt you will be able to find a fair, non-oppressive way to handle this situation which won't leave people without something they want or need.

Very well said. That is exactly the theoretical problem. Yet people fight from their oppression towards a real way of life that is only based in faith in the future, also a belief they can develop some part in the future. Persuasion towards theory is almost pointless.
The need for alternatives come first.

The present has only started to feel painful for many. The issue of trust will not go away, but first of all, the essence of the realpolitik is a growing deep distrust of capitalist leadership.

Roy Batty

3rd February 2007, 22:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:40 pm
If you shoot an burglar in your house for stealing and he was no physical threat to you you'd both be charged in Canada.

Yeah. Because of this I was always told: If it comes down to this and if you've got the balls to pull the trigger then better make sure you see the job through.

ZX3

5th February 2007, 15:29

Originally posted by dogwoodlover+February 02, 2007 05:22 pm--> (dogwoodlover @ February 02, 2007 05:22 pm)

[email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 am
The well-known communist slogan is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The socialist slogan (the transitionary stage between capitalist and communist society), is however "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed."

Meaning that, in a socialist society, people are remunerated for the value of what they do. This means, that if you are doing a job that is unecessary, or is worthless to society, that you won't be remunerated for it.

In a democracy (democracy is a must under socialism, as you can't socially own or control something unless you have a form of democracy), decisions are made by the majority. So, if the majority makes a decision that your art does not benefit society or is generally worthless, then chances are you'd likely not be remunerated for your artwork. As to what kind of body would make these decisions, be it city councils, workers' councils, art boards, etc. I do not know. I don't spend my free time laying out structural plans for a socialist society--these things would be created and setup on a need-basis.

The question continues to be unanswered:

How does the majority determine the value of what is done? What is the information used to make this decision?

Listen, I said it once, and I really don't know how else I could make it more clear for you... I'm not an economist, nor am I a political scientist. I haven't sat down and laid out a detailed plan for the structuring of a future socialist gov't... I don't have the time, patience, or really even the mental capacity to sit down and plan out something like that.

Do you think in 1775 the founding fathers of America were laying out detailed plans for municipal, state, and the federal governments? Those kinds of structures were only very loosely laid out after they had already won the revolutionary war, by large congresses of some of the brightest minds in the country. Most of what consists of our government today (in all forms) has been created once it became a necessity. Do you think the founding fathers laid out the voting process in city council? They didn't.

I have no interest delving into the theoretical-structural details of a future, non-existent society. Much of what the American government is today was not laid out in some formulaic writings prior to 1776, it was created through debate and experimentation. [/b]

Nobody is asking for a description of the political bodies involved. Nobody cares if election day is held on a Tuesday or a Sunday, every two years or every four, whether office holders have to be a minimum if 25 or 30 yrs old. What is being asked is this:

Presumably (and maybe I am wrong to assume this) that decisions made, by whatever body, in whatever fashion, will be INFORMED decisions. That is to say, when a decision is made that a 1000 wrenches need to be produced, there is some sort of reasoning and knowledge behind that decision. That it is not just some arbitrarily drawn number chosen because 1000 wrench folks were more numerous than the 800 wrench or 1200 wrench folks, and there was a bunch of metal lying around which needed to be used for something

What you are being asked is what is the nature of the information being used in determining what is to be produced.

t_wolves_fan

5th February 2007, 15:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:22 pm
Do you think in 1775 the founding fathers of America were laying out detailed plans for municipal, state, and the federal governments? Those kinds of structures were only very loosely laid out after they had already won the revolutionary war, by large congresses of some of the brightest minds in the country. Most of what consists of our government today (in all forms) has been created once it became a necessity. Do you think the founding fathers laid out the voting process in city council? They didn't.

I have no interest delving into the theoretical-structural details of a future, non-existent society. Much of what the American government is today was not laid out in some formulaic writings prior to 1776, it was created through debate and experimentation.
Here is the big difference.

The Founding Fathers were not interested in instituting a new economic system. The economic system was already in place, so people knew they'd likely end up being farmers or craftsmen or lawyers or soldiers and they knew the process. Aside from the King being able to take land or throw them into the army unilaterally, the Founding Fathers had no interest in changing this arrangement.

Further, state (colonial) and local governments were already established. The Founding Fathers likewise had no interest in changing these arrangements. They did not care how the townships of Pennsylvania or the counties of South Carolina arranged themselves and had no interest in changing those arrangements, at all.

What they were interested in was how the federal government would work. The key issue was taxation without representation, a simple issue. Under King George the British government could levy taxes on the colonials without the colonials providing any input. The Founding Fathers said we'll allow you to have input.

So, the crayons-and-construction-paper version goes like this:

Founding Fathers: We need a new national government that allows representation of the people in determining taxation and other federal matters. As far as the economy and your states (about 90% of political and economic life at that time), whatever you're doing now is not going to change. As far as people's personal life, we don't care at all.

You guys: everything is going to change. From how much food you need or get to have to how your job situation is going to go to how your local, state, and federal government (if any) is going to operate, to whether or not you can buy an SUV to where you are going to be allowed to live to your salary to how your children are going to be raised and whether you can marry to what religion you're allowed to follow (if any) and how you're allowed to express it (if at all).

Do you kind of understand the difference here? It's not just altering the political system as the Founding Fathers did. You clowns are pushing an entire new paradigm of social life. That is why you don't get to say "We'll have our fun little revolution and kill a few hundred million people and then figure our the details later".

nickdlc

5th February 2007, 19:34

In a commune of say 100,000, we're going to have 100,000 seperate votes on the work done by everyone to determine its value based on some yet-to-be-determined formula that is created by a yet-to-be-determined body.

No, but there will be production goals to produce things people particularily want.

It's really easy things will be calculated in terms of the average social labour time embodied in the product. In any establishment workers will expend a certain amount of labour and this is the amount they get back in labour vouchers.

Say workers expend 5000 hours of labour in a certain period thats the maximum this factory will be given back. How that will be divided is up to the workers. I think everyone would decide everyone's labour is equal, so 1 hour of labour = 1 voucher. Maybe this factory decides a job is harder so .75 hours of labour = 1 voucher but that means for some one else 1.25 hours of labour = 1 voucher. It wouldn't matter because the maximum vouchers that factory gets is 5000 so for a while there might be inequality in pay. Whats important is the basis of production still stands on objective grounds not on wishy washy words of mutual aid or whatever.

You don't need central planners for this to work it can all be calculated by workers in their seperate workplaces themselves.

ZX3

5th February 2007, 20:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:34 pm

In a commune of say 100,000, we're going to have 100,000 seperate votes on the work done by everyone to determine its value based on some yet-to-be-determined formula that is created by a yet-to-be-determined body.

No, but there will be production goals to produce things people particularily want.

It's really easy things will be calculated in terms of the average social labour time embodied in the product. In any establishment workers will expend a certain amount of labour and this is the amount they get back in labour vouchers.

Say workers expend 5000 hours of labour in a certain period thats the maximum this factory will be given back. How that will be divided is up to the workers. I think everyone would decide everyone's labour is equal, so 1 hour of labour = 1 voucher. Maybe this factory decides a job is harder so .75 hours of labour = 1 voucher but that means for some one else 1.25 hours of labour = 1 voucher. It wouldn't matter because the maximum vouchers that factory gets is 5000 so for a while there might be inequality in pay. Whats important is the basis of production still stands on objective grounds not on wishy washy words of mutual aid or whatever.

You don't need central planners for this to work it can all be calculated by workers in their seperate workplaces themselves.

In the first place, you have said nothing about how the factory determines "things particularly want."

Secondly, how does a factory relate with other factories? If the workers receive all 5000 hours of labor time for themselves, how does the factory obtain component parts for its product from other factories?

Thirdly, let's say its that the factory may decide one partciular job is tougher than another so it will allot a greater labor voucher. If the factory can freely do this to the worker, then it must be true that the worker can also freely refuse to accept any labor voucher proposed by the factory. But if the worker does so, it causes the value of the worker contribution to be based on something other than labor value.

nickdlc

5th February 2007, 21:06

In the first place, you have said nothing about how the factory determines "things particularly want." I'm assuming if this factory is in operation the use-value it's creating is something people want (at least for the moment).

Secondly, how does a factory relate with other factories? If the workers receive all 5000 hours of labor time for themselves, how does the factory obtain component parts for its product from other factories? This is where the concept of average social labour time (ASLT) comes into play. Within the space of those 5000 hours the workers have created a quantity of use-values.

Maybe this factory makes computer cases. Say within that 5000 hour period 500,000 cases were made. Of course this factory needed means of production (equipment/machines and raw material) before it started the production process. Lets say 10,000 hours worth of machinery and 10,000 labour hours worth of raw material.

using the general formula of

MEANS OF PRODUCTION + LABOUR = PRODUCT

we get (10,000 + 10,000) + 5,000 = 25,000 hours of labour to produce 500,000 computer cases.

25000/500000 = 0.05 labour hours on average per computer case or 3 minutes per case. Any other establishment which needs computer cases will have to factor in the fact that every case they need will add 0.05 labour hours to their raw materials calculation. The computer cases factory itself took into account that 10,000 labour hours worth of material was taken from other productive establishments to create it's product and thats how social book keeping would work objectively in communist society.

There really is no reason to cheat on social book keeping since you get nothing out of it and labour time accounting assumes a very important role in communist society since the point is to produce use-values so rapidly they can be incorporated into the fully socialised or "free" sphere of consumption.

If the factory can freely do this to the worker, then it must be true that the worker can also freely refuse to accept any labor voucher proposed by the factory. Workers vote/debate the merit of even having one job make more pay than another in the first place. Their is no manager deciding this for all workers it's up to the workers collectively within that establishment to decide.

The whole process of pay is so painfully obvious that workers would get really mad if a fellow only had to work 15 minutes for 1 voucher while other workers had to work an hour and 45 minutes for one voucher. How hard can that guys job really be? is this guy superman? No sane factory would democratically allow that inequality i think.

But if the worker does so, it causes the value of the worker contribution to be based on something other than labor value. The workers would esentially be paying this higher earning person from their own pockets.

t_wolves_fan

5th February 2007, 22:03

Um, simply making labor the new currency and putting each factory in charge of issuing its own currency is definitely not going to assure a smooth economy.

In fact it would almost certainly ensure the opposite.

nickdlc

5th February 2007, 22:10

who said it's issuing it's own currency? average social labour time is the "currency" Every factory would have the same standards so that records are objective and differnt establishments can interact in a smooth way.

t_wolves_fan

5th February 2007, 22:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:10 pm
who said it's issuing it's own currency? average social labour time is the "currency" Every factory would have the same standards so that records are objective and differnt establishments can interact in a smooth way.
According to you each factory would be determining its average social labor time, correct? Therefore it would in effect be issuing its own currency.

The incentives to cheat are enormous.

nickdlc

5th February 2007, 23:06

According to you each factory would be determining its average social labor time, correct? Therefore it would in effect be issuing its own currency.

The incentives to cheat are enormous. Well i think you should read my example again. average social labour time is just the standard all prices are determined by. It wouldn't be very difficult to double check and see how a factory got it's ASLT and there is no huge incentive to cheat. The productive establishments aren't producing for profit but simply to meet the needs of the populace and eventually advance production to such a stage that a given use-value is easily available (free) or really really cheap.

It would be odd if two establishments producing similar products with pretty much the same inputs had two totally differnt ASLT values.

ZX3

6th February 2007, 14:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:06 pm
This is where the concept of average social labour time (ASLT) comes into play. Within the space of those 5000 hours the workers have created a quantity of use-values.

Maybe this factory makes computer cases. Say within that 5000 hour period 500,000 cases were made. Of course this factory needed means of production (equipment/machines and raw material) before it started the production process. Lets say 10,000 hours worth of machinery and 10,000 labour hours worth of raw material.

using the general formula of

MEANS OF PRODUCTION + LABOUR = PRODUCT

we get (10,000 + 10,000) + 5,000 = 25,000 hours of labour to produce 500,000 computer cases.

25000/500000 = 0.05 labour hours on average per computer case or 3 minutes per case. Any other establishment which needs computer cases will have to factor in the fact that every case they need will add 0.05 labour hours to their raw materials calculation. The computer cases factory itself took into account that 10,000 labour hours worth of material was taken from other productive establishments to create it's product and thats how social book keeping would work objectively in communist society.

There really is no reason to cheat on social book keeping since you get nothing out of it and labour time accounting assumes a very important role in communist society since the point is to produce use-values so rapidly they can be incorporated into the fully socialised or "free" sphere of consumption.

If the factory can freely do this to the worker, then it must be true that the worker can also freely refuse to accept any labor voucher proposed by the factory. Workers vote/debate the merit of even having one job make more pay than another in the first place. Their is no manager deciding this for all workers it's up to the workers collectively within that establishment to decide.

The whole process of pay is so painfully obvious that workers would get really mad if a fellow only had to work 15 minutes for 1 voucher while other workers had to work an hour and 45 minutes for one voucher. How hard can that guys job really be? is this guy superman? No sane factory would democratically allow that inequality i think.

But if the worker does so, it causes the value of the worker contribution to be based on something other than labor value. The workers would esentially be paying this higher earning person from their own pockets.
How is the value of the labor determined?

nickdlc

7th February 2007, 19:56

How is the value of the labor determined? Generally one hour of labour will = 1 labour voucher. As society builds up it's productive force the hour will be able to purchase more and more unlike now where i heard the average worker is making less than the average worker did in the 1970's.

ZX3

7th February 2007, 20:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:56 pm

How is the value of the labor determined? Generally one hour of labour will = 1 labour voucher. As society builds up it's productive force the hour will be able to purchase more and more unlike now where i heard the average worker is making less than the average worker did in the 1970's.
Okay. So labor will receive 1 voucher per one hour of work.

Does one hour of building chairs = one hour of smashing them? Do those two 1 hour of labor get the same renumeration?

nickdlc

7th February 2007, 20:49

Okay. So labor will receive 1 voucher per one hour of work.

Does one hour of building chairs = one hour of smashing them? Do those two 1 hour of labor get the same renumeration? Sure, but why not just get machines to do it :P

wtfm8lol

7th February 2007, 21:07

1. Not everyone works in a factory or in an occupation where the amount of work they do solely reflects the number of hours they put in.
2. Since they would not be competing, different factories producing the same good have little reason not to enter agreements with each other to work less while giving off the appearance that they are working at full capacity.
3. If only one factory produces one type of good, the easiness of cheating the system is ridiculous. Since it doesn't hurt the factory to employ far more workers than it needs and claim that they are working to reduce the workload for all, it is not hard to imagine that they would do just this.

RNK

8th February 2007, 10:24

You might as well call "vouchers" by their real name -- money. Afterall, they are worthless items with authorized value placed on them by the state body. What is needed is a change in the perception of what money is, and value.

There are many different ways a socialist and communist economy would work. One of the most immediate transitions will be to transfer all private sector jobs into state-owned jobs with all workers receiving fixed state-determined incomes. So long as you work, you will receive. If you can not, you will be provided for. Employment will be universal, or as close to universal as possible; there will be no more whoring oneself to multiple employers, looking for the best one or at the whim of the job market. There will be no unemployment for the job market will be managed by the state, and all job openings will be assigned workers. There will be no "leftovers"; if need be we will build new factories to house new workers, as we must create a surplus of all of society's essential material needs. This will eventually lead to the concept of money disappearing, as society expands and all are provided for by the fruits of their own labour. This is the "transitional stage" and involves many other changes to society. Afterwards, in theory, authority is decentralized slowly until society is self-sustainable without the need for a central government, in which case we have attained Oz -- I mean Communism. This is my interpretation of it, anyway.

wtfm8lol

8th February 2007, 19:11

There are many different ways a socialist and communist economy would work. One of the most immediate transitions will be to transfer all private sector jobs into state-owned jobs with all workers receiving fixed state-determined incomes. So long as you work, you will receive. If you can not, you will be provided for. Employment will be universal, or as close to universal as possible; there will be no more whoring oneself to multiple employers, looking for the best one or at the whim of the job market. There will be no unemployment for the job market will be managed by the state, and all job openings will be assigned workers. There will be no "leftovers"; if need be we will build new factories to house new workers, as we must create a surplus of all of society's essential material needs. This will eventually lead to the concept of money disappearing, as society expands and all are provided for by the fruits of their own labour. This is the "transitional stage" and involves many other changes to society. Afterwards, in theory, authority is decentralized slowly until society is self-sustainable without the need for a central government, in which case we have attained Oz -- I mean Communism. This is my interpretation of it, anyway.

:lol: this is the worst suggestion i've gotten so far.

ZX3

9th February 2007, 01:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:49 pm

Okay. So labor will receive 1 voucher per one hour of work.

Does one hour of building chairs = one hour of smashing them? Do those two 1 hour of labor get the same renumeration? Sure, but why not just get machines to do it :P
Okay. Is the value of the hour of work buildfing the machine = to the hour of work smashing it?

RNK

9th February 2007, 09:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:11 pm

There are many different ways a socialist and communist economy would work. One of the most immediate transitions will be to transfer all private sector jobs into state-owned jobs with all workers receiving fixed state-determined incomes. So long as you work, you will receive. If you can not, you will be provided for. Employment will be universal, or as close to universal as possible; there will be no more whoring oneself to multiple employers, looking for the best one or at the whim of the job market. There will be no unemployment for the job market will be managed by the state, and all job openings will be assigned workers. There will be no "leftovers"; if need be we will build new factories to house new workers, as we must create a surplus of all of society's essential material needs. This will eventually lead to the concept of money disappearing, as society expands and all are provided for by the fruits of their own labour. This is the "transitional stage" and involves many other changes to society. Afterwards, in theory, authority is decentralized slowly until society is self-sustainable without the need for a central government, in which case we have attained Oz -- I mean Communism. This is my interpretation of it, anyway.

:lol: this is the worst suggestion i've gotten so far.
And that actually makes me very, very happy. :D

wtfm8lol

9th February 2007, 20:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:10 am
And that actually makes me very, very happy. :D
Why? I wasn't joking. This system will not only not work; it will be supported by the least number of people (not many people like having the government order them around), the risk of corruption will be extraordinary (if it is the government that decides everyone's jobs, bribery and family/friend loyalty will dominate competence and skill), and the "transitional stage" does NOT bring about surplus, the disintegration of money, and the decentralization of authority anywhere but in your own mind. A surplus can only be achieved when a society's scarce resources are used very efficiently. The market requires efficient use of resources due to the way it works, whereas a planning authority cannot know how to use all of the resources efficiently. I cannot see how even a surplus would remove the need for money. Unless everyone has everything they want, which they never will, people will want trade. Money just makes trade easier. I fail to see how giving a central government incredible power and influence will make them want to give it away.

nickdlc

10th February 2007, 04:21

1. Not everyone works in a factory or in an occupation where the amount of work they do solely reflects the number of hours they put in. They don't need to only work in a factory it could be for any occupation.

2. Since they would not be competing, different factories producing the same good have little reason not to enter agreements with each other to work less while giving off the appearance that they are working at full capacity. The little reason is to get to the point where the good can be produced so quickly it can be made freely available to all. Also the workers control every aspect of production and just this aspect will set free the creative energies of people because work isn't just something you make money off to live and then enjoy life after, you actually go to work to enjoy life!

3. If only one factory produces one type of good, the easiness of cheating the system is ridiculous. Since it doesn't hurt the factory to employ far more workers than it needs and claim that they are working to reduce the workload for all, it is not hard to imagine that they would do just this. Your acting as if the gates are closed and no one can look inside this factory or see how many people are in it. It's very important that all records and data are freely available to those who wish to see it. Why is it bad to reduce the workload on the workers? The amount of hours they put in is all they get to take out so it wouldn't really matter anyway.

Afterall, they are worthless items with authorized value placed on them by the state body. Nope there is no centralized state body that decides who gets paid what. A federation of workers councils will meet up when needed to co-ordinate production.

And it is not money, the vouchers do not circulate. There is no profit in any industry because production is not geared toward making proftis but meeting needs. As time goes on the voucher becomes more and more just a record of distribution.

One of the most immediate transitions will be to transfer all private sector jobs into state-owned jobs with all workers receiving fixed state-determined incomes. Oh great now the state is running our lives instead of the capitalist. This is worse than normal capitalism its state capitalism not socialism. Instead of workers deciding when to expand production, how and for what reasons now we have new bosses managing every decision and telling workers what to do.

Okay. Is the value of the hour of work buildfing the machine = to the hour of work smashing it? Yes, but i hope that the machine could be recycled in some way.

wtfm8lol

10th February 2007, 05:11

They don't need to only work in a factory it could be for any occupation.

You didn't answer the second part.

The little reason is to get to the point where the good can be produced so quickly it can be made freely available to all. Also the workers control every aspect of production and just this aspect will set free the creative energies of people because work isn't just something you make money off to live and then enjoy life after, you actually go to work to enjoy life!

how do those two things go together? if everyone is free to be an inventor, how do you guarantee enough work will be done to sustain the population, let alone bring about this magnificent surplus of yours? can you understand how resources aren't being used wisely if a disproportionate amount are spent on things that probably won't help? also, we don't have enough scarce resources to make everything so abundant it can be distributed freely. To obtain such resources would bankrupt surrounding areas of those resources and require extremely long work hours for the workers.

Your acting as if the gates are closed and no one can look inside this factory or see how many people are in it. It's very important that all records and data are freely available to those who wish to see it.

No, i'm not. There can't be an inspector watching every person at all times (and even if there could be, bribery would become an issue), so there's no way to know everyone is working for every hour they're in there. It would not only be tedious but incredibly wasteful and time consuming to report every or even most things a particular person did during each day.

Why is it bad to reduce the workload on the workers?

Can you understand how if 5 people are required to do one job but you allow 20 people to do that same job to reduce the workload you may run into labor shortages?

The amount of hours they put in is all they get to take out so it wouldn't really matter anyway.

Again, not all jobs function in a way that their total work done reflects the number of hours they put in. Consider, for example, a doctor. While a doctor may not be working all day long, his value is not just in curing people, but in being available to cure people. Therefore while he may not be working 8 hours every day, he is available to cure people all of the time. Should he only be paid for the 3 to 6 hours per day he is actually working or should he be paid for every hour that he is available?

nickdlc

10th February 2007, 05:46

how do those two things go together? if everyone is free to be an inventor, how do you guarantee enough work will be done to sustain the population, let alone bring about this magnificent surplus of yours? can you understand how resources aren't being used wisely if a disproportionate amount are spent on things that probably won't help? also, we don't have enough scarce resources to make everything so abundant it can be distributed freely. Pretty much a large and constant investment in machinery and technology is needed.

No, i'm not. There can't be an inspector watching every person at all times (and even if there could be, bribery would become an issue), so there's no way to know everyone is working for every hour they're in there. It would not only be tedious but incredibly wasteful and time consuming to report every or even most things a particular person did during each day. What century do you live in? When I work I type in my employee number and my password into a computer and it logs the time i came in, then i do the exact same thing when I log out. With a small amount of thinking the problem is solved.

Can you understand how if 5 people are required to do one job but you allow 20 people to do that same job to reduce the workload you may run into labor shortages? Yes, but i'm not to worried about it.

Should he only be paid for the 3 to 6 hours per day he is actually working or should he be paid for every hour that he is available? Up to the workers to decide.

Ol' Dirty

10th February 2007, 07:15

The property rights are in the hands of the people. It shouldn't be said that they wouldn't exist, because they would; they would simply be in different hands.

RNK

10th February 2007, 07:39

I fail to see how giving a central government incredible power and influence will make them want to give it away.

Fortunately for the world, your own failure to recognize the necessity of Communism is completely irrelevant.

if everyone is free to be an inventor, how do you guarantee enough work will be done to sustain the population, let alone bring about this magnificent surplus of yours?

We can guarantee it with the utmost confidence due not to our own devices but to the devices of the capitalist society itself. The combined power of all sectors of industry and commerce on this very day are proof enough, that if given the right directives, any economy is quite capable of creating a mass surplus the scale of which many people couldn't imagine. The only problem not is that the vast majority of the resources generated by the economy are being hoarded into specific sectors such as the military, or straight into the pockets of the super-rich ruling classes. Even the poorest country in Africa can attribute much if not most of its economic hardships on governmental and ruling class corruption, not the lack of any ability to generate resources and provide for it's people, and the same can be said for the West. The lower classes here are obviously better off but the system is the same. The upper class is still feeding off of the whole of society like a parasite.

Can you understand how if 5 people are required to do one job but you allow 20 people to do that same job to reduce the workload you may run into labor shortages?

You're trying to understand it viewing it from a capitalistic perspective. Under a socialist system, most workers will be multi-trained to operate in a wide number of fields -- much unlike today's "trade schools" where you spend 5 years of your life learning to do a single job until you're 60 (and if you lose that job, you're essentially fucked, as it's hard to do 5 years of trade schooling when you're 40). That is a completely inflexible system. Socialism dictates the need for labourers to be skilled in a number of fields so that labour shortages can be quite easily stamped out by shifting the work force wherever it is needed. So there will be no shortage of electricians, for example, as many workers will be semi-trained in that field and will be able to take that up as a job, being pulled from other surplus workforces when necessary.

Dr Mindbender

10th February 2007, 14:28

Originally posted by t wolves fan+--> (t wolves fan)
Good grief, Ulster.

I did not ask what the role of the bourgeoisie would be under your utopian dream, I asked what you think of their role as it exists now.
[/b]

if you mean in the sense as leeches who take all my labour value without contributing any of their own, then yes they do a damn good job.
If you want a shining example of how the beourgiouse have become redundant, then you need to look no further than our own 'Royal' family. (BTW the tourist attraction point is a moot argument. They would generate more revenue if you stuffed them and put them in a glass case.)

Originally posted by t wolves fan+--> (t wolves fan)
Are they genuinely parasites right now, or do they actually have a productive role to play?[/b]
I think this has been covered.

Originally posted by t wolves fan

That's a huge risk.
You really believe that if we did away with capitalism, people would just magically gravitate towards those fields in need of people instead of the fields they want to enter?

Well firstly, capitalists and reactionaries continually crow on in chorus about how the human race is constituted by 'individuals' each with their own hopes and aspirations. So no, its not a risk; and by allowing them to act on these society will by definition of the reactionaries own making no less, allow each industry to mantain an equilibrium within its workforce.

Originally posted by t wolves fan

So....everyone will go into the profession they want to go into, and if nobody/too few people choose(s) to clean up vomit, help the developmentally disabled, shovel pig manure, shave sheep, dig coal, sort files and any other of many less-than-enjoyable jobs, then society will have determined that those consumer (i.e.) demand needs need not be met. Supply will trump demand.

If you read my previous posts, which you clearly havent listened to I argued how facilitating the squandered workforce in order to decrease the menial shifts per worker will allow them to work on their academic faculties, to the benefit of the collective intelligence of society and science.
In a society where people are allow to let their techical aspirations flourish, i think science will find a way to create machinery to liberate human beings from the drudgery of cleaning up pig manure and vomit.

Originally posted by t wolves fan

You really believe that your system will make people stop wanting stuff?

No, quite the contrary. I also want more stuff, which is why i want to live in a society that i can have the things that capitalism keeps out of my reach despite how hard i work.

t wolves [email protected]

With all due respect, your fantasies are not well thought out, have no connection to any reality other than how you wish it existed, and are laughably naive.

making ungrounded or unbacked statements doesnt add any substance to your side of the debate.

t wolves fan

I mean, I'm sure you're a nice guy and you mean well, but maybe you should look at writing fiction for a living or something.

I might take you up on your advice. I mean, I wish i had the security that affords me the time to spend all day trolling internet forums instead of working.

wtfm8lol

10th February 2007, 18:28

Pretty much a large and constant investment in machinery and technology is needed.

Yes, but i'm not to worried about it.

Who is going to be researching and building this technology if 20 people are doing the job of 5 in every industry?

What century do you live in? When I work I type in my employee number and my password into a computer and it logs the time i came in, then i do the exact same thing when I log out. With a small amount of thinking the problem is solved.

Ok, you've solved how to log the time someone comes in and comes out. Now solve the problem of making sure everyone is working at full capacity every hour that they're working.

Up to the workers to decide.

Awesome. I can't wait until my neighbors directly decide my paycheck even if I don't do business with the majority of them.

Fortunately for the world, your own failure to recognize the necessity of Communism is completely irrelevant.

Society has been doing pretty well over the past 300-400 years with capitalism..explain to me again why it's necessary to throw all of that away.

We can guarantee it with the utmost confidence due not to our own devices but to the devices of the capitalist society itself.

How can you guarantee there will be enough workers operating the devices when 20 people are doing the job of 5?

The combined power of all sectors of industry and commerce on this very day are proof enough, that if given the right directives, any economy is quite capable of creating a mass surplus the scale of which many people couldn't imagine.

Sure. If you've got every person working 16 hours per day, a lot more could be produced. But you're advocating the exact opposite: that people will only have to work a few hours per day.

So there will be no shortage of electricians, for example, as many workers will be semi-trained in that field and will be able to take that up as a job, being pulled from other surplus workforces when necessary.

What if those workers don't feel like being electricians on the day they're needed? And how do you not understand that multi-training workers doesn't make you more workers, which you desperately need if each person does less work?

nickdlc

10th February 2007, 20:02

Who is going to be researching and building this technology if 20 people are doing the job of 5 in every industry? If the problem comes up then workers would just restrict the number of people working there.

Ok, you've solved how to log the time someone comes in and comes out. Now solve the problem of making sure everyone is working at full capacity every hour that they're working. Your presuming everyone works at full capacity when they work now? Are you serious?

And you've probably heard how workers will have much more incentive to work since they actually have power and make decisions on all issues relating to their job.

Awesome. I can't wait until my neighbors directly decide my paycheck even if I don't do business with the majority of them. I'm talking about the workers who work within the same field or building. In This example the workers within the hospital the doctor works at.

wtfm8lol

10th February 2007, 20:35

If the problem comes up then workers would just restrict the number of people working there.

Ah, sorry, I was under the impression that you valued freedom.

Your presuming everyone works at full capacity when they work now? Are you serious?

No, but they generally don't have to be. Your desire for an incredible surplus requires this, however.

And you've probably heard how workers will have much more incentive to work since they actually have power and make decisions on all issues relating to their job.

Oh? Is this actually true or just some belief you hold in your head?

I'm talking about the workers who work within the same field or building. In This example the workers within the hospital the doctor works at.

No, you're not. You said the ruling body or whoever gives the hospital enough credits for every hour worked. Therefore they need to decide if the doctor's hours count or not.

Ol' Dirty

10th February 2007, 21:46

If the problem comes up then workers would just restrict the number of people working there.

Ah, sorry, I was under the impression that you valued freedom.

Scoial, not economic. Socialists, specificaly, think that no one should have the right to exploit others economicaly. I believe that you are refering to authoritarianism in this statement.

Your presuming everyone works at full capacity when they work now? Are you serious?

No, but they generally don't have to be.

Refine this sytanxtual choice, por favor. I can not understand your current statement as has been written.

Your desire for an incredible surplus requires this, however.

The economic interdependants believe that the independants require a system that creates surplus for a ruling elite, as do the independant of the interdependants. I supose all parties agree that they do not condone surplus manipulation, as in cession of goods to a higher class?

And you've probably heard how workers will have much more incentive to work since they actually have power and make decisions on all issues relating to their job.

Oh? Is this actually true or just some belief you hold in your head?

Please do not mix your subject with your object, okay? ;)

wtfm8lol

10th February 2007, 21:55

Scoial, not economic.

I don't make a distinction.

Socialists, specificaly, think that no one should have the right to exploit others economicaly

No one is being exploited as long as they're entering only voluntary agreements. The only exploiters are governments and whoever rules your socialist societies.

Refine this sytanxtual choice, por favor. I can not understand your current statement as has been written.

"they generally don't have to be working at full capacity"

The economic interdependants believe that the independants require a system that creates surplus for a ruling elite, as do the independant of the interdependants. I supose all parties agree that they do not condone surplus manipulation, as in cession of goods to a higher class?

what?

Ol' Dirty

10th February 2007, 22:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:55 pm

Socialists, specificaly, think that no one should have the right to exploit others economicaly

No one is being exploited as long as they're entering only voluntary agreements.

But a seven-year-old Bangladeshi child that works in a steel mill for pennies a day is still being exploited, right?

Refine this sytanxtual choice, por favor. I can not understand your current statement as has been written.

"they generally don't have to be working at full capacity"

Danke. :)

I am saying that it would be similar in a scoialist society. To be totaly honest, most people, on average, would be working less, as the 10% of the world that exploits the other 90% percent would be working as well. Instead of working for 8 hours a day, people would probably work six or four.

The only exploiters are governments and whoever rules your socialist societies.

They would be exploiting themselves, as a socialist society is run democraticaly.

The economic interdependants believe that the independants require a system that creates surplus for a ruling elite, as do the independant of the interdependants. I supose all parties agree that they do not condone surplus manipulation, as in cession of goods to a higher class?

what?

Exactly. :rolleyes:

wtfm8lol

10th February 2007, 22:19

But a seven-year-old Bangladeshi child that works in a steel mill for pennies a day is still being exploited, right?

by his parents, i suppose.

I am saying that it would be similar in a scoialist society. To be totaly honest, most people, on average, would be working less, as the 10% of the world that exploits the other 90% percent would be working as well. Instead of working for 8 hours a day, people would probably work six or four.

First off, the 10% you're referring to is more like less than 1%. Next, the situation would not be similar. If people were to produce such an excess, they would need to work at full capacity all day long, nor just for 4-6 hours per day.

They would be exploiting themselves, as a socialist society is run democraticaly.

the situation would be analogous to a democratic government. You don't rule yourself in a democracy; your neighbors rule you. While you have some say and can sway it using free speech, you do not truly rule yourself.

Ol' Dirty

14th February 2007, 01:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:55 pm

Scoial, not economic.

I don't make a distinction.

Recource rights are different than social rights. It's pretty obvious.

Socialists, specificaly, think that no one should have the right to exploit others economicaly

No one is being exploited as long as they're entering only voluntary agreements.

"The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
An advertising or a publicity program."

--The American Heratige Dictionary

It does not matter whether the exploitation is voluntary or not. It is exploitation, no matter what guise it takes.

The ideology of communism is the ideology of the aleviation of the right to economicaly exploit in any way, shape or form. You seem to have a problem with that?

The only exploiters are governments and whoever rules your socialist societies.

aWezome pwnege pointz, dog! u got mad skillz!

Are you going to call us tyrants or analyze our debate? If you can't do the later, then go away.

Refine this sytanxtual choice, por favor. I can not understand your current statement as has been written.

"they generally don't have to be working at full capacity"

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. If a wage slave doesn't work near full capacity, they will be fired from their job. One doesn't find an upstart journalist sipping tea and watching Oprah. They will find them working their asses off for themselves. Of course that won't be alleviated under communism. People will still have to work hard. The majority of the people will simply recieve more of their output. Without exploitation, of course, they would recieve most of the effort they put in in recources, like food, water and and adaquate homes, something that capitalism fails to do now, for many people. A lot of people in this world eat shit food, drink shit water and recieve shit housing. I'm not talking about DArfur, either; there are a little under 8 million unemployed Americans in the country I live in. Under communism, it simply wouldn't happen that way.

The economic interdependants believe that the independants require a system that creates surplus for a ruling elite, as do the independant of the interdependants. I supose all parties agree that they do not condone surplus manipulation, as in cession of goods to a higher class?

what?

You're such the intellectual.

wtfm8lol

19th February 2007, 21:19

20th February 2007, 00:33

This is because of overpopulation and a lack of industrialization.

Overpopulation doesn't exist.

Ol' Dirty

21st February 2007, 16:47

It does not matter whether the exploitation is voluntary or not. It is exploitation, no matter what guise it takes.

By that definition, workers exploit their employers as well.

They utilize the ability of the employer to keep the factory running smoothly to their own selfish benefit.

Total wash. If one were to eliminate the boss and management, the middlemen of the capitalist system, workers would have control over the workplace directly. The bosses are the autocrats of the workplace. In any real democracy, there can not be a person that rules others; that would be tyranny.

The ideology of communism is the ideology of the aleviation of the right to economicaly exploit in any way, shape or form. You seem to have a problem with that?

I have a problem with you telling two people they can't trade one good or service for another good or service because you think one is too stupid to make the best decision for him or herself.

That's not what I want, so I would assume we would get along fine.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. If a wage slave doesn't work near full capacity, they will be fired from their job.

Bullshit. Perhaps some workers have to work near full capacity due to the demands of their particular industry, but it's not like it wasn't their choice to work in such an industry.

One doesn't find an upstart journalist sipping tea and watching Oprah. They will find them working their asses off for themselves.

This is a perfect example of what I said above.

Irrespective of field, the worker is essentialy a slave for the period of time given to him or her by the social contract. Communists want to abolish this exploitation and put the means of production back into the hands of workers.

Without exploitation, of course, they would recieve most of the effort they put in in recources, like food, water and and adaquate homes, something that capitalism fails to do now, for many people.

Your assertion doesn't make it so. Without the ability to trade labor and goods, people don't receive any of the benefits of their labor. Instead, they rely upon the benefits of the labor of everyone else, which they have almost no control over.

It's called a trade union.

A lot of people in this world eat shit food, drink shit water and recieve shit housing.

This is because of overpopulation

There is enough arable land to feed everyone on this Earth. The problem is that a great majority of all of Earths recources are sent to upper class of rich countries.

and a lack of industrialization.

There is more than enough industrial technology to make every people on this planet strong and healthy. It is not a matter of how, but a matter of if and when.

You're such the intellectual.

Fuck you, ****.

Calm down. It's only the intraweb. <_<

StartToday

21st February 2007, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:36 pm
Ok, we've both been bitten by a snake and our nervous systems are failing. I knew snakes lived around me, so I kept a vile of anti-venom always. However, in the other man's foolishness, he did not keep any anti-venom.

If stealing your anti-venom is the only way he is going to survive, I doubt he really cares what the law says. All he wants is that anti-venom. A property law being in place isn't likely to help you there.

dogwoodlover

24th February 2007, 01:45

I don't see why if the anti-venom is his personal possession, he couldn't keep it and use it.

He's not exploiting anyone--there is no capitalist relation existing between the man with the anti-venom and the rest of society.

wtfm8lol

26th February 2007, 22:53

In any real democracy, there can not be a person that rules others; that would be tyranny.

You're aware that tyrants have absolute power whereas employers cannot exercise power beyond what will make the employees seek work elsewhere, right? Regardless, while democratically-made decisions are the most legitimate, they are necessarily inefficient. This is ideal for governments. However, since firms require decisions to be made quickly in order to maximize efficient production, the inefficiency in decision making is harmful. It is also unnecessary, as, while people cannot so easily choose their governments, they can easily change their companies and so legitimacy is much less of a concern.

Irrespective of field, the worker is essentialy a slave for the period of time given to him or her by the social contract.

A slave who voluntarily agrees to do whatever amount of work and is free to leave at any point.

There is more than enough industrial technology to make every people on this planet strong and healthy. It is not a matter of how, but a matter of if and when.

Before I argue about this, I'd like some proof that it is so.

If stealing your anti-venom is the only way he is going to survive, I doubt he really cares what the law says. All he wants is that anti-venom. A property law being in place isn't likely to help you there.

The difference is that if no law is in place to stop it, I'm not justified in stopping him from taking it from me. Nor is he justified in stopping me from taking it back, and so in a case of a shortage, there is a rush to consume as quickly as possible, and this rush cannot be stopped.

Ol' Dirty

27th February 2007, 03:04

If stealing your anti-venom is the only way he is going to survive, I doubt he really cares what the law says. All he wants is that anti-venom. A property law being in place isn't likely to help you there.

The difference is that if no law is in place to stop it, I'm not justified in stopping him from taking it from me. Nor is he justified in stopping me from taking it back, and so in a case of a shortage, there is a rush to consume as quickly as possible, and this rush cannot be stopped.

In any real democracy, there can not be a person that rules others; that would be tyranny.

You're aware that tyrants have absolute power whereas employers cannot exercise power beyond what will make the employees seek work elsewhere, right?

I understand that. Yet you fail to realize that the whole time I've been talking about economic rights, not social rights, but economic rights.

Regardless, while democratically-made decisions are the most legitimate, they are necessarily inefficient. This is ideal for governments. However, since firms require decisions to be made quickly in order to maximize efficient production, the inefficiency in decision making is harmful.

... to your wallet. <_<

Capitalism is about putting profits before people and shitting on the little guy. I don't care how "efficient" the corporate decision-making process is if it infringes upon my right to not get shat on from a 50th-story penthouse.

Irrespective of field, the worker is essentialy a slave for the period of time given to him or her by the social contract.

A slave who voluntarily agrees to do whatever amount of work and is free to leave at any point.

... and go back to the same system, with less, this time.

A slvave must sell oneself once. A wage slave sells oneself many times. Capital expropriation is a universal form of prostitution.

There is more than enough industrial technology to make every people on this planet strong and healthy. It is not a matter of how, but a matter of if and when.

Before I argue about this, I'd like some proof that it is so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_(nominal) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal))

wtfm8lol

27th February 2007, 05:18

I understand that. Yet you fail to realize that the whole time I've been talking about economic rights, not social rights, but economic rights.

What is your point?

... to your wallet. dry.gif

No, that's not what I was getting at. Inefficiency in production wastes some kind of resource, be it time, labor, or material resources. If a resource is wasted, it cannot be used elsewhere, which hurts society. Luckily, in capitalism, if a firm wastes resources, it bares the brunt of the loss, whereas if a commune wastes a resource, everyone is harmed equally, even if they're not involved.

Capitalism is about putting profits before people and shitting on the little guy.

Capitalism is about using resources as efficiently as they can be used. While in the short run this means putting profits before people, overall everyone benefits.

I don't care how "efficient" the corporate decision-making process is if it infringes upon my right to not get shat on from a 50th-story penthouse.

Is someone forcing you to work for a corporation? If so, I will fight them alongside you.

... and go back to the same system, with less, this time.

If they want to. Or they can go form a democratically run company with some like-minded individuals.

A slvave must sell oneself once. A wage slave sells oneself many times. Capital expropriation is a universal form of prostitution.

When do slaves sell themselves? Anyway, a wage slave does not sell him or herself. A "wage slave" sells his or her labor, be that mental or physical labor if it benefits him or her to do so. And for the record, I know that calling them wage slaves makes you feel your point is stronger, but really, it doesn't.

27th February 2007, 06:12

Anyway, a wage slave does not sell him or herself. A "wage slave" sells his or her labor

Actually, they sell their labour-power, or their ability to work, not the work itself.

be that mental or physical labor if it benefits him or her to do so.

Regardless of whether or not they can "choose" who to sell their labour-power to, the fact remains that they must sell it.

Capitalism is about using resources as efficiently as they can be used. While in the short run this means putting profits before people, overall everyone benefits.

How does everyone benefit from the destruction of such things as food and other commodities due to overproduction, or the decrease in production of these commodities due to overproduction? You realize that there are many people on this earth that need food, and that are dying because they don't have any, yet huge stockpiles of food are destroyed regularly in order to combat overproduction and prevent prices from being driven down. How do these starving people benefit from the destruction of this food?

wtfm8lol

27th February 2007, 22:58

Actually, they sell their labour-power, or their ability to work, not the work itself.

Agreed, depending on the industry. However, I don't see the relevance of this distinction, since rarely will someone keep paying someone else for their labor power if they're not using it.

Regardless of whether or not they can "choose" who to sell their labour-power to, the fact remains that they must sell it.

Hardly. People start up their own businesses due to the dissatisfaction with their bosses all of the time. This is a vital part of the capitalist system. Some people may not be capable of running their own businesses, but they still have the option of changing industry. Regardless, the system weeds out bosses who are particularly mean, as people will not want to work for them.

How does everyone benefit from the destruction of such things as food and other commodities due to overproduction, or the decrease in production of these commodities due to overproduction?

If the commodities in question are recycled in some way, society benefits as the mistake of overproducing is being corrected and resources are being reallocated properly. If they are outright destroyed such as in the case of crops, that is the only sensible decision. They do not destroy so much that there is not enough food for everyone. Rather, they destroy what will not be used. If instead of destroying them they ship excess crops to another country, that country is faced with several problems. The first problem is distributing them fairly. Unless enough crops are sent to feed the entire country, the country's government has to choose which people get the free or reduced cost food and who has to pay full price from local farmers. Second, if more crops are shipped than are needed, the local farmers don't get paid for their crops, which permanently damages the country's ability to grow food.

Obviously, decreasing production saves some type of resource which can be used somewhere else where it will be more beneficial.

27th February 2007, 23:14

Agreed, depending on the industry. However, I don't see the relevance of this distinction, since rarely will someone keep paying someone else for their labor power if they're not using it.

You can't sell your work; you can merely sell your ability to do work. Work is an action; the ability to do work is a commodity.

Hardly. People start up their own businesses due to the dissatisfaction with their bosses all of the time. This is a vital part of the capitalist system.

Since we're talking about the majority of the world population who can't afford to start up a business or don't have time because they're working to feed their family, this is completely irrelevent.

Some people may not be capable of running their own businesses, but they still have the option of changing industry.

This isn't a counter to my assertion. I said that they have to sell their labour-power. The fact that they can "change industries" doesn't counter the fact that they have to sell their labour-power to survive.

Regardless, the system weeds out bosses who are particularly mean, as people will not want to work for them.

Perhaps that would be true with regards to extraordinary cases, but when "mean bosses" are the norm this definitely doesn't happen. Also, this doesn't counter my assertion that workers must sell their labour-power to live.

If they are outright destroyed such as in the case of crops, that is the only sensible decision. They do not destroy so much that there is not enough food for everyone. Rather, they destroy what will not be used.

Wrong. The destruction of crops is implemented in two cases. First is to keep prices up. The overproduction of commodities inevitably leads to a drop in prices, and to counter this either already-produced reserves of this commodity must be destroyed or the production of this commodity must be slowed down.

Second is that they destroy what won't be bought. If something isn't profitable then it isn't done.

f instead of destroying them they ship excess crops to another country, that country is faced with several problems. The first problem is distributing them fairly. Unless enough crops are sent to feed the entire country, the country's government has to choose which people get the free or reduced cost food and who has to pay full price from local farmers. Second, if more crops are shipped than are needed, the local farmers don't get paid for their crops, which permanently damages the country's ability to grow food.

So if the problem can't be completely solved then nothing should be done, and since the problem won't be completely solved we shouldn't even bother with it. That's the krux of your argument, apparently. Also, you're failing to realize the diversity of crops and the poor agricultural economy in many states which are most harshly affected by the capitalist uneven distribution of such necessary commodities as food.

wtfm8lol

28th February 2007, 03:51

Wrong. The destruction of crops is implemented in two cases. First is to keep prices up. The overproduction of commodities inevitably leads to a drop in prices, and to counter this either already-produced reserves of this commodity must be destroyed or the production of this commodity must be slowed down.

Second is that they destroy what won't be bought. If something isn't profitable then it isn't done.

This is really the same case. If too much is produced, there will not be enough people willing to pay the same price for all of the product, so price will have to be lowered to get people to buy it since the supply and demand curves themselves are not affected by overproduction or underproduction. I don't see what the problem is with this. Everyone is still fed and the farmers are paid enough to stay in business.

So if the problem can't be completely solved then nothing should be done, and since the problem won't be completely solved we shouldn't even bother with it. That's the krux of your argument, apparently. Also, you're failing to realize the diversity of crops and the poor agricultural economy in many states which are most harshly affected by the capitalist uneven distribution of such necessary commodities as food.

I didn't say that. I just said dumping excess food onto unstable markets isn't going to help anything.