response to redstar's thread, computers

[wtfm8lol]

So, is this an answer to those annoying cappie arguments involving incentive? Is the computer technology industry an example of the kind of motivational system we have always espoused, the one the capitalists refuse to believe exists? Is it a legitimate example for use in argument or propaganda, and if so, how do we use this to our advantage?

We never deny that there are some industries in which workers could be motivated just by a love for what they do. indeed, we see many examples of those industries, such as teaching. few people teach for 35k per year because they love the money. they do it because they love teaching. we instead deny that all workers in all industries can be motivated by this and that this type of motivation will provide the correct number of workers doing the correct jobs (without coercion).

[ComradeRed]

we instead deny that all workers in all industries can be motivated by this and that this type of motivation will provide the correct number of workers doing the correct jobs (without coercion). By magic no doubt.

The math behind this doesn't check out. It depends on a static form of Hamilton's stationary principle...you are trying to maximize the effeciency of the economy essentially (maximize the ratio of the number of "correct" jobs to the number of "incorrect" jobs, or minimize its inverse).

Here's a serious problem: the dynamics of this system.

For a simple illustration of how your entire "scheme" falls to pieces is through riding a bicycle.

When teaching someone to ride a bicycle, using this static method, you would teach the person to balance on an unmoving bike. Then once that's mastered, teach him to peddle while balanced. That's really difficult as it is, but here's the problem: turning.

When turning on a bike you have to turn slightly out, readjust your weight, then redirect yourself. This is omitted when dealing with static situations. Consequently, this "newbie" bicyclist falls over in a dynamic situation.

The same goes for your model; you say it works, but the math would only support that when dealing with a static economy. Something that clearly does not exist.

Consequently, the work done in a static economy is by far and large irrelevant, especially if you go and compare the predictions made with the empirical evidence. It's just plainly refuted!

But suppose you don't buy this. Ok, how do you explain the job facilitation during the business cycle?

Is there any guarentee that someone that's laid off will get to go work doing something he enjoys? Or that he'd even be hired in the first place doing something he enjoys?

No. It may happen if you treat the cycle linearly, then integrate over it; but then you are ignoring what's really going on here. You're linearizing a nonlinear Riemann sum.

And that's no good.

[wtfm8lol]

i didnt mean to suggest that there is an exact correct number of workers. i meant that communism does not guarantee there will always be enough people doing every kind of job whereas capitalism does. in communism there is no non-coercive way to guarantee that there will be enough people doing undesirable but necessary jobs and no non-coercive way to keep enough people out of the most desirable industries.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

omg capitalist spyz :ph34r:


we instead deny that all workers in all industries can be motivated by this
Well first of all I should point out that the computer industry example only proves that an alternative (non-monetary) incentive to work and produce quality goods exists, not that it is currently manifesting itself in all areas of society. Of course today the majority of people will work for money rather than love of work or obligation to society, however the aforementioned example does imply that if the incentive of profit was removed, not all would be lost. The workers would still have a motivation to work and produce.

Personally, I think (and this is just my theory) that the reason this phenomenon seems to be manifesting itself exclusively in the technology industry is because the technology industry is one based in affluence, and thus those who are out there writing superior programmes and articles are doing so because they already have a decent lifestyle, they can already sustain themselves, and as such can afford to pursue creative interests, which results in this software. This is similar to what conditions would be like in a Communist society; people will have their basic needs provided for by society, meaning they can afford to contribute to society in ways that suit their creative needs and desires.


and that this type of motivation will provide the correct number of workers doing the correct jobs
Well here you must remember that, at current, social obligation and love of work are only secondary motivations, secondary that is, to money. Of course in a Communist society when money as we know it is abolished these secondary motivations will surface as primary motivations and will remain so while society is functioning as normal and there is no scarcity. However, should scarcity present itself these motivations will once again become secondary, this time to a motivation that is an inherent part of humanity, and that at current is manifesting itself in monetary incentive; the will to survive, both as an individual and as a species. Society is going to react to its own needs, and if there comes a time when everyone's stomach starts to rumble and it's a half-bowl of porridge for dinner for the fifth time in a row, there is obviously going to be more incentive to partake in food production, especially when education and the right to work is free--once there is plenty of food on the table again and making food doesn't exactly tickle your fancy, you can move onto another line of work, perhaps choosing to sort out that damned pencil shortage.

Also it should be noted that in a Communist society, which will probably only arise in the near future, a lot more things will be automated, removing the tedium, and in some cases even the necessity, of much of the more unpleasant or disliked work.

[RedCeltic]

There are naturally other incentives to working at jobs that may not simply be out of your love of the field. A commonly asked question is “who will pick up the trash?” Face it, few would find such a job personally inspiring. Who likes trash?

However, if you are someone that may, for whatever reason, need more personal time for say the pursuit of arts and crafts, personal study, care of family, or what have you… often, even in capitalism you often take on jobs that give you the ability to have this free time. Even if the job isn’t exactly your “cup of tea.”

In such a case perhaps, say trash collectors or whoever maybe they would work on a rotating shift of two weeks on and two weeks off. Or perhaps part time or whatnot. I remember when I was in the Navy, it was essential for mess cooks to work very long hours. They would often come in around 6am and work till the galley was closed around 7 or 8pm. To offset this, mess cooks worked on a rotating shift. So while the rest of us only worked 8 hours a day, and had our weekends off… cooks had longer periods of down time which, when I was stationed in Italy, gave many of them the ability to take nice side trips around Europe.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:41 pm
in communism there is no non-coercive way to guarantee that there will be enough people doing undesirable but necessary jobs and no non-coercive way to keep enough people out of the most desirable industries.
Right, capitalism has "no coercion" :lol:

So if I choose to not work because the career I desire is unavailable, well I still need food, water and shelter. Low and behold: these cost money.

Then I am coerced to do some undesirable job to pay for these things to live.

The fact of the matter is that there are more effecient ways of dealing with this than coercion, I agree. That's exactly why I'm against capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

I have never quite grasped this capitalist obsession with "non-coercion".It only seems to work if you come up with some brand new definition for the word coercion

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:20 am
I have never quite grasped this capitalist obsession with "non-coercion".It only seems to work if you come up with some brand new definition for the word coercion
Not at all. It's very simple: coercion is a *use of force* to obtain compliance. If I refuse to comply, is someone eventually going to come along and force me at the point of a gun? If yes, it is coercion. If not, it is simply circumstance, or the laws of nature. If you decide not to support yourself, not to earn food, water, and shelter, is someone going to come along and use force against you to make you work? In a capitalist system, the answer is no. That you cease to live is a product of your choices.

Just because I must do something to obtain my goals does not mean that I am "coerced" into doing it, unless you expand the definition of "coercion" such that it loses all meaning. If there is no threat of force, backed by a gun, there is no coercion.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:42 pm
omg capitalist spyz :ph34r:


we instead deny that all workers in all industries can be motivated by this
Well first of all I should point out that the computer industry example only proves that an alternative (non-monetary) incentive to work and produce quality goods exists, not that it is currently manifesting itself in all areas of society. Of course today the majority of people will work for money rather than love of work or obligation to society, however the aforementioned example does imply that if the incentive of profit was removed, not all would be lost. The workers would still have a motivation to work and produce.

Personally, I think (and this is just my theory) that the reason this phenomenon seems to be manifesting itself exclusively in the technology industry is because the technology industry is one based in affluence, and thus those who are out there writing superior programmes and articles are doing so because they already have a decent lifestyle, they can already sustain themselves, and as such can afford to pursue creative interests, which results in this software. This is similar to what conditions would be like in a Communist society; people will have their basic needs provided for by society, meaning they can afford to contribute to society in ways that suit their creative needs and desires.


and that this type of motivation will provide the correct number of workers doing the correct jobs
Well here you must remember that, at current, social obligation and love of work are only secondary motivations, secondary that is, to money. Of course in a Communist society when money as we know it is abolished these secondary motivations will surface as primary motivations and will remain so while society is functioning as normal and there is no scarcity. However, should scarcity present itself these motivations will once again become secondary, this time to a motivation that is an inherent part of humanity, and that at current is manifesting itself in monetary incentive; the will to survive, both as an individual and as a species. Society is going to react to its own needs, and if there comes a time when everyone's stomach starts to rumble and it's a half-bowl of porridge for dinner for the fifth time in a row, there is obviously going to be more incentive to partake in food production, especially when education and the right to work is free--once there is plenty of food on the table again and making food doesn't exactly tickle your fancy, you can move onto another line of work, perhaps choosing to sort out that damned pencil shortage.

Also it should be noted that in a Communist society, which will probably only arise in the near future, a lot more things will be automated, removing the tedium, and in some cases even the necessity, of much of the more unpleasant or disliked work.
How far would the computer folks get if the microchip workers don't like doing what they do? Or the plastics people?


Okay, so we now have a communist economy, and we are talking about shortages and solutions to shortages. So if there is a dfood shortage, peope will just ante up in the production of food (but it would seem that this would require people WORKING for survival, which socialism is against). maybe there will be volunteers who go into the countryside, like one saw in China or the USSR.

But those are easy answers because they are obvious and seen by all. What if there is a shortage of industrial solvent, or cleaning solutions? How about ball bearings? people are going to walk off the pencil factory to make bleach?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:51 pm
So if I choose to not work because the career I desire is unavailable, well I still need food, water and shelter. Low and behold: these cost money.


So in socialism the career one wants wil be there?

But isn't the purpose of work to provide needed goods and services to people?

How does the socialist community deal with problems such as people wanting to produce things, which nobody else wants or needs?

How does the socialist community deal with not enough people wanting to produce items which a great many people want and need?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+March 14, 2007 06:20 am--> (pusher robot @ March 14, 2007 06:20 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 01:20 am
I have never quite grasped this capitalist obsession with "non-coercion".It only seems to work if you come up with some brand new definition for the word coercion
Not at all. It's very simple: coercion is a *use of force* to obtain compliance. If I refuse to comply, is someone eventually going to come along and force me at the point of a gun? If yes, it is coercion. If not, it is simply circumstance, or the laws of nature. If you decide not to support yourself, not to earn food, water, and shelter, is someone going to come along and use force against you to make you work? In a capitalist system, the answer is no. That you cease to live is a product of your choices.

Just because I must do something to obtain my goals does not mean that I am "coerced" into doing it, unless you expand the definition of "coercion" such that it loses all meaning. If there is no threat of force, backed by a gun, there is no coercion. [/b]
And why do you choose this definition of coercion?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 14, 2007 12:44 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 14, 2007 12:44 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 06:20 am

[email protected] 14, 2007 01:20 am
I have never quite grasped this capitalist obsession with "non-coercion".It only seems to work if you come up with some brand new definition for the word coercion
Not at all. It's very simple: coercion is a *use of force* to obtain compliance. If I refuse to comply, is someone eventually going to come along and force me at the point of a gun? If yes, it is coercion. If not, it is simply circumstance, or the laws of nature. If you decide not to support yourself, not to earn food, water, and shelter, is someone going to come along and use force against you to make you work? In a capitalist system, the answer is no. That you cease to live is a product of your choices.

Just because I must do something to obtain my goals does not mean that I am "coerced" into doing it, unless you expand the definition of "coercion" such that it loses all meaning. If there is no threat of force, backed by a gun, there is no coercion.
And why do you choose this definition of coercion? [/b]
Because it is the standard accepted meaning of the word. See, e.g., M-W (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/coerce).

[Tungsten]

ComradeRed

For a simple illustration of how your entire "scheme" falls to pieces is through riding a bicycle.

When teaching someone to ride a bicycle, using this static method, you would teach the person to balance on an unmoving bike. Then once that's mastered, teach him to peddle while balanced. That's really difficult as it is, but here's the problem: turning.

When turning on a bike you have to turn slightly out, readjust your weight, then redirect yourself. This is omitted when dealing with static situations. Consequently, this "newbie" bicyclist falls over in a dynamic situation.

Sounds just like socialism- sounds clever in theory, but falls flat on it's ass when put into practice because it isn't.


Right, capitalism has "no coercion"

So if I choose to not work because the career I desire is unavailable, well I still need food, water and shelter. Low and behold: these cost money.

Then I am coerced to do some undesirable job to pay for these things to live.
How are you going to get these things under a non-capitalist system? Presumably, no one will have to work, otherwise that'd be coercion.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 02:10 pm

Because it is the standard accepted meaning of the word. See, e.g., M-W (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/coerce).
Number two was rather interestin: "2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>"

Surely the fact I need to earn money is compelling me to work? By definition (the one you showed me, I might add) that is coercion.

This coercion argument is probably the worst argument I have seen in favour of capitalism (it&#39;s ok if I force you to do something like this, but not like this). Surely you can come up with something a bit more plausible?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ZX3+March 14, 2007 03:54 am--> (ZX3 @ March 14, 2007 03:54 am) So in socialism the career one wants wil be there? [/b]
Perhaps, I don&#39;t really know; I don&#39;t have a "crystal ball" to foresee the future.

But note the difference between socialism (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) and communism (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&). The former is essentially "Capitalism without the capitalists" and the latter is a stateless, classless society.

In the case of communism this has been covered...Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)


But isn&#39;t the purpose of work to provide needed goods and services to people?

How does the socialist community deal with problems such as people wanting to produce things, which nobody else wants or needs?

How does the socialist community deal with not enough people wanting to produce items which a great many people want and need? The famous question "How does communism cope with shortages?"

This has been touched (if only tangentially) in Communist Society -- Some Brief Reflections (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083719642&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&).

I suppose this series of supplying links isn&#39;t satisfying, but neither is being asked these questions when the answers are available.


Tungsten
Sounds just like socialism- sounds clever in theory, but falls flat on it&#39;s ass when put into practice because it isn&#39;t. Wow you really can&#39;t do math.

Okey dokey, basically it&#39;s encapsulated in the idea that the curl of a gradient is zero.

Neoclassical economists abuse "ceteris parabis" which allows a linear approximation to absurd conditions. The problem is "ceteris parabis" is a myth like the Easter bunny.

If you were to replace the phase space of supply and demand with a vector space with the appropriate axes, you would get a parametrized curve for the supply and for the demand (one curve each, logically).

The curl of these parametrized curves is zero. That means there is only linear effects. There&#39;s nothing interesting about it.

And if you don&#39;t buy that theorem than I weep for your mathematical incompotence.


How are you going to get these things under a non-capitalist system? Presumably, no one will have to work, otherwise that&#39;d be coercion. People don&#39;t have a tendency to sit there and do nothing. That&#39;s just boring. If you don&#39;t believe this, sit on your couch and do nothing all day; see how quickly you get bored.

I find it thus hard to believe that everyone would become "couch potatoes". There&#39;s no compelling reason to accept such a proposition.

Then it becomes a problem of "Making people do certain jobs"...e.g. cleaning the sewers. And that has all ready been covered before in this post.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 14, 2007 04:45 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 14, 2007 04:45 pm)
pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 02:10 pm

Because it is the standard accepted meaning of the word. See, e.g., M-W (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/coerce).
Number two was rather interestin: "2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>"

Surely the fact I need to earn money is compelling me to work? By definition (the one you showed me, I might add) that is coercion.

This coercion argument is probably the worst argument I have seen in favour of capitalism (it&#39;s ok if I force you to do something like this, but not like this). Surely you can come up with something a bit more plausible? [/b]

This coercion argument is probably the worst argument I have seen in favour of capitalism (it&#39;s ok if I force you to do something like this, but not like this). Surely you can come up with something a bit more plausible?

I don&#39;t see why this is so implausible.

You argument is that capitalism creates "coercion" by failing to provide. Yet suppose I exist alone on a desert island. Presumably, by your definition, I am being "coerced" into working to find food, water, and shelter. Perhaps I am also "coerced" into seeking escape. I face exactly the same situation that you describe, yet it hardly seems sensbile to blame capitalism for my being forced to do certain things to live. Now suppose you add one other person. They gather food but do not share it with you. Are they now coercing you into finding your own food? If you decline to forage, are you coercing them into finding their own food? Are you mutually coercing each other at the same time into doing things you would have to do if the other didn&#39;t exist at all?

If we accept your defintion, then you personally are coercing me into having to work by failing to send me all of your money.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 06:57 pm

I don&#39;t see why this is so implausible.

You argument is that capitalism creates "coercion" by failing to provide. Yet suppose I exist alone on a desert island. Presumably, by your definition, I am being "coerced" into working to find food, water, and shelter. Perhaps I am also "coerced" into seeking escape. I face exactly the same situation that you describe, yet it hardly seems sensbile to blame capitalism for my being forced to do certain things to live. Now suppose you add one other person. They gather food but do not share it with you. Are they now coercing you into finding your own food? If you decline to forage, are you coercing them into finding their own food? Are you mutually coercing each other at the same time into doing things you would have to do if the other didn&#39;t exist at all?

If we accept your defintion, then you personally are coercing me into having to work by failing to send me all of your money.
Perhaps yes. If you and I were the only people in the world, by not giving you my money I would be coercing you into working. Of course, the world is more complicated than that, so lets not make stupid suggestions.

Now let me show you why your argument is absurd. You play a semantic game to make it appear that having to work under capitalism isn&#39;t coercion whereas having to work under Communism is coercion.

However leaving aside such loaded words, lets look at the reality of what happens. Under capitalism you either work or something bad happens due to lack of money. Supposing we accept your premise that under Communism you will be "coerced" to work, then the resut will be either you work or something bad will happen. There is no practical difference. All you have done is insert an emotive word.

[RNK]

i meant that communism does not guarantee there will always be enough people doing every kind of job whereas capitalism does.

Even this is completely wrong. There are numerous sectors in which there are severe labour shortages. One of the most glaring is in healthcare.

[Tungsten]

Wow you really can&#39;t do math.

Okey dokey, basically it&#39;s encapsulated in the idea that the curl of a gradient is zero.

Neoclassical economists abuse "ceteris parabis" which allows a linear approximation to absurd conditions. The problem is "ceteris parabis" is a myth like the Easter bunny.

If you were to replace the phase space of supply and demand with a vector space with the appropriate axes, you would get a parametrized curve for the supply and for the demand (one curve each, logically).

The curl of these parametrized curves is zero. That means there is only linear effects. There&#39;s nothing interesting about it.

And if you don&#39;t buy that theorem than I weep for your mathematical incompotence.
I weep for you inability to spell. What communist comedy site did you copy this POS from? The basis of economics is primarily praxeological, not mathematical; which is why your approach is doomed to failure.

People don&#39;t have a tendency to sit there and do nothing. That&#39;s just boring. If you don&#39;t believe this, sit on your couch and do nothing all day; see how quickly you get bored.
They have a tendency not to engage in activities that don&#39;t benefit themselves in some way.

Then it becomes a problem of "Making people do certain jobs"...e.g. cleaning the sewers. And that has all ready been covered before in this post.
The link you posted doesn&#39;t really go beyond "force people to do it" (which is coercion, and therefore no better than capitalism), although considering who wrote it, that&#39;s hardly surprising.

I find it thus hard to believe that everyone would become "couch potatoes". There&#39;s no compelling reason to accept such a proposition.
There&#39;s no compelling reason to believe feeding you will be at the top of their list of priorities or that they&#39;ll do it to save themselves from "boredom".
demogorgon

Perhaps yes. If you and I were the only people in the world, by not giving you my money I would be coercing you into working. Of course, the world is more complicated than that, so lets not make stupid suggestions.
The principle is universal and doesn&#39;t change by increasing the numbers.

However leaving aside such loaded words, lets look at the reality of what happens. Under capitalism you either work or something bad happens due to lack of money. Supposing we accept your premise that under Communism you will be "coerced" to work, then the resut will be either you work or something bad will happen. There is no practical difference.
That&#39;s like saying the difference between suicide and murder is only a game of semantics, because they both result in your death. What laughable absurdity.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:26 pm

Wow you really can&#39;t do math.

Okey dokey, basically it&#39;s encapsulated in the idea that the curl of a gradient is zero.

Neoclassical economists abuse "ceteris parabis" which allows a linear approximation to absurd conditions. The problem is "ceteris parabis" is a myth like the Easter bunny.

If you were to replace the phase space of supply and demand with a vector space with the appropriate axes, you would get a parametrized curve for the supply and for the demand (one curve each, logically).

The curl of these parametrized curves is zero. That means there is only linear effects. There&#39;s nothing interesting about it.

And if you don&#39;t buy that theorem then I weep for your mathematical incompotence.
I weep for you inability to spell. What communist comedy site did you copy this POS from? The basis of economics is primarily praxeological, not mathematical; which is why your approach is doomed to failure.
I see you have yet to learn even the most basic economics, much less simple calculus.

Perhaps you could understand it better if I break down those evil big words for you like "phase space".

A "phase space" is the space of all possible states of a system...like the supply and demand graph.

If you replace this with a "vector space", that is a space that allows scalar multiplication and vector addition, and then you replace the demand curve D(Q,P) with a parametrized curve D(t) and the supply curve S(Q,P) with a parametrized curve S(t) and then, in this picture we have tacitly made Q->Q(t) and P->P(t) which is perfectly legitimate mathematically, take the curl of S(t) we get:

curl S(Q(t), P(t)) = curl S(t) = (dS/dQ)(dQ/dt) - (dS/dP)(dP/dt) = 0

and correspondingly for D(Q(t), P(t)):

curl D(Q(t), P(t)) = curl D(t) = (dD/dQ)(dQ/dt) - (dD/dP)(dP/dt) = 0

which is boring, trivial and uninteresting. This is a consequence of the fact that a demand curve is essentially the del of a potential, and that the supply curve is also capable of having a potential function. That means definitionally their curls are 0. I&#39;m really wasting my time trying to explain this to you since you&#39;ll vehemently say something like "Math is nonsense&#33;"

But you&#39;re not a Neoclassical economist, I doubt you&#39;re even an economist. That does not however stop you from pretending to be an Austrian economist, so you ignore this basic calculus and assert it to be "stolen" because critical thinking is something beyond you.

I wonder though, with your "praxeology" nonsense of deriving an a postereori from a priori word games, are you any better than Hegelian dialecticians? How ironic that you reject math, a more valid a priori tool than "praxeology".

Perhaps it&#39;s time to read other books on economics other than Mises. The foundation of economics is not "praxeology" for everyone else in the universe.

Only the Austrians believe in such platonic nonsense. And your lack of an argument makes it even more compelling to believe it&#33;

Actually, as A.J. Ayers pointed out, to go from an a priori proposition to a non a priori proposition, you need a contradiction. Since Austrian Economics appears to have non a priori propositions, there is a contradiction lurking in their reasoning.



People don&#39;t have a tendency to sit there and do nothing. That&#39;s just boring. If you don&#39;t believe this, sit on your couch and do nothing all day; see how quickly you get bored.
They have a tendency not to engage in activities that don&#39;t benefit themselves in some way. I see you have yet to get off your couch, good.

What a contradiction you have though: from your "praxeological" method, the first axiom is "Man acts". You assert "Man" does not "act".

Thus I can conclude anything I&#39;d like, through the magic of contradictions in formal logic.



Then it becomes a problem of "Making people do certain jobs"...e.g. cleaning the sewers. And that has all ready been covered before in this post. The link you posted doesn&#39;t really go beyond "force people to do it" (which is coercion, and therefore no better than capitalism), although considering who wrote it, that&#39;s hardly surprising. Here&#39;s a radical suggestion: actually read it.



I find it thus hard to believe that everyone would become "couch potatoes". There&#39;s no compelling reason to accept such a proposition.
There&#39;s no compelling reason to believe feeding you will be at the top of their list of priorities or that they&#39;ll do it to save themselves from "boredom". Wow what a brilliant argument, if only it weren&#39;t internally inconsistent.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:26 pm
That&#39;s like saying the difference between suicide and murder is only a game of semantics, because they both result in your death. What laughable absurdity.
Would you care to explain that analogy, or did it just sound like a clever thing to say?

And am I reading ComradeRed right? Did you really claim to be an economist of the Austrian School? Come off it. Much as I dislike them, I&#39;ve yet to meet one that doesn&#39;t understand econometrics.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:29 pm
Much as I dislike them, I&#39;ve yet to meet one that doesn&#39;t understand econometrics.
I&#39;ve yet to meet one that understands basic math or logic.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+March 14, 2007 11:36 pm--> (ComradeRed @ March 14, 2007 11:36 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 03:29 pm
Much as I dislike them, I&#39;ve yet to meet one that doesn&#39;t understand econometrics.
I&#39;ve yet to meet one that understands basic math or logic. [/b]
True :lol:

I try an avoid it mostly. It&#39;s really a fringe view,even in capitalist circles anyway. Stomaching neo-classical economics was quite enough for me.

[wtfm8lol]

Would you care to explain that analogy, or did it just sound like a clever thing to say?

it&#39;s barely even an analogy. in capitalism, if you refuse to work, you die of your own choosing because you starve. in communism, if you refuse to work, you get shot in the back of the head or you get sent to a labor camp where you will die. in the former, you kill yourself, and in the latter, you&#39;re murdered. you claim that since you end up dead in both, there is no practical difference, so you are saying there is no practical difference between suicide and murder.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:32 pm




it&#39;s barely even an analogy.

Agreed.


in capitalism, if you refuse to work, you die of your own choosing because you starve. in communism, if you refuse to work, you get shot in the back of the head or you get sent to a labor camp where you will die.

But what if you die of starvation IN the labor camp? Is that a centrism then?

Sorry, but none of this makes any sense at all. Either death is caused by your choice not to work, therefore either is rightfully termed &#39;suicide&#39; in your tepid analogy. Suicide is a choice, murder isn&#39;t, so if you choose not work, and the consequence of that is death (as it is under both systems, per the dichotomy you set up), then you&#39;ve committed &#39;suicide&#39; either way.



in the former, you kill yourself, and in the latter, you&#39;re murdered.

So when you starve in a capitalism, it&#39;s suicide, but when you say, starve, in a a communism, it&#39;s murder?



you claim that since you end up dead in both, there is no practical difference, so you are saying there is no practical difference between suicide and murder.

No. What you&#39;re claiming is that there&#39;s a difference between choosing to die by not working (capitalism) and choosing to die by not working (communism), when anyone can see that your analogy displays the exact antithesis of what you want it show.

[wtfm8lol]

But what if you die of starvation IN the labor camp? Is that a centrism then?

Of course not. Regardless, I&#39;m not trying to set up a dichotomy. I&#39;m just saying there&#39;s a difference between choosing to die and being murdered for a choice you make. Of course there is some possible gray area, but in general, if you refuse to work or (refuse to do anything else to get yourself food for that matter) to the point where you actually die of starvation, you&#39;re consciously choosing that you want to die. On the other hand, if when you choose not to do work someone murders you, it is distinctly different since someone else has chosen for you that you want to die.


So when you starve in a capitalism, it&#39;s suicide, but when you say, starve, in a a communism, it&#39;s murder?

No. When you starve in capitalism, it&#39;s (probably) suicide, (depending on the circumstances), just like when you starve in communism it is probably suicide. But that&#39;s not what this argument is about. This argument is about whether the "coercion" to work is just as justified under both systems since both consequences are death. (The coercion in capitalism being that if you don&#39;t work, you will starve, and the coercion in communism being that if you don&#39;t work, someone will kill you) I argue that it is not the same.


No. What you&#39;re claiming is that there&#39;s a difference between choosing to die by not working (capitalism) and choosing to die by not working (communism), when anyone can see that your analogy displays the exact antithesis of what you want it show.

My analogy didn&#39;t argue either way. I was just trying to explain what was said.

[wtfm8lol]

In the case of communism this has been covered...Who Will Clean the Sewers?

You realize that this solution promotes selfishness, or working in one&#39;s own best interest, with society&#39;s betterment being a side-effect, in a system that relies on the people caring more about the community than their individual selves, right?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:18 pm

In the case of communism this has been covered...Who Will Clean the Sewers?

You realize that this solution promotes selfishness, or working in one&#39;s own best interest, with society&#39;s betterment being a side-effect, in a system that relies on the people caring more about the community than their individual selves, right?
Read the damn thing:

I regard this as a temporary measure, of course. In the long run, we humans should be able to build robots to do any task that humans find boring or unpleasant. But the artificial intelligence community is still a long way from building anything more intelligent than an insect. So we need a way to "plug" the technological "gap" and make sure that the socially necessary work gets done.

In addition, there is a kind of justice to this arrangement that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect&#33;

Thus, when you see someone driving a new car or who has a really swell apartment in a new building, unlike now, you will know that they really earned those things, doing work that you would not want to have to do yourself.

As we need to remind ourselves, under communism things will be very different.

[wtfm8lol]

Do you dispute that offering rewards for doing certain work is an appeal to the self-interest of individuals?

Or do you dispute that communism relies on people wanting to work for the community and not for their individual selves?

That part does not address my argument.

[RNK]

Offering rewards for certain work is obviously an appeal to selfishness. However, Communism does not "rely" on people "wanting to work for the community". Communism relies on people to take part in the collective operation of society so that that can aquire the commodities that society produces. It isn&#39;t a system based on simply giving everyone everything they want without expecting anything in return. It simply gives people the ability to have an equal right to the products and capital that they help produce. If they don&#39;t help produce any products or capital, they aren&#39;t going to be given free hand-outs.

[colonelguppy]

Read the damn thing:

I regard this as a temporary measure, of course. In the long run, we humans should be able to build robots to do any task that humans find boring or unpleasant. But the artificial intelligence community is still a long way from building anything more intelligent than an insect. So we need a way to "plug" the technological "gap" and make sure that the socially necessary work gets done.

very clever, hi-tech robots will solve everything. seeing how highly speculative the argument already is, i don&#39;t think anyone would have any problems with me saying that this will result in a matrix/terminator scenario where humanity is nearly destroyed or enslaved. seriously, this is you utlimate solution to solving the task of menial labor? if we had this, there would be no need for communism as everyone could have skilled labor jobs keeping and maintaining the eocnomy of super robots

untill they revolt :ph34r:


that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect&#33;

Thus, when you see someone driving a new car or who has a really swell apartment in a new building, unlike now, you will know that they really earned those things, doing work that you would not want to have to do yourself.


the issue, like any economic issue, is scarcity and utility; this time within the labor force. if one grunt worker suddenly decides that his pay is not sufficient for his services, there are probably ten more who would willingly replace him, who need no new training. but for those with the skilled and challenging jobs, there are naturally less to go around, so to ensure that people take the time to learn these positions (not to mention their actions usually lead to more productivity than any indivdual worker), the reward is higher.

[BobKKKindle$]

colonelguppy -

Even if we assume that higher renumeration for certain forms of labour is justified, I would like to remind you that selling one&#39;s labour is only one form of income. A large part of income derives form the ownership of wealth in the form of financial assets; a large part of which consists of assets and wealth that are inherited (and, therefore, by definition, not the result of one&#39;s personal efforts).

In terms of the economic organisation of Communism, I think it is fair to say that every member of the community would have a responsibility to carry out tasks that are uncomfortable but are necessary. The Capitalist market for labour does not result in allocative efficiency (the correct amount of workers are not avaliable for any given form of labour)

[Red Tung]

but in general, if you refuse to work or (refuse to do anything else to get yourself food for that matter) to the point where you actually die of starvation, you&#39;re consciously choosing that you want to die. On the other hand, if when you choose not to do work someone murders you, it is distinctly different since someone else has chosen for you that you want to die.

There&#39;s so many things ambiguous about this argument that it&#39;s hard to begin. There&#39;s so many ways in which these loosely defined terms can be interpreted that they can easily be turned into defining someone sitting in an armchair and writing loosely stated memorandums for people under his command to follow with the threat that if any of his/her loosely stated wishes aren&#39;t followed to produced the desired perfect results (whatever they may be, since the objectives were ambiguously stated to begin with, clever isn&#39;t it?) the people actually doing the implementation will be refused payment for which their very lives depend on. After all, payment would mean the ability to exchange for physical resources for which survival depends on.

First of all define work.

Second of all what does it mean to accomplish work.

Third is there anything that falls outside of what economists and politicians define as work, but nevertheless is productive in a physical sense and in general is critical to all life on Earth and not just the "rich".

Fourth, given the definition of work is work necessary for survival. If you answer yes, why? If you answer no, why?

Fifth which is related to the previous question, is all work productive and desirable and paid? In all cases? In some cases? In no cases?


Be careful when you answer for I am the Court Jester in the company of Capitalist fools. If you answer like a fool, as all Capitalists are, then I will expose you to be who you truly are. :lol:

[wtfm8lol]

If they don&#39;t help produce any products or capital, they aren&#39;t going to be given free hand-outs.

And this is precisely why it&#39;s impossible to debate two communists at once. You tell me that if I don&#39;t work, society will not give me anything (which has it&#39;s own host of problems), whereas this very article we&#39;re debating says that I will not be obligated to work.


First of all define work.

Work=|F||D|cos(x) where F is a force vector, D is a displacement vector, and x is the angle between the force and displacement vectors.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:03 pm
And this is precisely why it&#39;s impossible to debate two communists at once. You tell me that if I don&#39;t work, society will not give me anything (which has it&#39;s own host of problems), whereas this very article we&#39;re debating says that I will not be obligated to work.
Of coarse if you can take care of yourself without Societies help, more power too you, your not obligated to work at all.

[Red Tung]

Work=|F||D|cos(x) where F is a force vector, D is a displacement vector, and x is the angle between the force and displacement vectors.


It could just a well be sin(x) depending on where you place the triangle to come up with the force vectors, but that&#39;s not the main point of the argument.

Given the physics definition of work wouldn&#39;t you say that there is more work done by physical processes of the environment than of money motivated (or coerced, depending on your perspective) human work? If there&#39;s more work provided free of the use of money to be exchanged for human labour then what does it say about the usage of money to exchange for work when there is so very little correlation between the amount of work and money to be exchanged?

[pusher robot]

I think it is fair to say that every member of the community would have a responsibility to carry out tasks that are uncomfortable but are necessary. The Capitalist market for labour does not result in allocative efficiency (the correct amount of workers are not avaliable for any given form of labour)

Any such inefficiency in capitalism is marginal, because as the demand for the job to be done goes up, the market price for the labor will increase. On the other hand, what you propose is ridiculously ineffecient. A specialist surgeon&#39;s labor is extremely valuable. It is economically irrational and grossly ineffecient for him to spend time collecting garbage when he could be performing surgeries. In capitalism, he will want to perform surgeries because people are willing to compensate him more for that work. But you are proposing he be coerced into doing something else, something value-destroying.

[Tungsten]

Okay, what happend to my reply? Don&#39;t tell me the server crashed again.

[Janus]

Yeah, a number of posts are missing because of the server backup/restoration.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:26 am
colonelguppy -

Even if we assume that higher renumeration for certain forms of labour is justified, I would like to remind you that selling one&#39;s labour is only one form of income. A large part of income derives form the ownership of wealth in the form of financial assets; a large part of which consists of assets and wealth that are inherited (and, therefore, by definition, not the result of one&#39;s personal efforts).

In terms of the economic organisation of Communism, I think it is fair to say that every member of the community would have a responsibility to carry out tasks that are uncomfortable but are necessary. The Capitalist market for labour does not result in allocative efficiency (the correct amount of workers are not avaliable for any given form of labour)

How does communism propose to more efficiently allocate labor?