How is Wage-Labor Coercive? [Archive]

BreadBros

4th April 2007, 04:58

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 04, 2007 01:56 am
I've asked this question probably a hundred times but I can never seem to get an intellectually clear answer.

You guys claim that wage labor is coercive simply because if you refuse to do it, people go hungry, get sick and eventually die. Not true.

If you don't feed yourself you go hungry, get sick and eventually die.
If you don't breathe, you suffocate and die.

Apparently biological functions are considered coercive to the leftists.
Coercion implies an autonomy or desire on the part of the coercive agent. Biological functions aren't coercive, they're necessary for survival. Eating, as a biological function, is therefore necessary. To some degree clothing, shelter, medical assistance, etc. are necessary towards living a sustainable life (i.e. not succumbing to the elements or disease).

Therefore in a capitalist economy (if one does not own capital) wage-labor is necessary for survival since it is the only option that provides income to buy those necessities and maintain your survival/health.

You can term it "coercive" if you want, I don't see how that changes the situation.

You also state that if no capitalist sees any profit to be made in hiring you, then you suffer the same penalty completely regardless of your willingness to do wage-labor. Correct?

True. Although, unless you are mentally or physically incapable of doing a job, considering modern production ways there are very few people who would not be able to produce a profit for a company. Unemployment fluctuations are therefore more a result of economic contractions or expansions.

So now business owners should hire people even if they know it will lose them money?

If your goal is a capitalist economy with no unemployment then yes, I suppose that would be the argument. Most people here are socialists/anarchists however, and therefore they argue for the abolition of businesses/capitalism as a whole, not reforms to the employment situation.

Follow that logic to its natural conclusion and you end up with no businesses and no jobs.

The state fulfills much of the function already. Instead of having 'Full Employment' policies (which have been proposed in the past, and have been a part of some governments internationally) they just provide welfare to unemployed people for a certain amount of time. Bourgeois economists debate which option is better. I believe Keynesian economics advocates the state employing the unemployed during periods of economic contraction, to reverse the general trend and usually to update infrastructure which could be seen as a society-wide capital investment.

It is freedom if workers are free to pursue their own business or jobs elsewhere... as is the case.

You need capital to start a business and even then larger capital investments are likely to be more efficient than you. Thats a freedom on paper, but mostly unattainable to most. As for freedom to pursue jobs elsewhere, thats superfluous. What does it matter if you sell your labor to Employer 'X' or Employer 'Y'? Wages or conditions may be better, but it doesn't escape the fact that wage-labor is necessary.

4th April 2007, 05:05

I've asked this question probably a hundred times but I can never seem to get an intellectually clear answer.

You guys claim that wage labor is coercive simply because if you refuse to do it, people go hungry, get sick and eventually die. Not true.

If you don't feed yourself you go hungry, get sick and eventually die.
If you don't breathe, you suffocate and die.

Apparently biological functions are considered coercive to the leftists.

You also state that if no capitalist sees any profit to be made in hiring you, then you suffer the same penalty completely regardless of your willingness to do wage-labor. Correct?

So now business owners should hire people even if they know it will lose them money?

Follow that logic to its natural conclusion and you end up with no businesses and no jobs.

It is freedom if workers are free to pursue their own business or jobs elsewhere... as is the case.

Now make your case.

That's like justifying a slave society by saying that if they don't work they die, and therefore there's nothing wrong with it. Obviously you're missing the entire krux of the issue, and that's the form work takes and the conditions in which it is done. Wage labour is coercive not because if you don't get a job you die, but because you have to get hired on the employer's terms. Generally it's said that if you don't like what you receive in exchange for your labour-power, you can go elsewhere where you get a better deal; the problem with this is that, although it's somewhat better, it's still not fair. Capitalism is founded on the fact that profit must be extracted from labour and to do that the worker can't receive the full value of his labour. So while you might be able to get a "better deal" somewhere else, you're still not getting a fair deal, because if a company paid their workers the full value of their labour, they would go out of business.

4th April 2007, 05:10

err I guess its not coercive if you don't have to eat and enjoy being homeless.

the issue however is not that its coercive, although it very obviously is, but that its exploitive, in that capitalism depends on people producing more wealth through their labour than they're payed back in wages in order for the capitalists to have surplus revenue for reinvestment and personal accumulation of wealth.

This is where your inane biological analogies break down.

Demogorgon

4th April 2007, 12:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:57 am
it's really just a value difference between posetive and negative liberty.
To an extent yes. Capitalists will tend to favour negative liberty while socialists will also favour positive liberty.

Also there is also the hierarchy of needs which is something capitalists don't like to talk about. You know the most basic things humans need is oxygen followed by food and water and the ability to expel bodily waste. Whereas things like freedom of speech and the like are further down on the scale. You can argue that capitalism is coercive because of it's reliance on less imprtant needs.

And finally something people here on both sides of the argument always make a meal of is the argument about us being forced to work for other people. Until some kind of technology coems along that will do all the work for us (and that's some way off) we will need to work, but for selling your labour (a specific kind of work) to be a choice, there must be a viable alternative. For the majority (not all) of people there isn't, because a relatively small proportion of the population controls the majority of capital, therefore most people are not freely choosing to sell their labour.

Idola Mentis

4th April 2007, 12:42

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 04, 2007 02:56 am
I've asked this question probably a hundred times but I can never seem to get an intellectually clear answer.

You guys claim that wage labor is coercive simply because if you refuse to do it, people go hungry, get sick and eventually die. Not true.
I think the answers made in this thread so far were rather clear. What do you think?

I cut your argument - I'm sure it could be patched together to make some sort of sense, but I'm not interest in doing that much work.

It really is true that if you refuse to be exploited, you will be denied the prerequisites of life. Employers have a monopoly on these necessities, and ration them out with money. If you won't agree to their terms, they will not give you money. While each employer do not have a monopoly, as a body, they do. They even monopolize the medium of exchange.

The strucuture of society forces all employers to make equally outrageous demands. Those who don't exploit at least as much as every other will find themselves out of business. So when one employer denies you the prerequisites of life, by denying you money unless you agree to his terms, a theoretical freedom to go elsewhere isn't good enough. People can't hibernate until the next oportunity arises. We need constant supplies. But what we really crave is security; we want to know where our next meal will come from.

When someone is in need of something, there will always be someone ready to exploit that need. The more insecure access to the necessities are, the greater the demand for security, and the more outrageous demands can be made of employees. And with employers controlling acccess to all necessities, security in your life is scarce indeeed.

A hungry person will do anything, and I really mean *anything* for food. But it doesn't have to go that far; just the fear of need is enough to open the door to exploitation. There is a standing threat on all of us, even the wealthiest, even on you. The threat is made by the arrangement, by the ones who chose to organize our communities in this way. Can you really defend having such a threat on us all?

Many places, the threat is somewhat lessened by welfare programs. Such programs can devalue employment by weakining the monopoly on necessities, thus lessening the threat and limiting the demands of employers somewhat. But it doesn't solve the problem - the way we set this sick scam up to begin with.

IcarusAngel

4th April 2007, 15:18

You can't use logic on the Protest-Warriors. I tried that for two years and couldn't get 'em past page one. It's best to post facts, and let them refute themselves.

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:57 am
it's really just a value difference between posetive and negative liberty.

How in the world does the positive and negative liberty paradigm fit into it, when (1) they can coincide and (2) you don't have to have wage slavery to have negative liberty. One of the main advocates of Negative Liberty became a socialist from his findings.

Explain what you mean.

pusher robot

4th April 2007, 15:29

It really is true that if you refuse to be exploited, you will be denied the prerequisites of life.

That is not strictly true. You will not be given the prerequisites of life, but neither will you be denied them. There's a critical distinction there that is being glossed over. In either case, this is a feature, not a bug. A society that allows individuals to choose to consume resources without performing any economically productive activity is not sustainable.

A slave is not any less enslaved if he is granted the freedom to choose his master.

Of course he is! If he has the freedom to choose his master, he can designate himself as his own master and immediately set himself free.

pusher robot

4th April 2007, 15:37

you don't have to have wage slavery to have negative liberty.

You don't have to have it, I suppose, but you do have to allow it. Negative liberty is about being free from legal constraints. If I want to sell my labor and another wants to buy it, and you don't permit that transaction, you are constraining my choices (and those of the potential buyer as well).

Demogorgon

4th April 2007, 15:58

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 02:29 pm
Of course he is! If he has the freedom to choose his master, he can designate himself as his own master and immediately set himself free.
And here we hit upon why capitalism is coercive. Most cannot choose to become "their own masters" (which I guess would mean self employed) because control of non human means of production is monopolised by part of society.

Demogorgon

4th April 2007, 15:59

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 02:37 pm

you don't have to have wage slavery to have negative liberty.

You don't have to have it, I suppose, but you do have to allow it. Negative liberty is about being free from legal constraints. If I want to sell my labor and another wants to buy it, and you don't permit that transaction, you are constraining my choices (and those of the potential buyer as well).
What happens if I wish to sell myself into actual slavery? Should that be allowed?

pusher robot

4th April 2007, 16:26

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 04, 2007 02:59 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 04, 2007 02:59 pm)
pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 02:37 pm

you don't have to have wage slavery to have negative liberty.

You don't have to have it, I suppose, but you do have to allow it. Negative liberty is about being free from legal constraints. If I want to sell my labor and another wants to buy it, and you don't permit that transaction, you are constraining my choices (and those of the potential buyer as well).
What happens if I wish to sell myself into actual slavery? Should that be allowed?
[/b]
Typically, that is impossible because people are people and not things, and people have certain legal rights that are inalienable. I suppose you could, if you wanted, enter a contract that pays you a pittance for 24/7 labor and the right to be beaten. That seems functionally equivalent to slavery, and if that is what you really want to do, then you ought to be able to do it. Of course, you would always have the ability to breach the contract, and if necessary, declare bankruptcy, so it's not really the same at all.

And here we hit upon why capitalism is coercive. Most cannot choose to become "their own masters" (which I guess would mean self employed) because control of non human means of production is monopolised by part of society.

That's clearly not true. Obtaining capital is easily done if you have not already proven yourself to be a credit risk. In any case, the bulk of economic activity is not production of goods but sale of services, in which case your own brain is the only "means of production" that you need.

I worked hard and graduated from law school. My only means of production is my mind and my willingness to work. I sell my labor to other people who want to buy my services. Am I a "wage slave"? Am I not self-employed?

Demogorgon

4th April 2007, 16:35

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 03:26 pm

Typically, that is impossible because people are people and not things, and people have certain legal rights that are inalienable. I suppose you could, if you wanted, enter a contract that pays you a pittance for 24/7 labor and the right to be beaten. That seems functionally equivalent to slavery, and if that is what you really want to do, then you ought to be able to do it. Of course, you would always have the ability to breach the contract, and if necessary, declare bankruptcy, so it's not really the same at all.

Hang on, "legal rights that are inalienable". Surely these legal rights are simply things obstructing me from exercising my freedom to enter me into a contract that will make me a slave?

Surely if negative freedom is absence from government interference, for maximum negative freedom I should be allowed to permanently sell myself to somebody to do with me as they please?

That's clearly not true. Obtaining capital is easily done if you have not already proven yourself to be a credit risk. In any case, the bulk of economic activity is not production of goods but sale of services, in which case your own brain is the only "means of production" that you need.

I worked hard and graduated from law school. My only means of production is my mind and my willingness to work. I sell my labor to other people who want to buy my services. Am I a "wage slave"? Am I not self-employed?Are you self employed? I have no idea, you are better placed to answer that one than I am.

And yes the majority of the economy comes through selling things. But you do not need capital to do that? You don't seem to have done much selling.

Naturally of course some people will be able to break through. But we are talking a small proportion of people here. No different from some Roman Slaves succesfully aquiring there freedom

4th April 2007, 17:13

That's clearly not true. Obtaining capital is easily done if you have not already proven yourself to be a credit risk. In any case, the bulk of economic activity is not production of goods but sale of services, in which case your own brain is the only "means of production" that you need.

I worked hard and graduated from law school. My only means of production is my mind and my willingness to work. I sell my labor to other people who want to buy my services. Am I a "wage slave"? Am I not self-employed?

Obtaining capital isn't easy at all. First, you have to have the time to invest in a business. Then you have to have the ability to take the risk. Plus, as you've mentioned, you have to have the credit.

The majority of people in this world spend most of their time working, can't afford to take the risk, and don't have the credit to even have the ability to do so. This is why your assertion is fallacious.

Idola Mentis

4th April 2007, 18:02

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 03:29 pm

It really is true that if you refuse to be exploited, you will be denied the prerequisites of life.

That is not strictly true. You will not be given the prerequisites of life, but neither will you be denied them. There's a critical distinction there that is being glossed over. In either case, this is a feature, not a bug. A society that allows individuals to choose to consume resources without performing any economically productive activity is not sustainable.
That's an interesting way of putting it. When someone control access to the necessities you need to live, and there are nowhere else to go for those necessities, how can you say they are not being witheld, denied?

If I'm in an airtight room, and you refrain from unlocking the door, haven't you murdered me just as surely as if you pulled a plastic bag over my head? If you demand I work in your factory, or you'll put me back in the room, aren't you extorting me just as much as if you held a gun to my head?

The difference in our perception of the matter seems to come from different ideas of the default state of man and the nature of our support structures, not any failure on my part to appreciate the distinction. Going from my view, the distinction between refraining and denying fades to irrelevancy. From yours, it becomes all-important. Where you see an open orchard, I see a prison. I wonder why?

Tungsten

4th April 2007, 18:26

Edric O

Ah, but breathing does not depend on others. At any moment, you have the ability to breathe if you so desire. If you have food in the fridge, you also have the ability to feed yourself at any moment if you so desire. Biological functions depend on you and you alone. Employment, however, is a social relationship between two or more people.

You do not have the ability to get employed at any moment if you so desire.
That's correct, employment must be sought volutarily but it's not the only means of making a living. Is a voluntary relationship coercive? More to the point, does socialism free us from it? Not really, because we'd still dependent on others. If anything, more so.

A slave is not any less enslaved if he is granted the freedom to choose his master.
Nice and punchy, but not very smart. A slave isn't a slave if he isn't being forced to work by others, and force here is merely a figure of speech.
-"I'm out of strawberries so I'm forced to eat blackberries" - not force.
-"Someone's tied me to a chair and is ramming strawberries down my throat"- force.

Zampanò

That's like justifying a slave society by saying that if they don't work they die, and therefore there's nothing wrong with it. Obviously you're missing the entire krux of the issue, and that's the form work takes and the conditions in which it is done. Wage labour is coercive not because if you don't get a job you die, but because you have to get hired on the employer's terms.
Or what? You want the employer to hire you on your terms? If your labour is that valuble, then so be it. You're the one that's missed the crux of the issue, though, which is:

You think that socialism of some variety will end this situation. It won't. We'll still need to go to work- or starve. It's that easy. Do you think everyone's going to sit on their arse all day after the revolution?

Generally it's said that if you don't like what you receive in exchange for your labour-power, you can go elsewhere where you get a better deal; the problem with this is that, although it's somewhat better, it's still not fair.
Then tell us what is fair.

Capitalism is founded on the fact that profit must be extracted from labour and to do that the worker can't receive the full value of his labour.
Full value according to who? Let me guess...you?
Demogorgon

Hang on, "legal rights that are inalienable". Surely these legal rights are simply things obstructing me from exercising my freedom to enter me into a contract that will make me a slave?
How can you be "legally free to be legally unfree"? Use some common sense.

Also there is also the hierarchy of needs which is something capitalists don't like to talk about. You know the most basic things humans need is oxygen followed by food and water and the ability to expel bodily waste. Whereas things like freedom of speech and the like are further down on the scale. You can argue that capitalism is coercive because of it's reliance on less imprtant needs. Values are subjective, so who are you to decide what is or isn't important to me? I consider your need for food to be far less important than my freedom of speech. Why should I be forced to provide you with food? Doesn't that take my freedom away in the process?

Demogorgon

4th April 2007, 18:35

How can you be "legally free to be legally unfree"? Use some common sense.Well quite, it would be absurd, but if we accept some of the logic we are seeing from capitalists here, it must be the case. If you have "ownership of yourself" (and hence the ability to sell your labour), you must be able to sell yourself, otherwise how do you have self ownership?

Values are subjective, so who are you to decide what is or isn't important to me? I consider your need for food to be far less important than my freedom of speech. Why should I be forced to provide you with food? Doesn't that take my freedom away in the process?It is subjective to say food is more important than freeodm of speech? Try living without both and then tell me that. If we were forced to choose between the two, it would be absurd to ever choose the freedom of speech. Fortunately of course both are possible, but capitalism attempts to put us in that position.

Incidentally, I could ask yourquestion back at you, if I am starving so that you can enjoy freedom of speech, which is something far less important to a human than food, surely my need would be greater and it would be completely reasonable to take away your freedom of speech for my freedom to eat?

And if not, what is it that makes negative liberties more important than positive liberties?

Tungsten

4th April 2007, 19:08

That's an interesting way of putting it. When someone control access to the necessities you need to live, and there are nowhere else to go for those necessities, how can you say they are not being witheld, denied?
You could say that they're not being withheld and that they're coercing you by not giving them to you. But then there's the counter argument that you're coercing them by demanding the necessities and declining to work for them (ergo, indirectly enslaving the producers of those necessities).

If I'm in an airtight room, and you refrain from unlocking the door, haven't you murdered me just as surely as if you pulled a plastic bag over my head?
Let's try a different anology. If you can't work and I can and no one can provide you with food but me, have I murdered you by not becoming your slave?

If you demand I work in your factory, or you'll put me back in the room, aren't you extorting me just as much as if you held a gun to my head?
No, because no one else has any obligation to provide you with a living, otherwise you'd the be the one taking away their freedom. Why should you get priority?

The difference in our perception of the matter seems to come from different ideas of the default state of man and the nature of our support structures, not any failure on my part to appreciate the distinction.
The default state of man is one of nothingness, and he has to work to fill in the void. I do think it's a failiure on your part: You focus on the non-essential.

-

It is subjective to say food is more important than freeodm of speech? Try living without both and then tell me that.
I said my freedom of speech and your food.

If we were forced to choose between the two, it would be absurd to ever choose the freedom of speech.
I'm chosing freedom of speech now over food now. There are millions without food and I value my freedom of speech over working to provide them with food. You're doing the same too.

Incidentally, I could ask yourquestion back at you, if I am starving so that you can enjoy freedom of speech, which is something far less important to a human than food, surely my need would be greater and it would be completely reasonable to take away your freedom of speech for my freedom to eat?
It wouldn't be reasonable, because I would have to provide you with food and that would make me your slave. My freedom of speech requires no action on your part.

And if not, what is it that makes negative liberties more important than positive liberties?
Positive liberties require actions and therefore, involuntary servitude. Negative liberties do not.

EnragÃ©

4th April 2007, 19:30

You also state that if no capitalist sees any profit to be made in hiring you, then you suffer the same penalty completely regardless of your willingness to do wage-labor. Correct?

So now business owners should hire people even if they know it will lose them money?

Follow that logic to its natural conclusion and you end up with no businesses and no jobs.

It is freedom if workers are free to pursue their own business or jobs elsewhere... as is the case.

no there is no "should" to it, they simply cant, since it will destroy them
that is why
capitalism's a *****.

A business owner is encouraged to fuck you over, leave you to die, if he cant make money off you.

pusher robot

4th April 2007, 21:59

Well quite, it would be absurd, but if we accept some of the logic we are seeing from capitalists here, it must be the case. If you have "ownership of yourself" (and hence the ability to sell your labour), you must be able to sell yourself, otherwise how do you have self ownership?
Let's be clear. You are proposing a logical paradox - that a person be free enough to choose not to have the freedom to choose whether or not to have the freedom to choose. To be a slave by definition means not being able to choose whether or not to be a slave. It is not a flaw of capitalism that it cannot resolve a paradox. The paradox is avoided in capitalism by giving the government a monopoly on the abridgement of this right.

Going from my view, the distinction between refraining and denying fades to irrelevancy.

I question whether this is really true, and if so, do you acknowledge that you are a mass murderer for your inaction as to the millions of starving people that could use your help right now. Surely by your standards you are just as guilty of their death for refraining to feed them as the warlords that deny them food by stealing their crops.

But you do not need capital to do that? You don't seem to have done much selling.
You don't need capital to sell your services.

5th April 2007, 00:45

Or what? You want the employer to hire you on your terms?

I don't think I was offering an alternative in that post.

If your labour is that valuble, then so be it. You're the one that's missed the crux of the issue, though, which is:

You think that socialism of some variety will end this situation. It won't. We'll still need to go to work- or starve. It's that easy. Do you think everyone's going to sit on their arse all day after the revolution?

I wasn't discussing socialism at all. And the whole point isn't whether or not people should be allowed to work; the whole point is the conditions in which the work is performed and the compensation offered for it. The whole "work or starve" argument is shit because it's completely dodging the real issue.

Then tell us what is fair.

Receiving the full value of your labour...

Full value according to who? Let me guess...you?

According to math...

Not every single business owner is out to screw people over, you have good ones and bad ones.

While I don't agree with the aggressive position that the member you quoted takes, employers are obligated to exploit you, or they would go out of business.

Idola Mentis

5th April 2007, 02:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:08 pm
Let's try a different anology. If you can't work and I can and no one can provide you with food but me, have I murdered you by not becoming your slave?
If a mother does not give food to her child, and there's no one else to do it, the child will die. Would you say that she had killed her child? Or would you say that not giving the child food was not the same as denying it food, that the child starved voluntarily? Is a mother who feeds her child coerced, enslaved?

Didn't think so.

Now, me and you, we're not in such a relationship to each other. Thank our various Gods for that. I can see I wouldn't last long in your household. But the owners of capital are in such a relationship to all of us. They put themselves there by monopolizing the means by which we all live. They reduce us from citizens to children, dependents, slaves. With a mother and child, we immediately see that assuming such a position creates a responsibility. But they do not recognize the responsibility inherent in their position. They prefer to exploit it.

If we two were in the situation you describe, I'd say yes; by refusing me what I need to live, you would have killed me. Even if I could work for you, but chose to die rather than give up my freedom and submit to you as my master, you would have killed me.

What if the default state of humanity isn't nothingness? After all, if you're nothing, you're not human. If it would really make you a slave to me to keep me alive without getting anything in return but one more cranky anarchist continuing to waste oxygen, then you must be saying that in the end, we are all "slaves" to each other. Perhaps some responsibilities arise from the position you find yourself in, just because you are human, a social, political animal? Creating a demand also creates the obligation to supply to that demand?

Or do you really want to free yourself from the terrible slave shackles laid on you by the old, the infant, the infirm, the disabled, the lazy and stupid? Easy. Have them killed, or just refrain from sustaining them. Or you could just chuck'em out, some fool might even submit himself to their tyranny of needyness voluntarily. It has been known to happen. Then you would never have to become the slave of anyone in need. If that solution doesn't take your fancy, you could enslave someone to sustain them for you. Sounds attractive?

The Spartacus way to freedom - stop being a slave to become a slave owner? While that seems the only practical way to be completely free of the responsibilities which comes with human existence, I can't help but see it as a dead end, a despicable and inhuman goal.

Demogorgon

5th April 2007, 07:34

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 08:59 pm

Let's be clear. You are proposing a logical paradox - that a person be free enough to choose not to have the freedom to choose whether or not to have the freedom to choose. To be a slave by definition means not being able to choose whether or not to be a slave. It is not a flaw of capitalism that it cannot resolve a paradox. The paradox is avoided in capitalism by giving the government a monopoly on the abridgement of this right.

Of course it is a paradox, yet it follows from capitalist logic. We seem to have come upon a reducto ad absurdum.

Surely if the government has a monopoly on abridging freedom it is denying others choice over themselves according to capitalist logic?

Kwisatz Haderach

5th April 2007, 08:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:08 pm
No, because no one else has any obligation to provide you with a living, otherwise you'd the be the one taking away their freedom. Why should you get priority?
I always find it quite remarkable when capitalists argue that "freedom" - or their interpretation of it - is more important than human life.

Let's take this to its logical conclusion: What if the only way to save the human race from extinction was to force a group of reluctant scientists to work on a cure for some terrible disease? Just how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to your perverted notion of freedom?

The default state of man is one of nothingness, and he has to work to fill in the void. I do think it's a failiure on your part: You focus on the non-essential.
Man is born incapable of finding food or feeding himself. Man is born incapable of speech, higher brain functions, or even walking. Man is born entirely helpless and dependent on the good will of other human beings. The default state of man is dependence on others.

Do not for a second presume to believe that you have no debt to society. You owe your language, your knowledge of the world, your very existence to the good will of others. Everything you are, you are because of human society.

It wouldn't be reasonable, because I would have to provide you with food and that would make me your slave.
Everyone, I think I want to stop for a second and analyze the use of emotive language in the above sentence. "Slavery" is invoked because Tungsten knows all too well that the term has an extremely negative connotation - he is trying to associate his opponents' arguments with something that most people consider evil because that way he doesn't have to provide any logical reason for why his opponents are wrong.

Notice also that the term "slavery" is used under the implicit assumption that any limitation on your freedom to do whatever you want - any limitation at all - makes you a "slave". Tungsten would have you believe that a mother who is required to take care of her child is "enslaved". He wants to place freedom from all responsibility on such a high pedestal that it trumps all other values and principles, including human life itself.

My freedom of speech requires no action on your part.
Actually, yes it does. Before you can have freedom of speech, someone must have taught you how to speak. An action on the part of someone else was required.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th April 2007, 08:04

The fundamental problem of all libertarian theories of rights is that they ignore the fact that all people are born as children, not ready-made adults.

colonelguppy

5th April 2007, 08:13

what are you getting at?

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 15:33

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 05, 2007 06:34 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 05, 2007 06:34 am)
pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 08:59 pm

Let's be clear. You are proposing a logical paradox - that a person be free enough to choose not to have the freedom to choose whether or not to have the freedom to choose. To be a slave by definition means not being able to choose whether or not to be a slave. It is not a flaw of capitalism that it cannot resolve a paradox. The paradox is avoided in capitalism by giving the government a monopoly on the abridgement of this right.

Of course it is a paradox, yet it follows from capitalist logic. We seem to have come upon a reducto ad absurdum.

Surely if the government has a monopoly on abridging freedom it is denying others choice over themselves according to capitalist logic?[/b]
Not at all. You are demanding that capitalism regard people as things and not people, and it simply does not work that way. People are always people and nothing a person can do can change themselves or anyone else into a thing. This is a central principle of capitalism.

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 15:46

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 05, 2007 07:01 am

Notice also that the term "slavery" is used under the implicit assumption that any limitation on your freedom to do whatever you want - any limitation at all - makes you a "slave".

This is not quite right, I think. There is a difference between a duty to not do something to another and an obligation to do something for another's benefit. Negative rights entail the former and postitive rights the latter, and it is the latter that is characterized as "slavery."

Tungsten would have you believe that a mother who is required to take care of her child is "enslaved". He wants to place freedom from all responsibility on such a high pedestal that it trumps all other values and principles, including human life itself.
This is a red herring. Parental obligations are a special case, because the parents voluntarily took affirmative actions that created the dependent status. A direct cause and effect. We're talking about whether when somebody else has a child, if other people who had no part in that decision should nevertheless be held responsible.

Demogorgon

5th April 2007, 16:01

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 05, 2007 02:33 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 05, 2007 02:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:34 am

pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 08:59 pm

Let's be clear. You are proposing a logical paradox - that a person be free enough to choose not to have the freedom to choose whether or not to have the freedom to choose. To be a slave by definition means not being able to choose whether or not to be a slave. It is not a flaw of capitalism that it cannot resolve a paradox. The paradox is avoided in capitalism by giving the government a monopoly on the abridgement of this right.

Of course it is a paradox, yet it follows from capitalist logic. We seem to have come upon a reducto ad absurdum.

Surely if the government has a monopoly on abridging freedom it is denying others choice over themselves according to capitalist logic?
Not at all. You are demanding that capitalism regard people as things and not people, and it simply does not work that way. People are always people and nothing a person can do can change themselves or anyone else into a thing. This is a central principle of capitalism. [/b]
But if that is the case then people do not have the self ownership which was apparently the central principle of capitalism a while ago.

And at any rate, if people must be treated as people rather than things, then surely we are coming into the realm of moral obligations and certain people's claims that it is all right to allow some people to starve for the sake of their own benefit comes rapidly crashing down.

Though you haven't used the phrase yet, you are obviously getting at the idea of treating people as an end rather than a means, which is deeply ironic as a capitalist will always treat both his workforce and his consumers as a means and never as an end.

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 16:30

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 05, 2007 03:01 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 05, 2007 03:01 pm)But if that is the case then people do not have the self ownership which was apparently the central principle of capitalism a while ago.

And at any rate, if people must be treated as people rather than things, then surely we are coming into the realm of moral obligations and certain people's claims that it is all right to allow some people to starve for the sake of their own benefit comes rapidly crashing down.

Though you haven't used the phrase yet, you are obviously getting at the idea of treating people as an end rather than a means, which is deeply ironic as a capitalist will always treat both his workforce and his consumers as a means and never as an end.[/b]

pusher [email protected] 05, 2007 02:33 pm
But if that is the case then people do not have the self ownership which was apparently the central principle of capitalism a while ago.
The idea of self-ownership is a figurative way of describing individual sovereignty. It was not meant to be a literal description of ownership.

And at any rate, if people must be treated as people rather than things, then surely we are coming into the realm of moral obligations and certain people's claims that it is all right to allow some people to starve for the sake of their own benefit comes rapidly crashing down.
Not at all. The only moral requirement that capitalism demands is that you respect the soveriegnty of others. You must grant them the freedom to choose. But an exact corollary of that principle is that you cannot make demands of others; that doesn't respect their freedom to choose. Capitalism has nothing to say about additional moral ideals so long as the respect the freedom to choose. I may think I have a moral duty to voluntarily help the poor; capitalism abides that just fine, because it's my choice.

Though you haven't used the phrase yet, you are obviously getting at the idea of treating people as an end rather than a means, which is deeply ironic as a capitalist will always treat both his workforce and his consumers as a means and never as an end.
That's exactly backwards. Capitalism is the only system that treats people as ends and not means. Every person, every single individual, is allowed to ask in capitalism, "what's my benefit?" Every person must be traded with as a legal equal. Only under capitalism does no man ever have the right to demand sacrifice from another; only capitalism requires that every transaction be voluntary; only capitalism absolutely requires an exchange of value for value; only capitalism grants every person the ability to walk away from any transaction. The primary principle is voluntary cooperation.

Under communism, you are always a means to an end. The means is your labor and the end is whatever the dicatator or the democratic majority or the community concensus deems it is. Your personal desires are at best, secondary, or worse, irrelevent. The primary principle is contribution.

Demogorgon

5th April 2007, 17:03

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 05, 2007 03:30 pm

Not at all. The only moral requirement that capitalism demands is that you respect the soveriegnty of others. You must grant them the freedom to choose. But an exact corollary of that principle is that you cannot make demands of others; that doesn't respect their freedom to choose. Capitalism has nothing to say about additional moral ideals so long as the respect the freedom to choose. I may think I have a moral duty to voluntarily help the poor; capitalism abides that just fine, because it's my choice.

T
Odly my understanding of economics does not point ,e in the direction of capitalism demanding anything of the sort. If you consider what it is rather than what you imagine it to be it is an economic system not concerned one jot about freedom of choice, equality or inequality or anything other than economic functionality.

Now of course the fantasists who defend capitalism in this manner (the worst of all means to defend it) will tell you it is about freedom of choice. Now this is a moral argument, not an economic one, but it will be worth asking anyway. Why is freedom of choice so important in relation to anything else? You are simply assuming it to be the case. You have offered us no reason to possibly accept this.

hat's exactly backwards. Capitalism is the only system that treats people as ends and not means. Every person, every single individual, is allowed to ask in capitalism, "what's my benefit?" Every person must be traded with as a legal equal. Only under capitalism does no man ever have the right to demand sacrifice from another; only capitalism requires that every transaction be voluntary; only capitalism absolutely requires an exchange of value for value; only capitalism grants every person the ability to walk away from any transaction. The primary principle is voluntary cooperation.

Under communism, you are always a means to an end. The means is your labor and the end is whatever the dicatator or the democratic majority or the community concensus deems it is. Your personal desires are at best, secondary, or worse, irrelevent. The primary principle is contribution.If this is the case then prove it. If capitalism always treats people as ends then why are workers often fired without a second thought to improve profitability? When they were fired for the sake of somebody else's profit, how were they being treated as ends?

This is nothing more than an idle fantasy that can only exist inside the heads of thos elacking economic knowledge. You are describing to me some idealised system that has never existed and never can exist rather than the real capitalism that exists out in the real world.

You are just spouting re-cycled Ayn Rand junk rather than attempting to engage me on any realistic level. Try learning a spot of economics and then come back.

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 17:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:03 pm
If capitalism always treats people as ends then why are workers often fired without a second thought to improve profitability? When they were fired for the sake of somebody else's profit, how were they being treated as ends?
Good question. The answer is that it is not treating somebody as an means to end when you simply decline to buy what they are selling. For at-will employees, every week that goes by that they remain employed is another transaction in a continuing series of transactions, and neither the employee or the employer is any under future obligation to the other (except for previously contracted and vested agreements, like pensions or non-disclosure agreements). Just as the employee is free to quit and and stop selling his labor to that employer, so is the employer free to stop buying the employee's labor. To demand otherwise is to treat the employer as a means to the employee's ends, is it not?

Odly my understanding of economics does not point ,e in the direction of capitalism demanding anything of the sort. If you consider what it is rather than what you imagine it to be it is an economic system not concerned one jot about freedom of choice, equality or inequality or anything other than economic functionality.
Obviously, I disagree, because capitalism simply cannot function without certain polticial preconditions. Capitalism is a theory of political economy in exactly the same way that communism is.

Why is freedom of choice so important in relation to anything else? You are simply assuming it to be the case. You have offered us no reason to possibly accept this.
There is no one single answer; capitalism as a theory tends to treat it as axiomatic, but there are several different philosophical justifications for this axiom.

You are describing to me some idealised system that has never existed and never can exist rather than the real capitalism that exists out in the real world.
Oh my goodness. This is rich, considering the discussion of communism on this very board. If communists are allowed to dismiss away all self-identified "communist" countries as not really communist for the sake of discussing theory, I ought to have the same privilege.

RGacky3

5th April 2007, 17:41

Lets ask this, if it was'nt for private property would wage labor be possible? Lets take tequila.

Right now it works this way, a guy owns an Agave farm, he has legal rights to it, the workers work the farm, then it goes to a distillery, a guy owns the distillery, he has legal righst to it, but the workers run it. Now if the farm owner did'nt have legal rights to the Agave farm would the workers allow him to take the plants they worked on in exchange for a small wage? If the distillery owner did'nt have legal rights to the distillery would the workers allow the tequila to be sold for a profit without ever seeing it, only getting payment for their time working, not what they produce? I doubt it.

Wage Labor is Coercive because it neccesarily goes along with Capitalistic property rights, property rights are lead to Wage Labor, which is Coersive because without the law and threat of violence by the state to protect property rights workers would never voluntarily give up the rights to what they produce.

Its pretty much extortion, guy A says he he has rights to the apple tree, and he defends it with threat of violence, guy B needs apples to eat, so guy A says fine, you pick the apples and give them too me, in exchange I'll give you an apple a day, is that Coersion? I think so, becasue with out the treat of violence to protect guy A's right to the tree, guy B would'nt voluntarily give up his right to the apples he picked.

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 18:30

Now if the farm owner did'nt have legal rights to the Agave farm would the workers allow him to take the plants they worked on in exchange for a small wage?
If the workers don't have legal rights to the Agave farm, how are they to stop him?

which is Coersive because without the law and threat of violence by the state to protect property rights workers would never voluntarily give up the rights to what they produce.
Yet communism explicitly requires workers to give up their rights to what they produce.

RGacky3

5th April 2007, 19:11

[/QUOTE]If the workers don't have legal rights to the Agave farm, how are they to stop him?

Stop him from what owning the farm? They just don't recognise his ownership and they don't give him what they produce, thats it.

[QUOTE]Yet communism explicitly requires workers to give up their rights to what they produce.

give their rights up to who? if they are producing stuff communally, then yeah, its communal meaning the community, if its for themself, if its something personal, then not really, what people produce is their own, if they produce it communally then its communal. I don't know where your getting this idea.

Tungsten

5th April 2007, 19:16

I wasn't discussing socialism at all. And the whole point isn't whether or not people should be allowed to work; the whole point is the conditions in which the work is performed and the compensation offered for it. The whole "work or starve" argument is shit because it's completely dodging the real issue.
I know you weren't discussing socialism because it's you that's dodging the issue: You were just offering a critique of capitalism, which on it's own isn't good enough- you have to provide an alternative too. So where is this alternative and how is it different?

According to math...
In other words, you don't know.

-

If a mother does not give food to her child, and there's no one else to do it, the child will die. Would you say that she had killed her child? Or would you say that not giving the child food was not the same as denying it food, that the child starved voluntarily? Is a mother who feeds her child coerced, enslaved?
Didn't think so.
The relationship between mother (guardian) and child (a legal dependent) is completely different from two strangers (neither guardian nor dependent). Not to mention that having a child is something you do out of choice.

If we two were in the situation you describe, I'd say yes; by refusing me what I need to live, you would have killed me.

24000 people die every day from hunger. You're posting here instead of helping them and are therefore responsible for their deaths.

The question now is, do we sentence you to life imprisonment or death by hanging?

Or do you really want to free yourself from the terrible slave shackles laid on you by the old, the infant, the infirm, the disabled, the lazy and stupid? Easy. Have them killed, or just refrain from sustaining them. Or you could just chuck'em out, some fool might even submit himself to their tyranny of needyness voluntarily. It has been known to happen. Then you would never have to become the slave of anyone in need.
I doubt all of them are undeserving of help.

If that solution doesn't take your fancy, you could enslave someone to sustain them for you. Sounds attractive?
No, I don't want to enslave anyone thanks. What do you think I am, a politician?

The Spartacus way to freedom - stop being a slave to become a slave owner? While that seems the only practical way to be completely free of the responsibilities which comes with human existence, I can't help but see it as a dead end, a despicable and inhuman goal.
I agree, so why have you chosen it?

-

I always find it quite remarkable when capitalists argue that "freedom" - or their interpretation of it - is more important than human life.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Never heard that one before?

Let's take this to its logical conclusion: What if the only way to save the human race from extinction was to force a group of reluctant scientists to work on a cure for some terrible disease? Just how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to your perverted notion of freedom?
You haven't answered the question and your argument is too fantastic.

Man is born incapable of finding food or feeding himself. Man is born incapable of speech, higher brain functions, or even walking. Man is born entirely helpless and dependent on the good will of other human beings. The default state of man is dependence on others.
And therefore man stays that way for the rest of his life? Use your brain.

Do not for a second presume to believe that you have no debt to society. You owe your language, your knowledge of the world, your very existence to the good will of others. Everything you are, you are because of human society.
If society can pin down exactly what I owe each individual member of it, I'll happily write them a cheque. I'd also like to know what you consider "society". Is is my city? country? continent? world? I can't owe all of them.

Everyone, I think I want to stop for a second and analyze the use of emotive language in the above sentence. "Slavery" is invoked because Tungsten knows all too well that the term has an extremely negative connotation - he is trying to associate his opponents' arguments with something that most people consider evil because that way he doesn't have to provide any logical reason for why his opponents are wrong.
Slavery is involuntary servitude. You, by your own admission, believe this to be acceptable (re-read your scientist scenario). But you don't see that as slavery because you think that enslaving people for what you percieve to be a "good cause" somehow makes it something other than slavery. It doesn't. So let's stop beating about the bush- you advocate slavery for causes you personally deem worthy of it.

Notice also that the term "slavery" is used under the implicit assumption that any limitation on your freedom to do whatever you want - any limitation at all - makes you a "slave".
No I don't imply that. I'm not an anarchist. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.

Tungsten would have you believe that a mother who is required to take care of her child is "enslaved".
No I wouldn't do that either, as I've explained.

He wants to place freedom from all responsibility on such a high pedestal that it trumps all other values and principles, including human life itself.
Freedom from responsibility is exactly what I'm against, and you're assuming that everyone has a responsibility- nay- a duty to help others, and that we ought to be legally compelled to do so.

Actually, yes it does. Before you can have freedom of speech, someone must have taught you how to speak.
What, everyone? Or someone who wanted to do so?

-

Lets ask this, if it was'nt for private property would wage labor be possible? Lets take tequila.

Right now it works this way, a guy owns an Agave farm, he has legal rights to it, the workers work the farm, then it goes to a distillery, a guy owns the distillery, he has legal righst to it, but the workers run it. Now if the farm owner did'nt have legal rights to the Agave farm would the workers allow him to take the plants they worked on in exchange for a small wage? If the distillery owner did'nt have legal rights to the distillery would the workers allow the tequila to be sold for a profit without ever seeing it, only getting payment for their time working, not what they produce? I doubt it.
This doesn't actually prove anything.

Wage Labor is Coercive because it neccesarily goes along with Capitalistic property rights, property rights are lead to Wage Labor, which is Coersive because without the law and threat of violence by the state to protect property rights workers would never voluntarily give up the rights to what they produce.
Without property rights, they workers would have no right to what they produce. It could just be taken from them at any time and for any reason. Think about it.

Its pretty much extortion, guy A says he he has rights to the apple tree, and he defends it with threat of violence, guy B needs apples to eat, so guy A says fine, you pick the apples and give them too me, in exchange I'll give you an apple a day, is that Coersion? I think so, becasue with out the treat of violence to protect guy A's right to the tree, guy B would'nt voluntarily give up his right to the apples he picked.
I found an article (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5843) on front page mag, which I posted here a while ago. It picked apart this nonsense quite nicely. If that's what you consider coercion, then there's no getting away from it.

RGacky3

5th April 2007, 19:24

What my example proves is that Wage Labor is Coercive because its impossible without the threat of violence (I.E. Property rights).

Without property rights, they workers would have no right to what they produce. It could just be taken from them at any time and for any reason. Think about it.

thats exactly what happens to them under Capitalism, when I say property rights I mean Capitalistic property rights, where they act as parisites (living off the work of others), because of a piece of paper saying they own something, plus if the property is communal and if produciton is communal who is going to take it from them? and why would the workers let them take it from them?

Ol' Dirty

5th April 2007, 20:04

Coerce. v.

1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

The good-ol' Marriam-Webster.

If people are given the choice to raid or starve, they will raid. Given the coice between working for food and dying, most people will choose the former. This is not opinion, but logic.

That is how wage-labor is coercive.

5th April 2007, 22:20

I know you weren't discussing socialism because it's you that's dodging the issue: You were just offering a critique of capitalism...

EXACTLY! That's all I was doing; this thread is about how wage labour is coercive, not about proposed alternatives to capitalism.

which on it's own isn't good enough- you have to provide an alternative too. So where is this alternative and how is it different?

Start a new thread and we can discuss it.

In other words, you don't know.

Uh, no. It's simple. Let's say I take some materials and assemble them into a finished product and in the process of doing so create a value of $50. I did $50 worth of work. That means I should get paid what my work is worth; i.e. $50. 50=50. See how simple it is?

wtfm8lol

5th April 2007, 22:23

Uh, no. It's simple. Let's say I take some materials and assemble them into a finished product and in the process of doing so create a value of $50. I did $50 worth of work. That means I should get paid what my work is worth; i.e. $50. 50=50. See how simple it is?

how do you determine that the value you created was $50?

pusher robot

5th April 2007, 22:54

I did $50 worth of work.
No, that's incorrect. The value of the work is not related to the value of what you are working on. It is only related to the supply and demand of labor for that work.

Kwisatz Haderach

6th April 2007, 06:42

Originally posted by Tungsten+April 05, 2007 08:16 pm--> (Tungsten @ April 05, 2007 08:16 pm) The relationship between mother (guardian) and child (a legal dependent) is completely different from two strangers (neither guardian nor dependent). [/b]
It is only different because the state says so. The relationship of legal guardian to legal dependent (notice the emphasis on "legal") is enforced by the state. Without state enforcement, there is nothing to stop a mother from abandoning her child and letting it die by starvation or exposure to the elements.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
Not to mention that having a child is something you do out of choice.
That's only true in a limited number of cases. Most pregnancies are unplanned.

Originally posted by Tungsten[email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
24000 people die every day from hunger. You're posting here instead of helping them and are therefore responsible for their deaths.
You are grossly oversimplifying things. Is there anything that any of us could do to save any of those 24,000 people? More to the point, is there anything any of us could do in the time we spend on revleft.com that could save any of those 24,000 people? You are guilty of murder if you have the means and the opportunity to save a life but choose not to. However, you are not guilty of murder if you do not have the means or the opportunity to save that life.

I don't think any of us here has the means or opportunity to feed a starving man on the other side of the world.

Let me put this issue in economic terms: If the opportunity cost of activity X is allowing someone to die, then activity X is murder.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
"Give me liberty or give me death." Never heard that one before?
You are not asking for liberty or death for yourself. You are asking for liberty for yourself in exchange for the deaths of others. In other words, what you are saying is "Give me liberty and give them death."

To anyone who says "give me liberty and give them death", I say "I'll give you death and give them bread".

A man who would put his own pleasures above the lives of others is the scum of the Earth.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
You haven't answered the question and your argument is too fantastic.
I am asking you to choose between the freedom of the few and the lives of many. That is not a fantastic situation at all. Of course, I already know what you would choose. You would choose the freedom of the few and let the many die. But you are reluctant to say it because you don't want to admit that your philosophy considers human life to be worthless.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm

Man is born incapable of finding food or feeding himself. Man is born incapable of speech, higher brain functions, or even walking. Man is born entirely helpless and dependent on the good will of other human beings. The default state of man is dependence on others.
And therefore man stays that way for the rest of his life? Use your brain.
And therefore man owes everything he is to his fellow human beings.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
If society can pin down exactly what I owe each individual member of it, I'll happily write them a cheque.
Take your methodological individualism elsewhere. People can and do act collectively.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
I'd also like to know what you consider "society". Is is my city? country? continent? world? I can't owe all of them.
The human species.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
Slavery is involuntary servitude...
Slavery is generally defined as placing a person in a situation where he has to obey every command issued by another. A slave has no freedom at all.

Slavery, of course, is also in many ways the ultimate expression of private property. It is private property over the human body, which is regarded as a merchandise to be bought and sold.

Now, the situation you are talking about is not one where people have to obey all the commands of someone else, nor is it one where people are bought and sold. So it's not slavery. Stop trying to equate any limitation on freedom with the complete absence of freedom.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm

Notice also that the term "slavery" is used under the implicit assumption that any limitation on your freedom to do whatever you want - any limitation at all - makes you a "slave".
No I don't imply that. I'm not an anarchist. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.
What if you are surrounded by noses? Then you can't swing your fists at all.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
Freedom from responsibility is exactly what I'm against, and you're assuming that everyone has a responsibility- nay- a duty to help others, and that we ought to be legally compelled to do so.
Indeed. Just like you are operating under the axiomatic assumption that people have rights, I am operating under the assumption that people have rights and duties.

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm

Actually, yes it does. Before you can have freedom of speech, someone must have taught you how to speak.
What, everyone? Or someone who wanted to do so?
The point is that a positive action was required. Those who cannot speak do not have freedom of speech. If we wanted to make freedom of speech a universal right we would first have to ensure that everyone can speak.

So freedom of speech is a positive right. It only looks negative because, in practice, very few people are unable to speak.

[email protected] 05, 2007 08:16 pm
Without property rights, they workers would have no right to what they produce. It could just be taken from them at any time and for any reason. Think about it.
Non sequitur. The absence of [private] property rights does not imply that there are no rules at all governing the use of goods and services.

6th April 2007, 07:48

how do you determine that the value you created was $50?

I just picked an arbitrary number for the example.

No, that's incorrect. The value of the work is not related to the value of what you are working on. It is only related to the supply and demand of labor for that work.

Of course it is. If I work for an hour and create a value of $50, my work has created a value of $50. I create $50 worth of work an hour. My work has a value of $50 an hour. Of course, that's not how much I get paid. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about wages.

Tungsten

6th April 2007, 09:33

plus if the property is communal and if produciton is communal who is going to take it from them?
Whoever feels like it.

and why would the workers let them take it from them?
They have no say it who lets them or not- they have no property rights.

-

If people are given the choice to raid or starve, they will raid.
Rarely are those the only options, but that doesn't stop certain people from pretending they are.

-

You are grossly oversimplifying things.
I'm grossly taking your argument to it's logical conclusion.

Is there anything that any of us could do to save any of those 24,000 people? More to the point, is there anything any of us could do in the time we spend on revleft.com that could save any of those 24,000 people?
You're just making excuses. You have the ability to save a few of them, yet you choose not to, therefore you're killing them. You don't need to kill 24000 people to be a murderer, one will do.

You are guilty of murder if you have the means and the opportunity to save a life but choose not to. However, you are not guilty of murder if you do not have the means or the opportunity to save that life.
I'll bet you have the means and the opportunity. I'll bet the majority of people can afford a plane ticket to Africa right now.

I don't think any of us here has the means or opportunity to feed a starving man on the other side of the world.
Ever heard of charities? Seriously, you've fucked up. Hoisted by your own petard.

You are not asking for liberty or death for yourself. You are asking for liberty for yourself in exchange for the deaths of others. In other words, what you are saying is "Give me liberty and give them death."
Fair enough. It's better to die as a free man than a slave.

To anyone who says "give me liberty and give them death", I say "I'll give you death and give them bread".
You mean if I don't become a slave to the poor, you'll kill me? That just about sums up communism doesn't it.

A man who would put his own pleasures above the lives of others is the scum of the Earth.
I sure hope you've never been on holiday or bought anything beyond the basics, otherwise, this applies to you too.

I am asking you to choose between the freedom of the few and the lives of many.
And the argument is false and fantastic. See the link below.

Of course, I already know what you would choose. You would choose the freedom of the few and let the many die. But you are reluctant to say it because you don't want to admit that your philosophy considers human life to be worthless.
Perhaps you might want to take a look at critique of your own moral self-righeousness (http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/Mordevcrit.pdf).

And therefore man owes everything he is to his fellow human beings.
Where does that leave your argument against slavery?

Take your methodological individualism elsewhere. People can and do act collectively.
But not in the instance I was referring to. Enough red herrings already.

The human species.
Okay, tell me what I owe, say, someone in North Korea. Or a Saharan Nomad. Or what either of these people owe me. Are they not members of the human species too?

Slavery is generally defined as placing a person in a situation where he has to obey every command issued by another. A slave has no freedom at all.
Is a soldier a slave? They have to obey every command.

Slavery, of course, is also in many ways the ultimate expression of private property. It is private property over the human body, which is regarded as a merchandise to be bought and sold.
People are not bought and sold except by their own choice, which is precisely what makes them different from slaves.

Now, the situation you are talking about is not one where people have to obey all the commands of someone else, nor is it one where people are bought and sold. So it's not slavery. Stop trying to equate any limitation on freedom with the complete absence of freedom.
That's really fucking hilarious Mr "I'll give you death and give them bread". Just consider for a moment that you've given me a choice between involuntary servitude to the needy and execution. That sure sounds like obeying all commands of someone else "or else" and where does that leave freedom under your system, other than completely absent? It's not like you're offering the ability to opt out.

What if you are surrounded by noses? Then you can't swing your fists at all.
You know what I mean; non-initiation of force. Central to all libertarian theories.

The point is that a positive action was required.
A voluntary positive action. Consent just isn't part of your worldview is it?

Those who cannot speak do not have freedom of speech. If we wanted to make freedom of speech a universal right we would first have to ensure that everyone can speak.
How is someone else being unable to speak preventing me from speaking? How would that justify preventing me from speaking?

So freedom of speech is a positive right.
How does it demand action on the part of others? If it doesn't, then it isn't a positive right.

RNK

6th April 2007, 10:52

Let's say I decided to storm into your house one night and beat you unconscious, then take all of your food away. When you awaken, I give you an offer; scratch my back and I'll give you a piece of bread to eat, or starve. Let's assume I've instituted a complex system that prevents you from, in one way or another, fighting back.

If you don't think that's coercion, then you're not a lawyer.

pusher robot

6th April 2007, 15:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:52 am
Let's say I decided to storm into your house one night and beat you unconscious, then take all of your food away. When you awaken, I give you an offer; scratch my back and I'll give you a piece of bread to eat, or starve. Let's assume I've instituted a complex system that prevents you from, in one way or another, fighting back.

If you don't think that's coercion, then you're not a lawyer.
It's coercion purely because of this part:

Let's say I decided to storm into your house one night and beat you unconscious, then take all of your food away.
You have initiated force against me, and continue to do so by restraining my ability to fight back. Of course that is coercion. Who ever claimed it wouldn't be? But let's modify the scenario slightly:

Let's say I decided to storm into Bob's house one night and beat Bob unconscious, then take all of Bob's food away. When Alice (in some other house) awakens, I give her an offer; scratch my back and I'll give her a piece of bread to eat. Let's assume I've instituted a complex system that prevents Bob from, in one way or another, fighting back.

Is this coercive against Bob? I say yes, always. Is it coercive against Alice? I say no. The coercion in your scenario is in the beating and stealing, not the offer for exchange. Would you agree? If so, would you still agree even if Bob was rich and Alice was poor?

Idola Mentis

6th April 2007, 16:23

Pusher - you're just ignoring parts of the argument to make it seem invalid. Not getting you anywhere.

If we stick closer to the actual argument: Even if you only take Bob's bread, someone else has taken Alice's bread too. In fact, someone has taken everyone's bread. As an individual, you're just a thief, not a slaver. But by conspiring with and exploiting the need created by other bread-thiefs, you make yourself a slaver as well. A slave is no less a slave if he is owned by a collective.

pusher robot

6th April 2007, 16:33

In fact, someone has taken everyone's bread.

I don't see how this analogizes to the economy. If I refuse to work, nobody has taken anything from me because I never had it in the first place. Consider this: If I am alone on a deserted island and I refuse to work, what do I end up with? Nothing. If I am living in a capitalist society and refuse to work, what do I end up with? The exact same nothing. Nothing has been taken away from me by my living in the capitalist society, but opportunity has been drastically increased.

Idola Mentis

6th April 2007, 16:53

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 04:33 pm
I don't see how this analogizes to the economy. If I refuse to work, nobody has taken anything from me because I never had it in the first place. Consider this: If I am alone on a deserted island and I refuse to work, what do I end up with? Nothing. If I am living in a capitalist society and refuse to work, what do I end up with? The exact same nothing. Nothing has been taken away from me by my living in the capitalist society, but opportunity has been drastically increased.
You really don't? You just argue that capitalist society is as inhospitable as a desert island, and you don't once think to ask yourself *who made it so*?

pusher robot

6th April 2007, 17:08

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+April 06, 2007 03:53 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ April 06, 2007 03:53 pm)
pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 04:33 pm
I don't see how this analogizes to the economy. If I refuse to work, nobody has taken anything from me because I never had it in the first place. Consider this: If I am alone on a deserted island and I refuse to work, what do I end up with? Nothing. If I am living in a capitalist society and refuse to work, what do I end up with? The exact same nothing. Nothing has been taken away from me by my living in the capitalist society, but opportunity has been drastically increased.
You really don't? You just argue that capitalist society is as inhospitable as a desert island, and you don't once think to ask yourself *who made it so*?[/b]
Please read what I wrote. I did not "just argue that capitalist society is as inhospitable as a desert island" - I argued that nothing is taken away, but that opportunities are vastly greater. It's like the difference between being on the ground floor of a ranch home and the ground floor of the Sears Tower. You're still at ground level either way, but in the Sears Tower you have the opportunity to go much higher, if you choose to take it. In either case, lack of work input causes lack of work output. Who made it so? The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Idola Mentis

6th April 2007, 17:16

You still don't get my basic argument. Maybe I'm not very good at formulating my thoughts in english.

Again with the parables. See, here's the thing; we don't start at the ground floor, at zero. Someone put us there. Someone - not a natural law. Doing work is not identical with being forced to work.

pusher robot

6th April 2007, 17:23

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 06, 2007 04:16 pm
You still don't get my basic argument. Maybe I'm not very good at formulating my thoughts in english.

Again with the parables. See, here's the thing; we don't start at the ground floor, at zero. Someone put us there. Someone - not a natural law. Doing work is not identical with being forced to work.

Someone put us there. Someone - not a natural law.

In the case of the desert island, who? (Supposing that we are stranded there quite by accident).

As I understand your argument, it is that in a natural state, we don't have anything by default and must work to obtain anything, but in a capitalist state, we automatically have things by default when we are born, and someone comes and takes them away. I'll admit I don't find this persuasive.

RNK

6th April 2007, 18:01

Is this coercive against Bob? I say yes, always. Is it coercive against Alice? I say no. The coercion in your scenario is in the beating and stealing, not the offer for exchange. Would you agree? If so, would you still agree even if Bob was rich and Alice was poor?

It is in both; it is in the beating and stealing and also in the one-sided offer for exchange. I believe you're attempting to claim that Alice is fully capable of going elsewhere for food, and isn't being coerced by the home invader -- I suppose representing that capitalism gives people a "choice" on where to find their food.

The only problem is that you're failing to realize that everyone has a "home invader". Alice may not be subjected to the same ultimatum by the same home invader, but she is subjected to a similar ultimatum by a similar home invader. Whether a company calls itself "I Like Babies Inc" or "I Hate Babies Inc", the fact remains that they are all a small minority who owns the means of producing and distributing all commodities of society. Yes, you can choose to buy bread at the supermarket for $1.15 or at the convenience store for $1.50. But can you choose to buy bread for it's actual cost of production (like $0.25)? Can you choose to make your own bread? Well, you can try -- hence the creation of home businesses. But how many of these work out? If 1000 people from this forum decided to try and start their own bread-making operation, how many would succeed? One, maybe. Ontop of that, even though they can make their own bread, they must still buy the material to do so -- flour, baking powder, yeast, often water. Of course, it is possible.

But what about gasoline? A car? Internet access? A television? Computers? Are you able to go out and drill your own oil and process it into gasoline? Are you able to build your own car? Develop your own internet access or invent a television or computer? Can you power your home yourself? Produce your own television shows? Generate heat through the power of your own mind during winter?

No. The only "choice" we have is whether we buy gasoline from Shell or Exxon. Buy a car from GM or Toyota or a used model. Choose between AOL or NetZero. Buy a television from Wal-Mart or Best Buy. Etc. By virtue of competition, prices are raised and lowered in order to keep customers buying a company's products -- but this only goes so far. No CEO or board of directors will slash their salaries down to the level of workers in order to cut costs for society. At most, they'll shut down a factory in New Jersey, lay off 150 workers and ship operations to Honduras where they can hire twice as many people for ten times the costs. And in the process lower prices by half a dollar (but within a year, raise the price another two dollars anyway).

Not much of a choice.

Idola Mentis

6th April 2007, 18:02

How would I know how you got to your island? It's your parable. :)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Most people find the above fairly persuasive, though I find the history of interpretations applied to it very sad reading.

Being alone on an island is not the "natural state" of man, nor is a capitalist state, or any other state. We're human, not ants, remember? If we have a "natural state", it consists of shaping and creating the state in which we exist. You seem to think of a human being as some kind of elementary particle, when we are in fact part of a mixture, outside of which we cannot function as human beings.

Whatever state human beings are found in, that state has been shaped by community between people. A capitalist state is a process started and maintained by people. So when the means of production - of life - exists, and you do not have access to them, it is because someone is witholding them.

We do automatically have some rights when born; or rather, if those "rights" we are born with was not constantly granted by our fellow men, we wouldn't survive, so there can't be any human beings alive who doesn't "have" them. Right to life, remember? Grant it, and we all live. Take it away, and we're wolves in the wilderness, and then nothing.

Red Tung

6th April 2007, 22:46

plus if the property is communal and if produciton is communal who is going to take it from them?Whoever feels like it.

Sure, in theory I can be lord of the world if I own the air supply, but in theory who's going to help me do that?

So you can become an tyrannical overlord by taking everything away from the workers, but who's going to help you do that? Or in other words, "you and what army?" What are you going to pay your soldiers? Leftover scraps you've personally stolen from your fellow workers? :lol:

What you are missing here is that in a communal society, by definition everything is done and can only be done from acquiring community agreement. If community agreement is not acquire for any sort of project or investment it is not done. There is no need for a managerial class for allocating resources held in majority ownership by a investor class. If a communal society becomes a reality both classes have long since past into the trash bin of history.

and why would the workers let them take it from them?
They have no say it who lets them or not- they have no property rights.

And who are "they" that are so cruel as to take away the results of the worker's labour? By definition everybody in that society is a worker that is engaged directly in production. There is no middlemen either as a class of people or an institution between what is produced to what is acquired for use by workers and therefore no chance for corruption in skimming off "administrative costs" or profits. In that case, who's going to have the financial reserves to organize a violent force to take away their property? Again, "you and what army?"

But, just in case the communal society comes upon a violent street gang bent on taking away their property, can the gang of robbers actually have any chance in hell of succeeding in their nefarious plans of enslaving an entire society of workers who are now angrily against them? Any would be oppressor or group of oppressors would be just as easily squashed as an ant under a thumb.

If people are given the choice to raid or starve, they will raid.
Rarely are those the only options, but that doesn't stop certain people from pretending they are.

Yes, but very, very few people would consider a life as primitive woodsmen all that satisfying where you have hunt your own food and wear dead animal skin for clothes while worrying whether or not you'll survive the next winter in your dilapidated, uninsulated log cabin. This alternative would be even less satisfying when you realize that the knowledge exists, the labour exists and the resources exists to make this kind of primitive lifestyle unnecessary, but that due to the organization of society only the people with obscene levels of wealth gets to decide whether or not these resources get to be used and the sole deciding factor for whether or not resources get to be used is if it increases ownership of these resources (wealth) for the same people who are already wealthy. So the althernative is to live a primitive lifestyle (which you may or may not physically survive) or plead for sociopaths to hire you to work to make them even more richer? How would a reasonable person react to such an "alternative" :lol:

t_wolves_fan

6th April 2007, 23:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:52 am
he's missing the steps between choosing not to work and then not being able to support biological functions. but the premises can follow.

like i said, it's the value difference between posetive and negative liberty.
Several communists have stated that in their version of candy land, those who refuse to work for the community would also not be able to eat or gain shelter.

When you get to the bottom of it, there's no difference. You have to work for someone (wage payer or the commune) to eat.

Communists say you can leave the commune. Well you can leave the wage-paying job too.

But then we have to ask, if the revolution is going to be global, can you really leave the commune?

On the other hand, does anyone here really believe that people are entitled to food and shelter by right, even if they refuse to do any work?

wtfm8lol

7th April 2007, 00:27

I just picked an arbitrary number for the example.

ya, no shit. that's not what i was asking. i want to know how you would decide what your labor is worth.

Idola Mentis

7th April 2007, 01:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:11 pm
On the other hand, does anyone here really believe that people are entitled to food and shelter by right, even if they refuse to do any work?
Do you seriously believe that people who won't work should suffer the punishment of exposure and starvation?

What would you do to someone who simply refused to work? Enslave them to save their life? What makes you think people need to be forced to work in the first place?

wtfm8lol

7th April 2007, 05:02

Do you seriously believe that people who won't work should suffer the punishment of exposure and starvation?

they're punishing themselves. if they want to punish themselves, i'm not going to stop them. obviously if they're unable to work, it's another story.

What would you do to someone who simply refused to work? Enslave them to save their life? What makes you think people need to be forced to work in the first place?

i dont think anyone has advocated anything even remotely close to this.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th April 2007, 05:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:33 am
You have the ability to save a few of them, yet you choose not to, therefore you're killing them. You don't need to kill 24000 people to be a murderer, one will do.

You are guilty of murder if you have the means and the opportunity to save a life but choose not to. However, you are not guilty of murder if you do not have the means or the opportunity to save that life.
I'll bet you have the means and the opportunity. I'll bet the majority of people can afford a plane ticket to Africa right now.
Of course. And what exactly are we to do once we have arrived in an African country where we cannot even speak the local language? I suppose we might be able to find some starving people and given them some money, but, at most, that will just keep them alive for a few more days until we run out of money.

In order to single-handedly save a starving man, it's not enough to give him the money to buy a few meals for a week. You have to find him a source of stable income. Good luck doing that all by yourself in a foreign country.

Rather than travelling to Africa in person, it is much more effective for us to stay where we are and establish international organizations to transfer money from us into various projects that provide starving people with sources of stable income. That is what many charities to, and I applaud them for their good work.

In other words, you are not a murderer as long as you donate a large portion of your income to charity. How large? Well, that depends. It would be silly to give all your money away today, since then you would have nothing left to give tomorrow. The best option is to maximize the total sum of your donations to charity over the course of your entire lifetime.

As for the rest of your one-line comments, they are hardly worth my time.

RGacky3

7th April 2007, 06:11

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 06, 2007 10:11 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 06, 2007 10:11 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 02:52 am
he's missing the steps between choosing not to work and then not being able to support biological functions. but the premises can follow.

like i said, it's the value difference between posetive and negative liberty.
Several communists have stated that in their version of candy land, those who refuse to work for the community would also not be able to eat or gain shelter.

When you get to the bottom of it, there's no difference. You have to work for someone (wage payer or the commune) to eat.

Communists say you can leave the commune. Well you can leave the wage-paying job too.

But then we have to ask, if the revolution is going to be global, can you really leave the commune?

On the other hand, does anyone here really believe that people are entitled to food and shelter by right, even if they refuse to do any work? [/b]
The difference is in a communal setting anyone who works on something benefits from his own work. If someone refuses to work for the community (I don't know why they would and it should be a non-issue based on human nature) then the community would not be obliged to give him stuff, if he wants to grow his own food, and make his own shelter no one would stop him, but thats not wage labor. People working together as equals and reaping the benefits of what they produce is not the same as someones work profiting someone else while the worker is just given wages to keep him alive as a compensation for his labor, not what he produced.

The difference between leaving a Commune is that your leaving as an equal, your not choosing between masters your choosing between communities and communes, sure you can leave a wage paying job, but who Capitalists own pretty much all production so you gotta work for someone, in a Communist society there will be no ownership, if you want to work together fine, if you want to work alone fine, if youd rather work with some people rather than others fine.

If the revolution is global, its not just one big commune, and I ask you this, do you think ANYONE would rather leave a communal setting, where they are parteners, find someone who will be their boss and master and work for them becoming voluntary slaves?

People are entitled to the right to food and shelter, if they can work for it, then they must be allowed to work for it, freely, not under a boss, if they cannot, I believe it is up to the community or the family to support them.

But then again, I ask you to seriously consider if anyone will just flatly refuse to do any work.

RGacky3

7th April 2007, 06:17

[/QUOTE]
and why would the workers let them take it from them?
They have no say it who lets them or not- they have no property rights.[QUOTE]

Listen if there are no property rights, they could only take stuff away form the workers through violent force, and thats not going to happen because there are a lot of workers, and not that many bandits (aka Capitalists).

RNK

7th April 2007, 06:40

Yes. if you remove the laws that grant capitalists' their power (property laws that ensure capitalists, and only capitalists, own everything "important"), then naturally their power slips away and they can no longer oppress anyone.

For instance, IBM computers owns thousands of patents relating to their computer design and production. If those patents were removed and become public domain, anyone could build or aquire IBM computers at drastically lower prices.

I hate to bring up Seinfeld but do you remember that episode with the Soup nazi, and how that chick stole his recipe and gave it to everyone, and then every soup place made the same soup and the guy lost his Nazi-like powers? Well, similar type of thing. Utterly, utterly simplified, though.

Ol' Dirty

7th April 2007, 21:23

These threads seem to turn into nondecisive blathering matches quite a bit.

People, please give him nice, concise (dur that rhymes :wacko: ) answers that his puny mind can understand. (Joking, bro.)

ZX3

7th April 2007, 22:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:11 am
The difference is in a communal setting anyone who works on something benefits from his own work.
This is not true. How many horseshoes does the communal blacksmith need for himself? How many does the commune need?

You keep tripping up by treating work as some sort of exercise of internal self-awareness. It isn't. The end result of work is supposed to provide the community with needed and wanted items. That is the standard of which work is judged. If one is fortunate enough to work in something one truly loves, good for him or her. But that should mean that the community needs the work performed. If it doesn't, then the person is not benefitting anyone, and it is difficult to see why any rational economic structure will allow for the allocation of resources directed to such production.

Kwisatz Haderach

8th April 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
You keep tripping up by treating work as some sort of exercise of internal self-awareness. It isn't. The end result of work is supposed to provide the community with needed and wanted items. That is the standard of which work is judged. If one is fortunate enough to work in something one truly loves, good for him or her. But that should mean that the community needs the work performed. If it doesn't, then the person is not benefitting anyone, and it is difficult to see why any rational economic structure will allow for the allocation of resources directed to such production.
I believe the point is that job satisfaction should play some part in socialist economic calculation (whereas it plays no part in capitalist economic calculation). Activities which are both necessary to the community and enjoyable to the individual should receive the greatest priority. Activities which are necessary but not enjoyable should be allocated less resources, and the community should also allocate some resources into research meant to find a way to make those activities more enjoyable (or to have them done by robots, if that's an option).

The socialist allocation of resources should be such that it creates economic pressure for the elimination of non-enjoyable types of work.

ZX3

8th April 2007, 03:41

Originally posted by Edric O+April 07, 2007 06:57 pm--> (Edric O @ April 07, 2007 06:57 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
You keep tripping up by treating work as some sort of exercise of internal self-awareness. It isn't. The end result of work is supposed to provide the community with needed and wanted items. That is the standard of which work is judged. If one is fortunate enough to work in something one truly loves, good for him or her. But that should mean that the community needs the work performed. If it doesn't, then the person is not benefitting anyone, and it is difficult to see why any rational economic structure will allow for the allocation of resources directed to such production.
I believe the point is that job satisfaction should play some part in socialist economic calculation (whereas it plays no part in capitalist economic calculation). Activities which are both necessary to the community and enjoyable to the individual should receive the greatest priority. Activities which are necessary but not enjoyable should be allocated less resources, and the community should also allocate some resources into research meant to find a way to make those activities more enjoyable (or to have them done by robots, if that's an option).

The socialist allocation of resources should be such that it creates economic pressure for the elimination of non-enjoyable types of work. [/b]
I don't see how there could be an objective standard as to what is, and what is not, an enjoyable profession. It would seem to be entirely subjective, and meaningless as a measurement of determining that work's value to the community.

Kwisatz Haderach

8th April 2007, 03:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:41 am
I don't see how there could be an objective standard as to what is, and what is not, an enjoyable profession. It would seem to be entirely subjective, and meaningless as a measurement of determining that work's value to the community.
As a capitalist, you believe that all value is subjective (in accordance with the subjective/marginalist theory of value), so you are in no position to accuse me of not placing enough emphasis on objective things.

As for the work's value to the community, bear in mind that the workers are themselves part of the community. Their enjoyment is therefore a factor in the overall happiness of the community.

ZX3

8th April 2007, 04:09

Originally posted by Edric O+April 07, 2007 09:48 pm--> (Edric O @ April 07, 2007 09:48 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:41 am
I don't see how there could be an objective standard as to what is, and what is not, an enjoyable profession. It would seem to be entirely subjective, and meaningless as a measurement of determining that work's value to the community.
As a capitalist, you believe that all value is subjective (in accordance with the subjective/marginalist theory of value), so you are in no position to accuse me of not placing enough emphasis on objective things.

As for the work's value to the community, bear in mind that the workers are themselves part of the community. Their enjoyment is therefore a factor in the overall happiness of the community. [/b]
Bear in mind that socialism proposes to organise the community far more efficiently, fairer, and more just, than capitalism. It proposes to provide people with all their needs, and to make obtaining their wants far more easy than in capitalism.

How happy workers producing items nobody needs or wants benefits the community, requires some further explanation. How happy workers producing items nobody needs or wants results in a community that provides people with their needs and wants, is fairer and more just, requires further explanation.

wtfm8lol

8th April 2007, 04:27

Originally posted by Edric O+April 07, 2007 09:48 pm--> (Edric O @ April 07, 2007 09:48 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:41 am
I don't see how there could be an objective standard as to what is, and what is not, an enjoyable profession. It would seem to be entirely subjective, and meaningless as a measurement of determining that work's value to the community.
As a capitalist, you believe that all value is subjective (in accordance with the subjective/marginalist theory of value), so you are in no position to accuse me of not placing enough emphasis on objective things.

As for the work's value to the community, bear in mind that the workers are themselves part of the community. Their enjoyment is therefore a factor in the overall happiness of the community. [/b]
do you realize how poorly you've swerved around his question? you dont even seem to understood his criticism, and have instead employed multiple red herrings in an apparent attempt to overwhelm your opponent with irrelevancy.

8th April 2007, 06:44

ya, no shit. that's not what i was asking. i want to know how you would decide what your labor is worth.

Cost of final product - (Cost of materials + cost of means of production materialized in each product).

i.e. the cost of the finished product minus the cost of the materials and the marginal cost of the means of production.

You know, profit.

wtfm8lol

8th April 2007, 06:54

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 08, 2007 12:44 am

ya, no shit. that's not what i was asking. i want to know how you would decide what your labor is worth.

Cost of final product - (Cost of materials + cost of means of production materialized in each product).

i.e. the cost of the finished product minus the cost of the materials and the marginal cost of the means of production.

You know, profit.
problem:

suppose there are two people working on your product. you, say, carve the wood to make something, and someone else actually puts the pieces of wood together. now how do you split the value up between the two of you? what if there are two people carving the wood and one person putting the pieces together? is it split evenly amongst the three people?

8th April 2007, 06:59

suppose there are two people working on your product. you, say, carve the wood to make something, and someone else actually puts the pieces of wood together. now how do you split the value up between the two of you? what if there are two people carving the wood and one person putting the pieces together? is it split evenly amongst the three people?

I'm not going to sit around and answer your meaningless questions as you try to make this harder, because you're completely missing the point; we're not talking about individual workers, we're talking about the working class as a whole getting the full value of their labour, so if you want to make it harder then you can entertain yourself with these questions, but I'm not going to waste my time.

Red Tung

8th April 2007, 07:31

problem:

suppose there are two people working on your product. you, say, carve the wood to make something, and someone else actually puts the pieces of wood together. now how do you split the value up between the two of you? what if there are two people carving the wood and one person putting the pieces together? is it split evenly amongst the three people?

But, you can feel free to waste my time.

It depends on how much time and effort the individual jobs required and these are indeed measureable quantities if you really want them to be. The Taylorist method of time motion studies was employed by assembly line industrialist to squeeze every quantifiable measure of productivity from workers labouring in the factories.

We don't need to be so ruthless in profit extraction, but the same Taylorist timed motion studies can be employed to find what is an average and comfortable measure of effort required to fulfill any type of unskilled labour task. The proceeds of the "value" from sales would then be distributed respectively according to measured effort, but this time around with no need for extracting profits.

wtfm8lol

8th April 2007, 17:15

It depends on how much time and effort the individual jobs required and these are indeed measureable quantities if you really want them to be. The Taylorist method of time motion studies was employed by assembly line industrialist to squeeze every quantifiable measure of productivity from workers labouring in the factories.

if i understand this properly, more effort and more time lead to greater value in production. however i see a problem in this way of determining value as well. suppose a novice worker is the one cutting the wood and another novice is putting the wood together, and an experienced worker is cutting wood and an experienced worker is putting his wood together. the novice workers will put more effort into their product since they will need to pay great attention to every step, whereas the experienced workers will put less effort in since they know exactly how to do every step and it is natural for them to do so. the novices, at the end of the day, will have put more effort in and equal time, but will have less finished products than the experienced workers. your theory suggests that the novice workers have created more value, individually, but clearly the experienced workers have created more value in total according to the formula i was given before (Cost of final product - (Cost of materials + cost of means of production materialized in each product)).

We don't need to be so ruthless in profit extraction, but the same Taylorist timed motion studies can be employed to find what is an average and comfortable measure of effort required to fulfill any type of unskilled labour task. The proceeds of the "value" from sales would then be distributed respectively according to measured effort, but this time around with no need for extracting profits.

if you employ this, it seems as though you will be punishing experienced workers for being experienced and reward novices for being novices.

capitalist lawyer, come eat your crow you lil biiiotch! tongue.gif

do you ever say anything important?

8th April 2007, 17:45

if i understand this properly, more effort and more time lead to greater value in production. however i see a problem in this way of determining value as well. suppose a novice worker is the one cutting the wood and another novice is putting the wood together, and an experienced worker is cutting wood and an experienced worker is putting his wood together. the novice workers will put more effort into their product since they will need to pay great attention to every step, whereas the experienced workers will put less effort in since they know exactly how to do every step and it is natural for them to do so. the novices, at the end of the day, will have put more effort in and equal time, but will have less finished products than the experienced workers. your theory suggests that the novice workers have created more value, individually, but clearly the experienced workers have created more value in total according to the formula i was given before (Cost of final product - (Cost of materials + cost of means of production materialized in each product)).

"A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured?
Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value."
-Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Ch. 1, Section 1

Tungsten

8th April 2007, 18:26

A capitalist state is a process started and maintained by people. So when the means of production - of life - exists, and you do not have access to them, it is because someone is witholding them.
This is a non-sequitur. You don't starve on a desert island because some (who?) one is withholding the food, you starve because there wasn't any to begin with and you've failed to produce it. Adding the state to equation doesn't make it any different.

-

Sure, in theory I can be lord of the world if I own the air supply, but in theory who's going to help me do that?

So you can become an tyrannical overlord by taking everything away from the workers, but who's going to help you do that? Or in other words, "you and what army?" What are you going to pay your soldiers? Leftover scraps you've personally stolen from your fellow workers?
You're forgetting that this happens in Africa every other week. People just walk in amid the anarchy and sieze power. Usually by violence.

What you are missing here is that in a communal society, by definition everything is done and can only be done from acquiring community agreement.
What happens when certain sections of the community decide to circumvent "community agreement" and use violence to achieve their ends? Very possible. It's like saying that there won't be any disagreement or wars after the revolution because we'll all be nice to each other. It's utopian.

And who are "they" that are so cruel as to take away the results of the worker's labour? By definition everybody in that society is a worker that is engaged directly in production.
Read the previous paragraph. Promise one section of society something at the expense of others and watch the cruelty begin.

In that case, who's going to have the financial reserves to organize a violent force to take away their property? Again, "you and what army?"
You don't need financial reserves- just promise one section of society something at the expense of others. The payment will come later.

But, just in case the communal society comes upon a violent street gang bent on taking away their property, can the gang of robbers actually have any chance in hell of succeeding in their nefarious plans of enslaving an entire society of workers who are now angrily against them? Any would be oppressor or group of oppressors would be just as easily squashed as an ant under a thumb.
Like the Nazis were crushed under the thumb of the German masses before they could enslave them. Oh wait...they didn't.

This alternative would be even less satisfying when you realize that the knowledge exists, the labour exists and the resources exists to make this kind of primitive lifestyle unnecessary, but that due to the organization of society only the people with obscene levels of wealth gets to decide whether or not these resources get to be used and the sole deciding factor for whether or not resources get to be used is if it increases ownership of these resources (wealth) for the same people who are already wealthy.
This is what none of you understand: "We" don't have the labour. I have my labour, you have yours. I don't want yours and unless there's something in it for me, you're not getting mine. If you're honest, you're probably thinking the same.

You think the working class have an identical set of goals and interests whereas they don't, and you think the rich also have an identical set of goals and interests; they don't either.

-

Of course. And what exactly are we to do once we have arrived in an African country where we cannot even speak the local language? I suppose we might be able to find some starving people and given them some money, but, at most, that will just keep them alive for a few more days until we run out of money.
Excuses excuses... <_<

In other words, you are not a murderer as long as you donate a large portion of your income to charity. How large? Well, that depends. It would be silly to give all your money away today, since then you would have nothing left to give tomorrow. The best option is to maximize the total sum of your donations to charity over the course of your entire lifetime.
When did killing someone suddenly become a matter of degree? So we've gone from leaving a few thousand to starve to leaving a few hundred instead. Okay, so now we're not murderers? You've seriously fucked up here.

Are you maximising your donations? I doubt it otherwise you wouldn't be posting here, you'd be working to get more money to donate. You're not feeding the starving, you're just tossing them a few crumbs, so please spare me the sanctimony.

Red Tung

9th April 2007, 07:37

if i understand this properly, more effort and more time lead to greater value in production. however i see a problem in this way of determining value as well. suppose a novice worker is the one cutting the wood and another novice is putting the wood together, and an experienced worker is cutting wood and an experienced worker is putting his wood together. the novice workers will put more effort into their product since they will need to pay great attention to every step, whereas the experienced workers will put less effort in since they know exactly how to do every step and it is natural for them to do so. the novices, at the end of the day, will have put more effort in and equal time, but will have less finished products than the experienced workers. your theory suggests that the novice workers have created more value, individually, but clearly the experienced workers have created more value in total according to the formula i was given before (Cost of final product - (Cost of materials + cost of means of production materialized in each product)).

:rolleyes:

Yes, I suppose that could be the case if the plan as I devised it was implemented by an elementary school kid. And, from your response in discovering the "flaw" in what is otherwise a very good way to objectively measure productive labour it could just as well be implied that you have about the same intelligence and problem solving skills as an elementary school kid.

Now, for the mentally slow, let me explain carefully. Factoring in corresponding personal attributes like body type and physical fitness any person can be objectively measured using time motion studies as to what he/she can reasonably and comfortably accomplish within a certain period of time (give or take a couple of minutes, human beings are not perfect) doing a specific task if the person was competent in doing it. Incompetency and unrelated "work" that is not directly contributing to the completion of the task specified represents an inefficiency to what is the specified objective cost as empirically measured from doing the time motion studies in the first place.

If I perform a few pushups before making my factory widget, that count as much as if I fumbled my widget a few times while making it. In other words, it counts for nothing because it represents wasted effort (an inefficiency) in production and I never stated anything about rewarding inefficiency. If inefficiency and wastage is subtracted from specified predetermined costs then jokers who like doing unrelated "work" that contributes nothing to the completion of a task as well as novices will be paid less than the average competent worker. Surpluses from workers performing above average could just as well be rewarded as the bonus above what could be reasonably expected from that person's given body type and fitness level.

Now, this is only a temporary measure to what is a more complete and desirable solution of automating repetitive work that can be performed by mindless machines, but given that most mindless people also treat their work with a sense of pride no matter how boring, stupid and repetitive it is then perhaps not automating all that stupid grunt work may be a good thing. It keeps them from doing more destructive things like going into politics.

wtfm8lol

9th April 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 08, 2007 11:45 am

if i understand this properly, more effort and more time lead to greater value in production. however i see a problem in this way of determining value as well. suppose a novice worker is the one cutting the wood and another novice is putting the wood together, and an experienced worker is cutting wood and an experienced worker is putting his wood together. the novice workers will put more effort into their product since they will need to pay great attention to every step, whereas the experienced workers will put less effort in since they know exactly how to do every step and it is natural for them to do so. the novices, at the end of the day, will have put more effort in and equal time, but will have less finished products than the experienced workers. your theory suggests that the novice workers have created more value, individually, but clearly the experienced workers have created more value in total according to the formula i was given before (Cost of final product - (Cost of materials + cost of means of production materialized in each product)).

"A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured?
Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value."
-Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Ch. 1, Section 1
that's not right, though. person A weaves a shirt. person B weaves a sweater. they spend the same amount of time weaving, putting forth the same effort. however, its the middle of the summer, so person B's labor was useless. his labor is not useless because he produced his article under lower than normal conditions of production and it is not useless because he had a below average degree of skill or exerted a below average intensity of labor power. his labor is worthless because the sweater has no utility. since you know beforehand that his labor will go towards producing something with no utility, you will tell me his labor was wasted effort, but you only know his effort was wasted because you know his product will have no utility. it seems as though every defense of the labor theory of value is really an attempt to reconcile it with the utility theory of value, which is a remarkably poor example of the scientific method, especially coming from a group which claims to base all of its theories on material observation and scientific reasoning.

Yes, I suppose that could be the case if the plan as I devised it was implemented by an elementary school kid. And, from your response in discovering the "flaw" in what is otherwise a very good way to objectively measure productive labour it could just as well be implied that you have about the same intelligence and problem solving skills as an elementary school kid.

it's objectively a POOR way to measure value, since value depends on how useful some product is to some person and does not depend on how much labor happened to go in to creating the product. when i decide the relative value a certain product has, i dont care how much human labor went in to it. i care how much its going to help me.

Now, for the mentally slow, let me explain carefully. Factoring in corresponding personal attributes like body type and physical fitness any person can be objectively measured using time motion studies as to what he/she can reasonably and comfortably accomplish within a certain period of time (give or take a couple of minutes, human beings are not perfect) doing a specific task if the person was competent in doing it. Incompetency and unrelated "work" that is not directly contributing to the completion of the task specified represents an inefficiency to what is the specified objective cost as empirically measured from doing the time motion studies in the first place.

If I perform a few pushups before making my factory widget, that count as much as if I fumbled my widget a few times while making it. In other words, it counts for nothing because it represents wasted effort (an inefficiency) in production and I never stated anything about rewarding inefficiency. If inefficiency and wastage is subtracted from specified predetermined costs then jokers who like doing unrelated "work" that contributes nothing to the completion of a task as well as novices will be paid less than the average competent worker. Surpluses from workers performing above average could just as well be rewarded as the bonus above what could be reasonably expected from that person's given body type and fitness level.

my problem, again, with your theory, is that even you are basing the value of the product of the person's labor on the utility of whatever is created with the labor and trying to reconcile your poor and worthless theory with a more respected theory when it would clearly be better to throw the labor theory of value away. and in case you're wondering, throwing around shitty personal insults doesnt make you look very intelligent, which really isn't helping your case since youre simultaneously defending a very flawed theory.

9th April 2007, 18:09

that's not right, though. person A weaves a shirt. person B weaves a sweater. they spend the same amount of time weaving, putting forth the same effort. however, its the middle of the summer, so person B's labor was useless. his labor is not useless because he produced his article under lower than normal conditions of production and it is not useless because he had a below average degree of skill or exerted a below average intensity of labor power. his labor is worthless because the sweater has no utility. since you know beforehand that his labor will go towards producing something with no utility, you will tell me his labor was wasted effort, but you only know his effort was wasted because you know his product will have no utility.

Value is measured in productive, homogeneous, simple human labour. I've gone over this repeatedly. It's a unit.

it seems as though every defense of the labor theory of value is really an attempt to reconcile it with the utility theory of value, which is a remarkably poor example of the scientific method, especially coming from a group which claims to base all of its theories on material observation and scientific reasoning.

Of course, you're wrong, as always. The subjective theory of value says that value is determined by the level of demand. The Labour Theory of Value says that something can either be demanded or not demanded (i.e. it can be useful or not useful) and that the extent of demand for a particular commodity is irrelevant. This isn't an attempt to "reconcile the Labour Theory of Value with the utility theory" in any sense, since this is part of the Labour Theory of Value and always has been since Marx wrote Capital (and even earlier).

wtfm8lol

9th April 2007, 18:24

Value is measured in productive, homogeneous, simple human labour. I've gone over this repeatedly. It's a unit.

fine, if you want to define value as that. but that value isn't necessarily representative of how much people are willing to give up for the product and so that unit is entirely pointless.

9th April 2007, 18:29

fine, if you want to define value as that. but that value isn't necessarily representative of how much people are willing to give up for the product and so that unit is entirely pointless.

Value isn't the same thing in Marxist Economics as Subjectivist Economics. Subjectivist Economics is concerned with the price of individual transactions, whereas Marxist Economics is concerned with the development of capitalism as a whole. The prices of commodities fluctuates constantly, but equilibrates to its cost of production.

ZX3

9th April 2007, 19:55

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 09, 2007 12:29 pm

fine, if you want to define value as that. but that value isn't necessarily representative of how much people are willing to give up for the product and so that unit is entirely pointless.

Value isn't the same thing in Marxist Economics as Subjectivist Economics. Subjectivist Economics is concerned with the price of individual transactions, whereas Marxist Economics is concerned with the development of capitalism as a whole. The prices of commodities fluctuates constantly, but equilibrates to its cost of production.
Who was that geneticist back in the 30s in the USSR was postulating all these insane arguments showing how genetics proved socialism was the way to go? Lysenko, I believe. Criticism by western geneticists as to its correctness did not matter, because a different theory of genetics was being proposed by that fellow.

Anyhow, the only relevency in bringing this up is that it does not mean anything to say "Marxist economics concerns..." One still has to prove it will do what it says.

And if Marxist economics states that demand for items by consmers is not relevent to value, then the Marxist economy is going to have a major problem in allocating resources effectively, since it states it demand for items does not matter. The end result seems to be rather irratinal.

And, Lo! Socialist economies during the 20th Century, those who claimed to have the correct interpretation of Marx, suffered from shortages of all items, as they were unable to effectively allocate resources.

RNK

9th April 2007, 20:01

And, Lo! Socialist economies during the 20th Century, those who claimed to have the correct interpretation of Marx, suffered from shortages of all items, as they were unable to effectively allocate resources.

Incorrect. It wasn't a matter of allocation; it was a matter of production. Communism makes very clear the need of a highly-developed industry in order to produce a commodity surplus. The USSR, China, and Cuba, lacked such industries; they also lacked the willpower to develop this. Particularly during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was highly pre-occupied with developing a massive military to defend against the West, when it should have been developing public industry.

So no, it wasn't a matter of allocation.

ZX3

9th April 2007, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:01 pm

Incorrect. It wasn't a matter of allocation; it was a matter of production. Communism makes very clear the need of a highly-developed industry in order to produce a commodity surplus. The USSR, China, and Cuba, lacked such industries; they also lacked the willpower to develop this. Particularly during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was highly pre-occupied with developing a massive military to defend against the West, when it should have been developing public industry.

So no, it wasn't a matter of allocation.
There will never be a situation where is a "highly developed industry." This is because of changing needs and wants, improved technologies, vastly different items ect. Production is also based upon allocation. The communists are simply wrong awaiting for that golden moment.

Is the UK more ripe for a revolution in 2007, than in 1883?

wtfm8lol

9th April 2007, 20:16

So no, it wasn't a matter of allocation.

wait, what? you jsut said the USSR was allocating too many resources to the military and not enough to public goods, but it wasn't a matter of allocation?

9th April 2007, 23:44

Anyhow, the only relevency in bringing this up is that it does not mean anything to say "Marxist economics concerns..." One still has to prove it will do what it says.

It's pretty much proven itself; if you read Capital you will see that the development of capitalism has fallen along the lines that Marx outlined 150 years ago.

And if Marxist economics states that demand for items by consmers is not relevent to value, then the Marxist economy is going to have a major problem in allocating resources effectively, since it states it demand for items does not matter. The end result seems to be rather irratinal.

I don't think I ever said that.

And, Lo! Socialist economies during the 20th Century, those who claimed to have the correct interpretation of Marx, suffered from shortages of all items, as they were unable to effectively allocate resources.

Uh, that has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist economics, which deals solely with an analysis of capitalist society and its economy.

RNK

10th April 2007, 00:14

wait, what? you jsut said the USSR was allocating too many resources to the military and not enough to public goods, but it wasn't a matter of allocation?

No; I said the commodity shortages in the USSR wasn't because of misallocation of existing production - it was the failure to develop production.

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 02:47

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 08, 2007 06:31 am

It depends on how much time and effort the individual jobs required and these are indeed measureable quantities if you really want them to be. The Taylorist method of time motion studies was employed by assembly line industrialist to squeeze every quantifiable measure of productivity from workers labouring in the factories.

Taylorism was largely rejected by corporate America before you were even born.

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 02:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:14 pm

wait, what? you jsut said the USSR was allocating too many resources to the military and not enough to public goods, but it wasn't a matter of allocation?

No; I said the commodity shortages in the USSR wasn't because of misallocation of existing production - it was the failure to develop production.
The resources to develop production were misallocated in the Soviet Union. Stovepiping was horrible, and a lot of decisions were made for political reasons (which would be inevitable in a communist system) instead of efficiency reasons.

Read bullet 5., "Bureaucratic Resistance" on page 10 of this document. (http://www.haverford.edu/econ/Faculty/Kontorovich/documents/SlavicReviewPlus.pdf) It explains it perfectly. Trust me, I work in government. We bureaucrats do this all the time. And this is what will happen that will cause communism to stall economically. Every time.

The Sloth

10th April 2007, 03:00

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 03:07

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 07, 2007 12:40 am

Do you seriously believe that people who won't work should suffer the punishment of exposure and starvation?

Yes.

What would you do to someone who simply refused to work? Enslave them to save their life? What makes you think people need to be forced to work in the first place?

Well let's see.

In capitalism, people are forced to work or they starve. They all know this, yet some refuse to work anyway.

Your proposition seems to be that, despite this fact, if work is made voluntary, then they'll work.

In other words, when given the choice between working and living life under threat of exposure and starvation certain people will not work; but when given the "opportunity" to work if they feel like it without such consequences, then they'll choose to work.

Explain to me please if that's correct and if so how it makes any sense whatsoever.

Then answer me this, is your support for communism really based simply on a desire to not have to work?

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 03:08

The Sloth

10th April 2007, 03:09

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 10, 2007 01:50 am--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 10, 2007 01:50 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 11:14 pm

wait, what? you jsut said the USSR was allocating too many resources to the military and not enough to public goods, but it wasn't a matter of allocation?

No; I said the commodity shortages in the USSR wasn't because of misallocation of existing production - it was the failure to develop production.

The resources to develop production were misallocated in the Soviet Union. Stovepiping was horrible, and a lot of decisions were made for political reasons (which would be inevitable in a communist system) instead of efficiency reasons.

Read bullet 5., "Bureaucratic Resistance" on page 10 of this document. (http://www.haverford.edu/econ/Faculty/Kontorovich/documents/SlavicReviewPlus.pdf) It explains it perfectly. Trust me, I work in government. We bureaucrats do this all the time. And this is what will happen that will cause communism to stall economically. Every time. [/b]
t_wolves_fan,

this is somewhat of a word game. "misallocation of existing production" and "the failure to develop production" are essentially the same thing, unless one clearly defines the specific differences, with industry examples, of course.

if by "misallocation" we mean that useless industry was forced to develop (e.g., nuclear bombs) rather stupidly, it may be so.

at the same time, there was a "failure to develop production" in the sense that, say, the successful production of x was measured not so much by its utility, but by gross tonnage. so, if the ussr needed three-inch sheet metal, the factory administration in some region -- under threat and/or fear of underproduction -- would set workers to produce one-inch sheet metal instead, simply because it was far easier to make. regardless, the tonnage would add up. if by rotten luck it did not, pencils are called in, and figures re-arranged. the silly bureaucracy, both inside and outside the factory, did not really care, given 1) stupidity, 2) ease of confusion, 3) general indifference. whatever; the subterfuge was there, and that's what mattered.

The Sloth

10th April 2007, 03:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:08 am
It's a good thing the system doesn't work that way.
indeed, because a general monopoly on food and/or production is a natural right. after all, the mystique of the world requires us to divide it into sections which are essentially equal, if only because everyone in the world is a democratic participant in such profound decisions.

The Sloth

10th April 2007, 03:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:26 pm
This is a non-sequitur. You don't starve on a desert island because some (who?) one is withholding the food, you starve because there wasn't any to begin with and you've failed to produce it. Adding the state to equation doesn't make it any different.
the world is not a desert island, tungsten.

yeah, it's absurd to add "the state" to an equation whose terms include a social and physical void. in such cases, what would be the point ?

but, i suspect such scenarios don't really interest us.

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 03:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:11 am

The difference is in a communal setting anyone who works on something benefits from his own work. If someone refuses to work for the community (I don't know why they would and it should be a non-issue based on human nature)
Pure fantasy.

then the community would not be obliged to give him stuff,

Just like capitalism. You go on to explain why something the same is different, but it's the same.

Capialism: Have to work to get money to get stuff from society.
Communism: Have to work to get stuff from society.

Money is extra in capitalism, but it boils down to be the same thing.

if he wants to grow his own food, and make his own shelter no one would stop him, but thats not wage labor.

Wow, I'm sure he could build quite a great abode and eat very well on his own, especially if the global "commune" declares all resources as communally owned. So even in communism he still must work - even if solely for himself - to eat and not freeze to death.

Again, work or die. It all boils down to the same thing.

People working together as equals and reaping the benefits of what they produce...

Which doesn't end up working because people inevitably fight over put in more work and who deserves more benefit. I know you like to believe that you're smart enough that if everyone would just listen to you everything would be great, but it just isn't going to happen. You have to accept that eventually.

is not the same as someones work profiting someone else while the worker is just given wages to keep him alive as a compensation for his labor, not what he produced.

Except that wages will go up over time and across generations depending on work ethic and attitude.

The difference between leaving a Commune is that your leaving as an equal, your not choosing between masters

Yes you are. Why would you leave the commune? You'd leave because they wouldn't give you enough stuff (because they're your master) or because they'd demand that you work (because they're your master) to receive benefits.

Again, there is no significant difference.

your choosing between communities and communes, sure you can leave a wage paying job, but who Capitalists own pretty much all production so you gotta work for someone,

You just explained the similarities again:

You want different rewards or conditions? Change jobs/communes.

Same essential choice.

in a Communist society there will be no ownership, if you want to work together fine, if you want to work alone fine, if youd rather work with some people rather than others fine.

Again same essential choice.

Want to work alone? Capitalism: start your own business. Communism: live by yourself. Neither guarantees success, does it?

If the revolution is global, its not just one big commune, and I ask you this, do you think ANYONE would rather leave a communal setting, where they are parteners, find someone who will be their boss and master and work for them becoming voluntary slaves?

Yes, I think people will leave communal settings because they've done so in the past. We've had communes in the United States, they've failed because people didn't get along. We have cooperatives in the United States (group housing), people leave all the time because they don't get along. We've had employee-owned businesses where employees or managers leave because they don't like the direction/policies of the firm.

You also forget that in capitalism you can start your own business and be your own master.

The real problem is that you really believe that large groups of people can just get together and reach consensus on everything and it will all be ok. It won't.

People are entitled to the right to food and shelter, if they can work for it, then they must be allowed to work for it, freely, not under a boss,

Except the commune is their boss, isn't it? C'mon now, yes it is. A commune cannot work if everyone just does their own thing, can it? They must conform to the wishes of the commune for the commune to work, right?

if they cannot, I believe it is up to the community or the family to support them.

The question is not cannot, it's will not. What if they will not?

But then again, I ask you to seriously consider if anyone will just flatly refuse to do any work.

Well they do now, so why wouldn't they in Candyland?

t_wolves_fan

10th April 2007, 03:23

Originally posted by The Sloth+April 10, 2007 02:13 am--> (The Sloth @ April 10, 2007 02:13 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 02:08 am
It's a good thing the system doesn't work that way.
indeed, because a general monopoly on food and/or production is a natural right. after all, the mystique of the world requires us to divide it into sections which are essentially equal, if only because everyone in the world is a democratic participant in such profound decisions. [/b]
LOL, let's have a global vote on producing everything and see how minutes it takes to run out of food.

Red Tung

10th April 2007, 05:27

since value depends on how useful some product is to some person and does not depend on how much labor happened to go in to creating the product. when i decide the relative value a certain product has, i dont care how much human labor went in to it. i care how much its going to help me.

And usefulness correlates with a subjectively determined price, how? A diamond other than for limited industrial applications is more than useless. It creates unnecessary (and ultimately detrimental in value) criminal activity for something that is as useful for the ordinary person as a piece of broken glass on the ground. While food and medicine is very useful and cheap to produce, but is often priced out of reach for people who demand it because of its usefulness. But, if it's priced too cheap then everybody can satisfy their demand for something that doesn't need to be priced that high to physically produce in the first place, but the owners that can actually have the capability of producing that much lose their business. Isn't that a contradiction in itself in being capable of physically producing, but not being able to sustain "financial" operations? Why this extra impediment of "financial" constraints then? Why is it needed when it just hinders physically possible production?

Further, shouldn't high demand lower the cost of something because more people are contributing to the production of the said commodity by purchasing it so that the proceeds of such purchase would be going into the purchase of production equipment and therefore lowering the cost due to scarcity? Why is it then that speculative bubble exists in which highly demanded goods are priced higher than when it was in lower demand? By logically assuming that a higher quantity of purchase leads to more resources allocated to satisfy the increased demand, speculative bubbles of high prices for high demand logically should not exists.

Next, real demand and purchases of a subjectively priced item does not correspond well. People without an income still demand things that may or may not actually take a corresponding number of people to produce. Take, software for instance. Once it's produced, the job of the programmer has ended. Now, assuming that we've progressed into the beginnings of the post-industrial world where less people are actually needed to perform direct production because assembly line techniques coupled with computer technology (that once upon a time the programmers made) then who's going to satisfy the demand of the products that are now priced out of reach from those who demanded it, since they now have less income available to purchase what they demand?

The only conclusion possible is that the whole money/wages/prices system is obsolete since it never actually measure real demand of any sort and it breaks its own justification for existing by contradicting itself on too many occasions to count.

my problem, again, with your theory, is that even you are basing the value of the product of the person's labor on the utility of whatever is created with the labor and trying to reconcile your poor and worthless theory with a more respected theory when it would clearly be better to throw the labor theory of value away. and in case you're wondering, throwing around shitty personal insults doesnt make you look very intelligent, which really isn't helping your case since youre simultaneously defending a very flawed theory.

And, the reason why it is more respected is? Does it work? For the whold world?

Oh, and it's is not the labour theory of value anymore than logically stating that quantity demanded is the only way of measuring demand which should be obvious for anybody wth a logical mind which clearly you do not have. Cost and demand are entirely different concepts for anybody rational enough to figure it out. One is physical, finite, unambiguous and quantifiable and the other is subjective, ambiguous and unquantifiable. It makes about as much sense to quantify demand through price as measuring happiness by some general formula.

And stating a one paragraph retort by stating "it is a very flawed theory" helps your case? The insults are because your response insults my intelligence. Come up with a better response with a logical line or reasoning and you won't get what you deserve for trying my patience.

The Sloth

10th April 2007, 05:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 am
LOL, let's have a global vote on producing everything and see how minutes it takes to run out of food.
wolf,

re-read my post, esp. in light of what i was replying to. perhaps to you, words like "mystique" and "natural right," if typed without a chuckle, do not sound sarcastic.

hmph, very well. just try to be more careful next time, and for god's sake, get w/ the hyperbolic lingo.

Red Tung

10th April 2007, 09:05

You're forgetting that this happens in Africa every other week. People just walk in amid the anarchy and sieze power. Usually by violence.

That's true, but who funds these criminals? Who's giving them guns? Further, money is a promise to pay and only valuable if the payee has confidence in this promise and so far the promise holds up because things of actual value can still be exchanged for it. But, what is debt and interest? It is a promise to pay for things in the future that haven't been produced yet. And, what institution practically owns the world? It's the same people that magically creates money out of promises to pay in future value, the banks. A collapse is inevitable.

What you are missing here is that in a communal society, by definition everything is done and can only be done from acquiring community agreement.
What happens when certain sections of the community decide to circumvent "community agreement" and use violence to achieve their ends? Very possible. It's like saying that there won't be any disagreement or wars after the revolution because we'll all be nice to each other. It's utopian.

Sure, but even now why is there no civil war within countries of relative prosperity and have good social programs that taxes the rich and nobody really seems to mind? Scandinavian countries have one of the best public social programs in the world, but are also heavily taxed. By your logic, the rich should be able to raise armies of hugely discontented people who are ready to resort to violence. Last time I've checked Sweden has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

Also, Scandinavian countries are recently rated as having best educated and technologically innovative workers. Care to make any wagers that highly educated people would fall for the same racialist or religious garbage as the Nazis did 70 years ago or that primitive, superstitious Africans are now?

And who are "they" that are so cruel as to take away the results of the worker's labour? By definition everybody in that society is a worker that is engaged directly in production.
Read the previous paragraph. Promise one section of society something at the expense of others and watch the cruelty begin.

And, why exactly does it have to be at the expense of another? I thought you don't believe in zero-sum games. Although now every economy in the world is run as a zero-sum game. Not surprising as the value of money is subjective and relative in value to who has the most within a single given currency. But, why do you assume that the use of money is a permanent feature? You assume too much don't you?

In that case, who's going to have the financial reserves to organize a violent force to take away their property? Again, "you and what army?"
You don't need financial reserves- just promise one section of society something at the expense of others. The payment will come later.

:lol: Just, go out on the street and yell at random people to start following your orders and kill people who you perceived to have wronged you and tell me how far you get.

But, just in case the communal society comes upon a violent street gang bent on taking away their property, can the gang of robbers actually have any chance in hell of succeeding in their nefarious plans of enslaving an entire society of workers who are now angrily against them? Any would be oppressor or group of oppressors would be just as easily squashed as an ant under a thumb.Like the Nazis were crushed under the thumb of the German masses before they could enslave them. Oh wait...they didn't.

The Nazis were largely funded by western corporate interests who wanted to prevent a revolution from happening in the most likely place where it could have actually have a chance at succeeding, the third most industrialized country in the world at the time with a ready-made infrastructure and large working population. Who do you think could have funded the many propaganda rallies that Hitler went on? The deutchemark had already collapsed and was not worth the paper it was printed on.

This alternative would be even less satisfying when you realize that the knowledge exists, the labour exists and the resources exists to make this kind of primitive lifestyle unnecessary, but that due to the organization of society only the people with obscene levels of wealth gets to decide whether or not these resources get to be used and the sole deciding factor for whether or not resources get to be used is if it increases ownership of these resources (wealth) for the same people who are already wealthy.
This is what none of you understand: "We" don't have the labour. I have my labour, you have yours. I don't want yours and unless there's something in it for me, you're not getting mine. If you're honest, you're probably thinking the same.

You think the working class have an identical set of goals and interests whereas they don't, and you think the rich also have an identical set of goals and interests; they don't either.

True, most work is quite alienating and also quite unnecessary if better alternatives were put into place.

But, work only becomes drudgery where you hate it enough to exchange it for your gain at the expense of somebody else's loss only under conditions where you don't intrinsically find any pleasure in doing your work and only if the results of your work belong to somebody else, not your property, not shared as public property, but belongs to somebody else.

Which social-economic system has a set of legally binding laws on private property and also employer-employee relations?

And, when I say this I include all the former "Communist" states too. They have employer-employee relations.

Tungsten

10th April 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:26 pm
-"I'm out of strawberries so I'm forced to eat blackberries" - not force.
minute dietary choices and/or obligations are rather flimsy concepts to base your philosophy around. furthermore, larger social questions cannot be equated with the minute, and, naturally, cannot be forced from their social context, at the risk of absurdity.
That was merely an anology to demonstrate a universal principle. You've missed the boat. The point is, people in this country aren't forced to work by threat of violence and there's a difference between that and failing to work to support yourself and suffering in the process.

the world is not a desert island, tungsten.
It is unless someone works to make it otherwise. Comodities don't just fall from heaven.

-

First of all, ignoring the pathetic attempt to claim that banks rule the world and are responsible for African dictatorships.

Sure, but even now why is there no civil war within countries of relative prosperity and have good social programs that taxes the rich and nobody really seems to mind?
Who says nobody seems to mind. I'm sure slavery didn't bother anyone at one time too.

Scandinavian countries have one of the best public social programs in the world, but are also heavily taxed. By your logic, the rich should be able to raise armies of hugely discontented people who are ready to resort to violence. Last time I've checked Sweden has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.
Perhaps they're not discontended because they think they're getting something back. Silence != support and scandanavians aren't exactly the sort of people who start a revolution at the drop of a hat.

How did the taxes get this high? Boiling the frog.

Also, Scandinavian countries are recently rated as having best educated and technologically innovative workers. Care to make any wagers that highly educated people would fall for the same racialist or religious garbage as the Nazis did 70 years ago or that primitive, superstitious Africans are now?
What difference does that make? Even fucking GWB has a degree. Education does not grant people immunity to superstition or racist behaviour.

And, why exactly does it have to be at the expense of another? I thought you don't believe in zero-sum games.
I don't support at-the-expense-of-another systems, not on principle. I'm telling you how people tend to behave.

Just, go out on the street and yell at random people to start following your orders and kill people who you perceived to have wronged you and tell me how far you get.
No, you're right. Asking some people to kill others over some percieved wrong could never be used as a tool to get someone into power. No body would be stupid enough to fall for that one.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5290/dreyfushitlersalute2gs9.jpg
Isn't that right, boys? All those who agree raise your hands.

The Nazis were largely funded by western corporate interests who wanted to prevent a revolution from happening in the most likely place where it could have actually have a chance at succeeding, the third most industrialized country in the world at the time with a ready-made infrastructure and large working population.
I was wondering how long it would be before I heard this self-aggrandising nonsense. <_<

No, the Nazi party wasn't put in place by some vaguely allied class of people who were frightened that communists were planning some imminent global revolution. There weren't enough of them to vote to put it in power. A national revolution perhaps (which doesn't explain the foreign investment), but the fact that German businessmen would have preferred slavery under Hitler to firing squads under the communists shouldn't come a shock to anyone with a functioning brain, nor should the fact that the workers didn't give a shit one way or the other. This doesn't mean that replacing Hitler with some communist stooge would have prevented a 12 year long bloodbath and guaranteed heaven on earth. Not at all. Most likely such a system would have collapsed later in a similar fashion to the Soviet union.

No doubt with someone later insisting that it wasn't real comminism, but state capitalism, and that real communism was never tried. I know the script, you see.

Nazism was just a spin off of communism, it's social policy was arranged via racial/national, rather than economic lines, which, like communism, cared nothing for freedom, but unlike communism, retained a centrist economic policy, favouring a tightly but not totally-controlled market system.

Who do you think could have funded the many propaganda rallies that Hitler went on? The deutchemark had already collapsed and was not worth the paper it was printed on.
That's interesting. So who was it? It doesn't really matter who; I don't think people fund propaganda rallies without expecting something in return, do they? Thanks for proving my point- and for proving what you were trying to disprove.

But, work only becomes drudgery where you hate it enough to exchange it for your gain at the expense of somebody else's loss only under conditions where you don't intrinsically find any pleasure in doing your work
Who finds work intrinsically pleasurable, relative to their hobbies or sitting at watching TV? Show me them.

and only if the results of your work belong to somebody else, not your property, not shared as public property, but belongs to somebody else.
This is entirely dependent entirely on the individual. Most people don't give a toss one way or the other. You might find creating public, rather than private property an incentive to work, but others won't. In fact, most people don't and won't care. You don't get it. Not everyone thinks like you or happens to share your set of values. Which is why we say they're subjective.

That's something I understand and you don't.

Which social-economic system has a set of legally binding laws on private property and also employer-employee relations?
All of them. Does a presumably hypothetical communist society not have legally binding laws prohibiting private property? Isn't that going to cause resentment for many, if not the majority? Are you utopian enough to assume that after the revoltion, all people's values will run parallel with your own?

RNK

10th April 2007, 20:09

Nazism was just a spin off of communism, it's social policy was arranged via racial/national, rather than economic lines, which, like communism, cared nothing for freedom, but unlike communism, retained a centrist economic policy, favouring a tightly but not totally-controlled market system.

I don't know what's worse -- your false knowledge of Communism, or false knowledge of Nazism.

The only thing Nazism has in common with Communism is that Hitler and his Nazis exploited the misery of the working and lower classes, feeding them left-wing socialist rhetoric while enflaming and engineering their anger towards Hitler's ends. Hitler envisioned a country where the people are subservient to the betterment of the state; Socialism envisions a country where the state is subservient to the betterment of the people.

They are two very different principles, but judging by the rest of your opinions, I can understand why you're incapable of realizing this very obvious fact.

Red Tung

11th April 2007, 05:50

First of all, ignoring the pathetic attempt to claim that banks rule the world and are responsible for African dictatorships.

And how is it that they don't rule the world? The richest people in the world are in the business of financial services, just pick up any Fortune, Forbes, WSJ rag and read who is in the top of the rich and disgusting list.

Who says nobody seems to mind. I'm sure slavery didn't bother anyone at one time too.

Scandinavian countries have one of the best public social programs in the world, but are also heavily taxed. By your logic, the rich should be able to raise armies of hugely discontented people who are ready to resort to violence. Last time I've checked Sweden has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

And the violent rebellions and horror stories leaked to the press? Where are they? Of course for the rich media moguls they can make anything up if actually wanted to. So where is the horror stories of Swedish labour/concentration/re-education camps?

And your definition of slavery would be? There are many laws in place to force compliance on labour protection for those still employed in private enterprise, but that's simply human values enshrined in law for the ethical treatement of other human beings that most people on the planet agree on. As said before, Scandinavian countries are social-democratic and still allow for private profit runned business (nobody's perfect). Who are you to say that they shouldn't have these laws? Oh, I forget you don't consider people working under a boss to be human. Human resources maybe, but human beings, no.

Also, Scandinavian countries are recently rated as having best educated and technologically innovative workers. Care to make any wagers that highly educated people would fall for the same racialist or religious garbage as the Nazis did 70 years ago or that primitive, superstitious Africans are now?

What difference does that make? Even fucking GWB has a degree. Education does not grant people immunity to superstition or racist behaviour.

Yes, but an MBA doesn't really count as an education. What is there to learn in being a CEO? Intimidating your subordinates, treachery and making promises you can't keep so that people will work hard for your personal fortune while the workers get a fool's deal later? Intelligent isn't it? I suppose in a way it is, but only if the game still holds up.

Please, I can learn more about how things actually work for practical purposes from a trade school. As it stands now, the business universities like Yale and Harvard is more of a finishing school for the upper classes than a institution for the development of practical skills which explains why a good short-term memory and a few all-night cramming sessions is all you need to "pass through" all that verbal diarhea in the exams. The intelligent tool makers and tool users are not members of the ruling economic class as most people are well aware of.

And, why exactly does it have to be at the expense of another? I thought you don't believe in zero-sum games.

I don't support at-the-expense-of-another systems, not on principle. I'm telling you how people tend to behave.

They tend to behave in whatever way that will preserve or increase their happiness. Money as a means to accumulate personal possessions may be one factor, but only up to a point. The claim that happiness increases without end with increasing amounts of money or discontent increases without end with higher taxation is simply an unproven claim.

No, you're right. Asking some people to kill others over some percieved wrong could never be used as a tool to get someone into power. No body would be stupid enough to fall for that one.

But, you see that's where you are wrong. Hitler did the greatest harm to Germany with the emptying out of the educated middle classes. Anybody with enough intelligence could have seen years in advance what Germany would have became with the Nazis and the fled in droves. All that was left over was the obedient, stupid cattle that served as their unthinking stormtroopers. Why do you think America was able to develop the atomic bomb first? They accomplished it from top-rate intelligent scientists fleeing Europe who was then consider the scientific capital of the world. All the better for us with less stupid human cattle inhabiting the world.

Who finds work intrinsically pleasurable, relative to their hobbies or sitting at watching TV? Show me them.

Yes, but almost all breakthroughs in the sciences and arts came through people who loved their work and who find sitting down passively in front of a T.V. to watch intellectual midgets make fools of themselves unbearably boring. By me telling you this fact it you should obvious to you that I'm a member of this group and have nothing, but contempt for cow-like human idiots who think letting their mind rot is pleasurable.

Which social-economic system has a set of legally binding laws on private property and also employer-employee relations?

All of them. Does a presumably hypothetical communist society not have legally binding laws prohibiting private property? Isn't that going to cause resentment for many, if not the majority? Are you utopian enough to assume that after the revoltion, all people's values will run parallel with your own?

Yes, but did I say that communist society would be developed in contemporary times? Lenin being put up in a glass coffin to be worshipped like a god or Mao having his little red book being waved around and held as some sacred holy text should give you enough hints that the mass of present humanity isn't up to caliber for any sort of freely associating society. The mindless, ignorant spear throwers have descendents who are mindless, ignorant rifle shooters, so clearly human evolution hasn't stopped yet.

But, being trapped with a bunch of semi-intelligent, chattering cavemen isn't the only option for those who wish to escape their fate. Nuclear annihilation would be one option and space colonization would be another. But, maybe space colonization could preceded nuclear annihilation?

RGacky3

11th April 2007, 06:25

QUOTE (RGacky3 @ April 07, 2007 05:11 am)

The difference is in a communal setting anyone who works on something benefits from his own work. If someone refuses to work for the community (I don't know why they would and it should be a non-issue based on human nature)

Pure fantasy.

How so? If there is no boss, and no Capitalist, how would'nt someone benefit from their own work?

QUOTE
then the community would not be obliged to give him stuff,

Just like capitalism. You go on to explain why something the same is different, but it's the same.

Capialism: Have to work to get money to get stuff from society.
Communism: Have to work to get stuff from society.

Money is extra in capitalism, but it boils down to be the same thing.

QUOTE
if he wants to grow his own food, and make his own shelter no one would stop him, but thats not wage labor.

Wow, I'm sure he could build quite a great abode and eat very well on his own, especially if the global "commune" declares all resources as communally owned. So even in communism he still must work - even if solely for himself - to eat and not freeze to death.

Again, work or die. It all boils down to the same thing.

Of coarse you have to work, thats not the issue, I never said I was agaisnt work, I am against exploitation and Capitalism, the type of work done under communism is way different than under Capitalism, because under communism they arn't working for someone else. Also where do you get this idea of a 'global commune' I never mentioned anything even close to that. You saying you still have to work under communism is a pretty silly argument, because I agree its like saying "well under communism people will still get sick, so it does'nt work".

QUOTE
People working together as equals and reaping the benefits of what they produce...

Which doesn't end up working because people inevitably fight over put in more work and who deserves more benefit. I know you like to believe that you're smart enough that if everyone would just listen to you everything would be great, but it just isn't going to happen. You have to accept that eventually.

From each according to his ability to each according to his need, you have this notion that humans are naturally greedy and naturally lazy, which is'nt the case, and even if it was the case that people would fight over it, better that people argue over it and discuss it, than one person make the desicion for all, I personally have this wild notion that people have reason and can figure things out without a boss.

QUOTE
is not the same as someones work profiting someone else while the worker is just given wages to keep him alive as a compensation for his labor, not what he produced.

Except that wages will go up over time and across generations depending on work ethic and attitude.

THAT is pure fantasy, 100% dream world.

QUOTE
The difference between leaving a Commune is that your leaving as an equal, your not choosing between masters

Yes you are. Why would you leave the commune? You'd leave because they wouldn't give you enough stuff (because they're your master) or because they'd demand that you work (because they're your master) to receive benefits.

Again, there is no significant difference.

How can the commune be your master? The commune is'nt a seperate entity its a collection of free and equal people, the commune IS the individuals, and it only has as much power as people give to it.

Anyway instead of finish going point by point I just have to point out that you have only proven that communism is'nt 100% perfect, but you hav'nt proven that Capitalism is better, infact most of your statements almost assume that Communism is better and more just, but still not Candy land, which no one has claimed.

The Sloth

11th April 2007, 06:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:50 pm
You've missed the boat.
false; i'm steady sailin' past your driftwood. so, let's examine:

That was merely an anology to demonstrate a universal principle.

yes, and the "mere" analogy, by virtue of its alleged universality, simplifies the original question into a tight wad of comical mess. in other words, nomenclature.

existentialist-esque quibbles are "cool" to think about, but crumble when applied to real-world situations. at best, you get some shitty novel somewhere between ayn rand and sartre, but no where near concreteness.

The point is, people in this country aren't forced to work by threat of violence and there's a difference between that and failing to work to support yourself and suffering in the process.

"failing to work and suffering in the process" is a broad, sloppy category. a two year old cannot work, etc., mostly because people are good at fabricating exceptions to the rule (for better or worse). the only difference between you and i is the quality and range of the exceptions we admit, and the exceptions we reject. so, you'll need to rephrase the comment, or perhaps the premise.. as it stands, you've left no room for a genuine reply.

as for "violence," indeed not. yet, as social beings, it is not "violence" -- that is, the physical and possibly destructive contact of two separate bodies -- that we are interested in, but the effects of, and the different contexts it is found in. perhaps this is merely a word game; you're denying that poverty, etc. is "violent" because there are no guns involved. regardless, a choice between two undesirable alternatives reduces "freedom of choice" to a mere trifle -- that is, guns (in your vocabulary), and not even guns as real metallic things, but abstract concepts which you base your philosophy around. are brute force and violent manipulation are the only unimaginative terms you can see these struggles in ? if so, you're not thinking hard enough about the social context in which decisions are made.

The Sloth

11th April 2007, 06:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:50 pm
Nazism was just a spin off of communism, it's social policy was arranged via racial/national, rather than economic lines, which, like communism, cared nothing for freedom, but unlike communism, retained a centrist economic policy, favouring a tightly but not totally-controlled market system.

you are verbose. try this,

"nazism and communism are supremely ideological."

--

perhaps you didn't notice, but after claiming that "nazism was just a spin off of communism," the only similarity you mentioned was "cared nothing for freedom," thus attempting to collapse the two under some extremely broad criteria that, given its immense range, might as well include almost every other political arrangement that ever existed. so, in your simplified universe, pretty much any dictatorship is "fascism," as if 'tyranny' and 'totalitarianism' are identical trends and not unique reactions to separate historical contexts.

Kwisatz Haderach

11th April 2007, 07:38

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 07:37 am
you are verbose. try this,

"nazism and communism are supremely ideological."

--

perhaps you didn't notice, but after claiming that "nazism was just a spin off of communism," the only similarity you mentioned was "cared nothing for freedom," thus attempting to collapse the two under some extremely broad criteria that, given its immense range, might as well include almost every other political arrangement that ever existed. so, in your simplified universe, pretty much any dictatorship is "fascism," as if 'tyranny' and 'totalitarianism' are identical trends and not unique reactions to separate historical contexts.
What he really meant was,

"Nazism and communism oppose my political views. Everyone who opposes my political views belongs in the same category. They are to be arranged by the sole criterion of how far they are from my views."

That is the underlying principle that liberals used for creating the political category of "totalitarianism".

pusher robot

11th April 2007, 15:06

How can the commune be your master?

In exactly the same way that a democratic majority can be tyrannical. Is it so hard to understand? Any organization, whether you call it a "government," a "community," or a "syndicate," that has the power to give you what you want must also have the power to take it away.

you hav'nt proven that Capitalism is better

You have the burden of proof here. Capitalism is already in place to a moderate degree and has been extraordinarily successful at creating economic growth and providing the common man with technological wonders unthinkable mere decades prior. By the argument of most communists on this board, communism has never been succesfully implemented on a national scale, and where tried, it has produced death, ruin, and tyranny.

it you should obvious to you that I'm a member of this group and have nothing, but contempt for cow-like human idiots who think letting their mind rot is pleasurable.

And here we see what this ideology is usually about. It is about elitism. It is about rage that those peasants are free to make "wrong" choices, and resentment that the "wrong" people are rewarded. Capitalism is hated precisely because it is too free - it gives people the freedom to make even stupid, destructive choices, a fact that tends to gall their "betters."

t_wolves_fan

11th April 2007, 16:43

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 04:27 am

since value depends on how useful some product is to some person and does not depend on how much labor happened to go in to creating the product. when i decide the relative value a certain product has, i dont care how much human labor went in to it. i care how much its going to help me.

And usefulness correlates with a subjectively determined price, how?
Price is determined objectively by the market. You take all the purchases and prices and come up with an average market price. If you can make a profit charging $5 per item instead of $4, that's objective based on the number of purchases (revenue) vs. your costs.

The subjectivity is on the part of the purchaser, usually. Do they want to pay $X for the product? Then they will.

The individual purchase is subjective, the aggregate purchases put together provide subjective data.

It's not that hard.

diamond other than for limited industrial applications is more than useless. It creates unnecessary (and ultimately detrimental in value) criminal activity for something that is as useful for the ordinary person as a piece of broken glass on the ground.

And another poster suggested that you folks haven't decided what other people need and want. :lol:

t_wolves_fan

11th April 2007, 16:45

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11, 2007 04:50 am

First of all, ignoring the pathetic attempt to claim that banks rule the world and are responsible for African dictatorships.

And how is it that they don't rule the world?
Easy. Any state can simply nationalize the property of one of those banks, MNCs or rich people and they've instantly lost their wealth.

t_wolves_fan

11th April 2007, 16:47

Originally posted by The [email protected] 10, 2007 02:09 am

at the same time, there was a "failure to develop production" in the sense that, say, the successful production of x was measured not so much by its utility, but by gross tonnage. so, if the ussr needed three-inch sheet metal, the factory administration in some region -- under threat and/or fear of underproduction -- would set workers to produce one-inch sheet metal instead, simply because it was far easier to make. regardless, the tonnage would add up. if by rotten luck it did not, pencils are called in, and figures re-arranged. the silly bureaucracy, both inside and outside the factory, did not really care, given 1) stupidity, 2) ease of confusion, 3) general indifference. whatever; the subterfuge was there, and that's what mattered.
Which is precisely the problem with planned economies.

It'll happen almost every time. We bureaucrats are great at making people think things went just as planned.

What's your solution?

t_wolves_fan

11th April 2007, 16:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:25 am

QUOTE (RGacky3 @ April 07, 2007 05:11 am)

The difference is in a communal setting anyone who works on something benefits from his own work. If someone refuses to work for the community (I don't know why they would and it should be a non-issue based on human nature)

Pure fantasy.

How so? If there is no boss, and no Capitalist, how would'nt someone benefit from their own work?

No, the pure fantasy is the idea that everyone will happily work solely for the benefit of their community, especially if they get rewards either way.

if he wants to grow his own food, and make his own shelter no one would stop him, but thats not wage labor.

And what is his quality of life likely to be if he was responsible for growing all his own food, building his own house and sewing his own clothes?

Not very high, probably a log cabin in the woods.

Now compare that with capitalism: he can start his own business, where he is his own master. If he's successful, he can live much better than the hermit you'd have him be.

Of coarse you have to work, thats not the issue, I never said I was agaisnt work, I am against exploitation and Capitalism, the type of work done under communism is way different than under Capitalism, because under communism they arn't working for someone else.

You're working for the benefit of the commune aren't you? Aren't there other people in the commune?

Won't the commune vote to decide what work needs to be done and how resources will be allocated? Don't other people do the voting? Aren't you beholden to the results of the vote, otherwise you have to leave?

From each according to his ability to each according to his need, you have this notion that humans are naturally greedy and naturally lazy, which is'nt the case,

Yes it is.

and even if it was the case that people would fight over it, better that people argue over it and discuss it, than one person make the desicion for all, I personally have this wild notion that people have reason and can figure things out without a boss.

People won't "sit and discuss it", someone will go start their own army and take the place over. Or, someone will promise stability and get voted by the commune to take over, ala Castro or Chavez.

People never have just "sat and discussed it" and reached compromise, so why do you believe that you're smart enough to get them to do so?

is not the same as someones work profiting someone else while the worker is just given wages to keep him alive as a compensation for his labor, not what he produced.

Except that wages will go up over time and across generations depending on work ethic and attitude.

THAT is pure fantasy, 100% dream world.

Um, no it isn't. 28 years ago my parents were living in their car. Now I own my own home in a nice suburb and am in the top income quintile in the country.

See, the problem is you have nothing but your proclamations of "how it will work" while I have proof of people like myself moving up and down the socioeconomic scale every day, year, decade, and so on.

Do you understand that?

How can the commune be your master? The commune is'nt a seperate entity its a collection of free and equal people, the commune IS the individuals, and it only has as much power as people give to it.

Is everyone free to do as they please at all times in the commune?

Yes or no?

If yes, how does the commune organize production and distibution of societal rewards?

If no, then you've just contradicted yourself.

Yes or no, simple question.

Oh and I've said repeatedly capitalism isn't perfect, it's just better than the alternatives.

11th April 2007, 17:05

Demogorgon

11th April 2007, 17:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:07 am
...

Your proposition seems to be that, despite this fact, if work is made voluntary...
Who suggests that work should be voluntary?

Rather we reject the lie that selling your labour is voluntary undr capitalism

RGacky3

11th April 2007, 20:14

And what is his quality of life likely to be if he was responsible for growing all his own food, building his own house and sewing his own clothes?

Not very high, probably a log cabin in the woods.

Now compare that with capitalism: he can start his own business, where he is his own master. If he's successful, he can live much better than the hermit you'd have him be.

In a Communist system (I'll say Anarchist to be more correct) You can start your own business if you want too, and contribute what you produce to a community or commune or whatever in exchange for things they produce, or just have a situation where they can benefit from what you produce and you can benefit from what they produce, you don't have to be part of a collective if you don't wnat to and not being part of one does'nt mean you have to be a hermit.

Your use of the word commune is strange, I would call a group of people working together as equals in a certain industry a collective, a Co-Op, a commune I would describe as a free and equal community, consisting of people doing their own thing, and collectives. Its not a central all powerful entity.

No, the pure fantasy is the idea that everyone will happily work solely for the benefit of their community, especially if they get rewards either way.

I never said they will work solely for the benefit of their community, reqards either way? If no ones working for the benefit of the community no one is getting rewards, they will get rewards based on what they produce, or what the community produces, each according to his ability each according to his need. Its natural for people to want to contribute and feel useful, so I dont' think its pure fantasy. What is pure fantasy is the Capitalist idea that some how rich people controling the wealth benfits everyone, and that even though empirical evidence shows other wise, everyone should be well off in a Capitalist society.

Um, no it isn't. 28 years ago my parents were living in their car. Now I own my own home in a nice suburb and am in the top income quintile in the country.

See, the problem is you have nothing but your proclamations of "how it will work" while I have proof of people like myself moving up and down the socioeconomic scale every day, year, decade, and so on.

Do you understand that?

Thats a beautiful story, get your head out of your ass and look at the world.

Tungsten

11th April 2007, 21:44

The only thing Nazism has in common with Communism is that Hitler and his Nazis exploited the misery of the working and lower classes, feeding them left-wing socialist rhetoric while enflaming and engineering their anger towards Hitler's ends. Hitler envisioned a country where the people are subservient to the betterment of the state; Socialism envisions a country where the state is subservient to the betterment of the people.
Like that's going to happen. The parallels between communism and fascism might be few, but they're important ones. Why do you think both systems are generally considered crap and are both used as benchmarks of dystopia?
Because they had no repect for freedom and no tolerence for criticism. Who would want to live under such systems? It's not like this only happened in one or two of these regimes, is it? Show me the exceptions, if you disagree.

I though communism was supposed to be stateless anyway.

They are two very different principles, but judging by the rest of your opinions, I can understand why you're incapable of realizing this very obvious fact.
Fascism in practice- Millions murdered. Individual freedom sacrificed for state goals. Utopia nowhere in sight.
Communism in practice- Millions murdered. Individual freedom sacrificed for state goals. Utopia nowhere in sight.

The differences in principle must have been truly vast.

-

And how is it that they don't rule the world? The richest people in the world are in the business of financial services, just pick up any Fortune, Forbes, WSJ rag and read who is in the top of the rich and disgusting list.
I don't remember them being elected president, writing any laws, or declaring wars, do you? If you're going to start on the black helicopter shit, then consider this debate over.

And the violent rebellions and horror stories leaked to the press? Where are they? Of course for the rich media moguls they can make anything up if actually wanted to. So where is the horror stories of Swedish labour/concentration/re-education camps?
I never said it was communist.

As said before, Scandinavian countries are social-democratic and still allow for private profit runned business (nobody's perfect).
Most likely that's the only thing keeping it afloat.

Who are you to say that they shouldn't have these laws?
I'm not bothered, personally, although I've already stated my case.

Oh, I forget you don't consider people working under a boss to be human. Human resources maybe, but human beings, no.
You must be reading a different debate, because I've made no such suggestion.

Yes, but an MBA doesn't really count as an education. What is there to learn in being a CEO? Intimidating your subordinates, treachery and making promises you can't keep so that people will work hard for your personal fortune while the workers get a fool's deal later? Intelligent isn't it? I suppose in a way it is, but only if the game still holds up.
Do you actually know what a CEO does? I don't think any of you do. Did you just pull this description out of your ass, assuming that they're and do nothing except bully people? I don't believe that. My boss doesn't bully me. In fact, I've told him to piss off - those exact words - several times.

They accomplished it from top-rate intelligent scientists fleeing Europe who was then consider the scientific capital of the world. All the better for us with less stupid human cattle inhabiting the world.
That's sad because it's most likely all you're going to be left with shortly after the revolution. Who do you think is going to stick around and what for? Utopianism.

Yes, but almost all breakthroughs in the sciences and arts came through people who loved their work
Who's guaranteeing that they're going to love their work and that communism will let them do so? I hope you're not suggesting that we can just do whatever we want. I think this has been talked about.

-

yes, and the "mere" analogy, by virtue of its alleged universality, simplifies the original question into a tight wad of comical mess. in other words, nomenclature.

existentialist-esque quibbles are "cool" to think about, but crumble when applied to real-world situations. at best, you get some shitty novel somewhere between ayn rand and sartre, but no where near concreteness.
So what you're saying is, you can't actually formulate a prinicipled counter-argument. No worries, but there's nothing about what I said that was "nowhere near concreteness", or comical.

"failing to work and suffering in the process" is a broad, sloppy category. a two year old cannot work, etc., mostly because people are good at fabricating exceptions to the rule (for better or worse). the only difference between you and i is the quality and range of the exceptions we admit, and the exceptions we reject. so, you'll need to rephrase the comment, or perhaps the premise.. as it stands, you've left no room for a genuine reply.
Having to spelling out every single exception to every sinlge generalisation I make isn't reasonable and it's not in my job description either, I'm afraid.

as for "violence," indeed not. yet, as social beings, it is not "violence" -- that is, the physical and possibly destructive contact of two separate bodies -- that we are interested in, but the effects of, and the different contexts it is found in. perhaps this is merely a word game; you're denying that poverty, etc. is "violent" because there are no guns involved.
I don't think it's a word game as such. Violence isn't an essential trait of poverty, nor is "cucumber" or "orange", nor is violence inherently bad. The initiation of violence is almost always inherently bad, which is why we think it should be minimized.

regardless, a choice between two undesirable alternatives reduces "freedom of choice" to a mere trifle -- that is, guns (in your vocabulary), and not even guns as real metallic things, but abstract concepts which you base your philosophy around.
You seem to be implying here that lack of freedom (the "I'm not free to eat something because I've run out of it" mentioned earlier) is an open invitation to begin using violence against people who are not responsible and have lives of their own to lead? It might sound very peacenik to you, but violence isn't the answer.

are brute force and violent manipulation are the only unimaginative terms you can see these struggles in ? if so, you're not thinking hard enough about the social context in which decisions are made.
Some contexts are more complicated that others, but that's what most of them boil down to. Your worldview contains way too much fidgeting and hand-wringing.

-

Edric O

What he really meant was,

"Nazism and communism oppose my political views. Everyone who opposes my political views belongs in the same category. They are to be arranged by the sole criterion of how far they are from my views."

That is the underlying principle that liberals used for creating the political category of "totalitarianism".
Considering that I'm a libertarian minarchist, who opposes totalitarianism and eschews political/economic freedom, and that both systems mentioned have largely turned out to be both totalitarian and hostile to freedom, your attempt at sarcasm kind of falls flat doesn't it?

-

Who suggests that work should be voluntary?

Rather we reject the lie that selling your labour is voluntary undr capitalism
To which we can immediately counter-argue that selling your labour isn't voluntary under a communist system either, at least not one that's going to last more than a week.

Kwisatz Haderach

11th April 2007, 22:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:44 pm

What he really meant was,

"Nazism and communism oppose my political views. Everyone who opposes my political views belongs in the same category. They are to be arranged by the sole criterion of how far they are from my views."

That is the underlying principle that liberals used for creating the political category of "totalitarianism".
Considering that I'm a libertarian minarchist, who opposes totalitarianism and eschews political/economic freedom, and that both systems mentioned have largely turned out to be both totalitarian and hostile to freedom, your attempt at sarcasm kind of falls flat doesn't it?
It was not an attempt at sarcasm, it was an attempt to accurately describe your beliefs - and it seems you have confirmed the accuracy of my description.

The point, my slow-witted friend, is that not everyone who opposes your conception of "freedom" is necessarily on the same side, and that no ideology ever took opposition to "freedom" as its central tenet. Rather, there are a number of ideologies who simply do not consider this "freedom" of yours to be worth much when compared to other political values. (such as human happiness, or equality or class interests on our side; and national pride, traditional hierarchy or the supposed biological evolution of mankind on the far-right side)

In other words, you take your own political beliefs as the absolute standard by which all others are to be measured, and you make the very faulty assumption that everyone cares about the same things you care about (so that if you oppose government, you tend to believe your opponents love government when in fact they may just be viewing it as a useful political tool with no inherent value).

The Sloth

11th April 2007, 23:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:44 pm
So what you're saying is, you can't actually formulate a prinicipled counter-argument.

fine, so you didn't read my post. let's try again:

your analogy dealt with de-contextualized, minute dietary choices. i said that it's fine to discuss such petty things in the abstract (i.e., thru shitty existentialist novels), but, when applied to real-world situations, it is silly to even think about (i.e., it is not a lack of strawberries but something else that generates profound situations and profound consequences). if you didn't see this from my post, you either read too carelessly, or you need some practice differentiating facts from concepts. afterwards, you may note where the two might coincide.

Having to spelling out every single exception to every sinlge generalisation I make isn't reasonable and it's not in my job description either, I'm afraid.

either you're trying to humor me again, or you're avoiding the logical predicament you've lured yourself into (more on that later). i did not, of course, imply that you should spell out every single exception to every single generalization in the world.. i said, "'failing to work and suffering in the process' is a broad, sloppy category," which merely suggests that you should wipe the slop from this particular argument. the only important thing to remember here is the fact that we, as social, moral beings, constantly make exceptions, many of which are necessary if we wish to consider ourselves civilized.

so, what does "wiping the slop from your argument entail" ? only this:

1) define, exactly, what you mean by "failing to work,"
2) under what circumstances is one allowed not to work,
3) why do some people not work, and are these reasons justifiable,
4) if they are, what can we do to address them ?

unless you do this, your terms/positions cannot be broken down to their elements.

finally, ask yourself why we give (or should give) others this kind of leeway. what is the nature of this leeway, of these exceptions ? i suspect that, if you think about it, you'll see that our positions are not so different. as i said, the only differences between our positions are in 1) the kind of leeway we are willing to give, and 2) the philosophical grounding for this kind of leeway.

in short, my position is concreteness and consistency. leeway is nice, but if you leave it undeveloped and floating in mid-air, then it's sort of useless.

I don't think it's a word game as such. Violence isn't an essential trait of poverty, nor is "cucumber" or "orange", nor is violence inherently bad. The initiation of violence is almost always inherently bad, which is why we think it should be minimized.

you're right, violence is not an essential trait of poverty, but it certainly depends on 1) the level of poverty, 2) the reaction to such poverty.

under your utilitarian, philosophical view, it isn't wrong to withhold food from a starving mother and her children; no one should be "coerced" into feeding somebody else. yet, your position, like my position, is logically unjustifiable; our positions are based on value systems with different priorities. so, i disagree that something can be "inherently bad" -- force is, like a bloody knife, inherently, a collection of atoms moving about, which are inherently neutral/amoral. these atoms themselves do not interest civilization; what interests civilization is the social reaction to these atoms, and under which social circumstances they exist.

philosophically, you are able to divorce choice from social contexts.. but, i am unwilling to do that. to me, a "choice" between two terrible alternatives is not meaningful practically. that is, it has no practical worth. philosophically, however, it amounts to something -- an idea, perhaps, that is cute to think about, but impossible to apply meaningfully to any real world example.

You seem to be implying here that lack of freedom (the "I'm not free to eat something because I've run out of it" mentioned earlier) is an open invitation to begin using violence...[quote]

again, you're creating impractical analogies.. and, again, it is good for philosophy (and those shitty novels), but not so great for the real world.

i suspect that running out of strawberries has never induced anyone into "using violence." running out of bread and every other thing to keep oneself alive, however, does have that effect.

so, let's break that statement down. do i, philosophically, condone people selling cocaine, getting addicted to heroin, and raping girls on account of, "it's not them, it's poverty that's making them do it" ? of course not; i may understand their actions better thru the lens of violence, but that's about it. i KNOW why it's done, but that doesn't excuse the rapist.

however.. wishing it all away is ineffective. although i do not condone these things, i know they will continue happening, because no one is giving a reason for these things to stop. unless that practical, real-world reason is given, you'll have your philosophy, and your moralizing, and so on, but that's it. i'm not content with that.

[quote] against people who are not responsible and have lives of their own to lead?

yes, we all have our own lives to lead, our own things to do. problem is, some people are a tad too self-important.. thus, rape, genocide, and mass starvation. i know reagan had a family, but.. it's not his mother being butchered by haiti's tonton makouts. hence, all of that good money being sent to where it does not belong.

it's easy to talk when you're not staring up at a machete. yet, machetes, not philosophy, make the bulk of the world's collective experience. end of story.

It might sound very peacenik to you, but violence isn't the answer.

мы хoтим миpa. check above the avatar, mate.

Red Tung

12th April 2007, 06:27

And how is it that they don't rule the world? The richest people in the world are in the business of financial services, just pick up any Fortune, Forbes, WSJ rag and read who is in the top of the rich and disgusting list.

I don't remember them being elected president, writing any laws, or declaring wars, do you? If you're going to start on the black helicopter shit, then consider this debate over.

Whoever said anything about black helicopters? They could be white helicopters or blue helicopters or polka-dot helicopters. :lol:

You're the one that mentioned it, but as long as we're on the topic of military hardware I'm more worried about "non lethal" crowd control weapons (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aUHNgwwNVM&mode=related&search=)

Now, back on the topic that I was talking about. Every human social/economic activity in the world depends on people who are able to pay for it. I wouldn't be able to participate in the economy without somebody paying me in money that other people have to accept by fiat if they also want to participate in the economy. Elections of some corporate puppet is also a social/economic activity that depends on people being able to fund it with money. The people with the most amount of money would fund those people who the general electorate see on the ballot. Do you suppose they would fund those who enact laws that would either:

(a) threaten their positions as financial masters of the world

or

(b) enhanced their positions as financial masters of the world

It's a rational choice to make and the rich are if anything, quite rational about preserving their wealth.

Which also goes back to my previous argument that in a relatively wealth equal world nobody would be willing to pay attention to any lone lunatic who has the same amount of financial resources as themselves if he rants and rave for mass violence against other people who he have perceived to have wronged him given that they're intelligent enough to know that the person is full of shit. Who gives a toss about him? But, for any significant political representatives of any epoch, are lone lunatics or heavily financed lunatics?

As said before, Scandinavian countries are social-democratic and still allow for private profit runned business (nobody's perfect).

Most likely that's the only thing keeping it afloat.

Afloat as in barely keeping a sustenance level quality of life or afloat as in the monetary valuation of Capital return to the wealthy shareholders of private corporations who are able to play in the wealthy man's game of Capital investment in the first place?

Clearly Sweden isn't at the level of barely sustenance living as with most African countries that are heavily invested in by foreign physical resource extraction firms and from what I can tell the foreign corporations just love Africa for the lucrative return on investments that it is able to provide for all that cheap labour available used in physical resource extraction. So now we have a contradiction where "keeping afloat" from the perspective of Capital for a relatively egalitarian social-democratic country means a relatively good standard of living well above the sustenance level for the majority of the population whereas the highly lucrative African market from the perspective of Capital means misery for the majority of people with barely a sustenance level living standard.

From the point of view of a working person who doesn't have the financial resources to play the rich man's game of betting on corporate investments, which standard do you think I would judge a society by. From the perspective of the rich man's game of Capital returns? :lol:

They accomplished it from top-rate intelligent scientists fleeing Europe who was then consider the scientific capital of the world. All the better for us with less stupid human cattle inhabiting the world.

That's sad because it's most likely all you're going to be left with shortly after the revolution. Who do you think is going to stick around and what for? Utopianism.

I think I've already answered that with people up to caliber to perform useful and intelligent work, there's no need for them to settle for a lower standard of physical well-being if their work results in increased and efficient physical production. That goes without saying excludes all the unnecessary and "educated" middlemen that soaks up most of what goes to the middle classes in Capitalism. The class of tool makers and tool users can be the masters of their own destiny.

Yes, but almost all breakthroughs in the sciences and arts came through people who loved their work

Who's guaranteeing that they're going to love their work and that communism will let them do so? I hope you're not suggesting that we can just do whatever we want. I think this has been talked about.

And, as I went over before who's going to take it away? Who and who's their army? In social-democratic Sweden there are these losers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zNOnY2OdZU) :lol: Any chance they will actually succeed in raising their new wehrmacht? :lol:

Tungsten

12th April 2007, 20:16

The point, my slow-witted friend, is that not everyone who opposes your conception of "freedom" is necessarily on the same side, and that no ideology ever took opposition to "freedom" as its central tenet.
I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of communists here who openly oppose the free market, for instance.

Rather, there are a number of ideologies who simply do not consider this "freedom" of yours to be worth much when compared to other political values. (such as human happiness,
I've been stating all along that this "freedom" of mine is a prerequisite to happiness. If you're not free to live your life as you see fit, how can you be engaged in the persuit of happiness?

or equality
Being a commie, I'm guessing that your definition of equality isn't merely restricted to equality before the law. If I make a dollar which I'm then forced to share, how am I free?

or class interests on our side; and national pride, traditional hierarchy or the supposed biological evolution of mankind on the far-right side)
There's nothing about what I've suggested that prevents these values from being held.

In other words, you take your own political beliefs as the absolute standard by which all others are to be measured, and you make the very faulty assumption that everyone cares about the same things you care about
What a complete hypocrite you are. I do not assume this, my system allows people to persue whatever they like providing you don't prevent others from doing the same. Contrast this to you own system, which you admit includes a set of duties.

-

your analogy dealt with de-contextualized, minute dietary choices.
Okay, you're not smart enough to work the unerlying principle, I understand. Try this one:

-"I've caught a disease through natural causes."

-"Someone has deliberately injected me with a disease."

Spot the difference. If you can't, consider this debate over.

i said that it's fine to discuss such petty things in the abstract (i.e., thru shitty existentialist novels), but, when applied to real-world situations, it is silly to even think about (i.e., it is not a lack of strawberries but something else that generates profound situations and profound consequences).
Which of the above examples lack a concrete basis?

either you're trying to humor me again, or you're avoiding the logical predicament you've lured yourself into (more on that later).
I was humouring you and I've led myself into no logical predicament.

the only important thing to remember here is the fact that we, as social, moral beings, constantly make exceptions, many of which are necessary if we wish to consider ourselves civilized.
What sort of exceptions?

1) define, exactly, what you mean by "failing to work,"
As in "not working", "can't be arsed", "don't want to". I think it was quite obvious.

2) under what circumstances is one allowed not to work,
The only real circumstances involve being locked up (as in, proactive prevention).

3) why do some people not work, and are these reasons justifiable,
Usually not. Many people don't work because they simply don't have to. The system allows them to.

4) if they are, what can we do to address them ?
There are very few justifiable reasons for not supporting one's self.

finally, ask yourself why we give (or should give) others this kind of leeway. what is the nature of this leeway, of these exceptions ? i suspect that, if you think about it, you'll see that our positions are not so different.
There probably is overlap at the edges. There is in pratically all systems.

as i said, the only differences between our positions are in 1) the kind of leeway we are willing to give, and 2) the philosophical grounding for this kind of leeway.The question is, do the people granting this leeway really get a say in the matter? Answer that question and you've probably found the difference between my ideology and yours.

under your utilitarian, philosophical view,
I'm a utilitarian, am I? Well, to certain extent, perhaps.

it isn't wrong to withhold food from a starving mother and her children; no one should be "coerced" into feeding somebody else. yet, your position, like my position, is logically unjustifiable; our positions are based on value systems with different priorities.
Why does that make them logically unjustifiable? Different proirities result in different outcomes.

so, i disagree that something can be "inherently bad" -- force is, like a bloody knife, inherently, a collection of atoms moving about, which are inherently neutral/amoral.
Force itself is neutral, yes. The use of it by a human being? No. There we enter the realm of morality- where choices made become right or wrong.

philosophically, you are able to divorce choice from social contexts.
That's a bizzare statement to make, considering my previous posts.

but, i am unwilling to do that. to me, a "choice" between two terrible alternatives is not meaningful practically.
Perhaps not, but such circumstances are rare. We should first ask ourselves where these alternatives came from and how they came about and what action, if any, is justified.

again, you're creating impractical analogies.. and, again, it is good for philosophy (and those shitty novels), but not so great for the real world.
Impractical for who?

i suspect that running out of strawberries has never induced anyone into "using violence." running out of bread and every other thing to keep oneself alive, however, does have that effect.
So how was my anology a floating abstraction?

so, let's break that statement down. do i, philosophically, condone people selling cocaine, getting addicted to heroin, and raping girls on account of, "it's not them, it's poverty that's making them do it" ? of course not; i may understand their actions better thru the lens of violence, but that's about it. i KNOW why it's done, but that doesn't excuse the rapist.

however.. wishing it all away is ineffective. although i do not condone these things, i know they will continue happening, because no one is giving a reason for these things to stop.
Because the're ultimately destructive to other people?

yes, we all have our own lives to lead, our own things to do. problem is, some people are a tad too self-important.. thus, rape, genocide, and mass starvation.
Rape is someone proactively using force against someone else without their consent. Genocide is the same in that sense, only more destructive by degrees. Mass starvation? Now there we have a problem- unless that starvation is caused by someone actually taking food from these masses, then it isn't a case of proactively using force. Hence the difference between these phenomenon. Like I said, initiating force is almost always a bad thing.

Of couse, there are people who claim that we're somehow proactively using force against the starving by not providing for them. What gives such people the right to makes slaves out of the rest of us is unknown, but like the rapist and proponent of genocide, I should imagine it's a case of self importance.

i know reagan had a family, but.. it's not his mother being butchered by haiti's tonton makouts. hence, all of that good money being sent to where it does not belong.
What money? Whose money? Being sent where and why doesn't it belong there? Don't ignore the inconvenient.

it's easy to talk when you're not staring up at a machete. yet, machetes, not philosophy, make the bulk of the world's collective experience. end of story.
People swing machetes. But what's swinging the people carrying them? Philosophies- usually bad ones.

t_wolves_fan

13th April 2007, 03:00

Price is determined objectively by the market...

...If you can make a profit charging $5 per item instead of $4, that's objective based on the number of purchases (revenue) vs. your costs.

How is price objective then, if you make a subjective decision on what to sell your product for?

I just explained it to you. You use the data to come to a price you can charge to have enough sales to cover your costs.

It really is that simple.

Moreover, ComradeRed has already shown (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64351) that this system of economics doesn't work because it isn't mathematically sound.

I saw the thread, which was a mathematical circle-jerk. Economics is theory and a social science that cannot be "proven" by hard math. I believe his cute little equation assumed a static situation, which is of course unrealistic.

If the whole thing were as simple as his equation, the "whole kit and kaboodle" probably would have actually fallen apart over the past 200 years, don't you think?

Easy. Any state can simply nationalize the property of one of those banks, MNCs or rich people and they've instantly lost their wealth.

And they don't because these institutions have financial control over the state.

Really. That's why Venezuela is going to nationalize its telecomm industry? (http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D8MJDI202)

Maybe you should actually know what's going on in the world before you post.

Red Tung

14th April 2007, 20:24

Economics is theory and a social science that cannot be "proven" by hard math.

Which means by definition it isn't a science. :lol:

By mainstream economists coming up with something as ridiculous as the utile which supposedly is used as a unit to measure general utility for everybody one can conclude that economics has much in common with science as water dowsing has with geology. What is an individual person's general utility in the marketplace given that everybody has different consumer tastes?

If the whole thing were as simple as his equation, the "whole kit and kaboodle" probably would have actually fallen apart over the past 200 years, don't you think?

Only if you could prove that slave empires like Rome and the Feudal system that came after it would have fallen apart all on its own without internal rebellion by its discontented participants.

As far as the ruling masters are concerned logic and science can always be overridden by brute force if it conflicts with their system which benefits them the most.

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 16:18

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14, 2007 07:24 pm

Economics is theory and a social science that cannot be "proven" by hard math.

Which means by definition it isn't a science. :lol:

Well, that's why there's a distinction between "social science", which includes economics and political science; and "physical science", which can be explained by math.

By mainstream economists coming up with something as ridiculous as the utile which supposedly is used as a unit to measure general utility for everybody one can conclude that economics has much in common with science as water dowsing has with geology. What is an individual person's general utility in the marketplace given that everybody has different consumer tastes?

Don't know, I'm not really trained in economics.

If the whole thing were as simple as his equation, the "whole kit and kaboodle" probably would have actually fallen apart over the past 200 years, don't you think?

Only if you could prove that slave empires like Rome and the Feudal system that came after it would have fallen apart all on its own without internal rebellion by its discontented participants.

Well, to be fair the Roman Empire fell apart because of lack of leadership, cultural differences between the East and the West, and external barbarian threats, not really internal rebellion. Ironically I am currently reading an abridged version (to 1,000 pages) of Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I hope you don't labor under the misconception that the common man rose up and toppled the Roman Empire?

But then everything atrophies after a while. I'm sure capitalism will be no different. What I doubt is that the angry teenagers on this site will have much to do with it.

As far as the ruling masters are concerned logic and science can always be overridden by brute force if it conflicts with their system which benefits them the most.

Indeed. It'd happen in your system too. Hello Castro!

pusher robot

16th April 2007, 16:30

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14, 2007 07:24 pm
What is an individual person's general utility in the marketplace given that everybody has different consumer tastes?
I don't understand what you mean by this. The concept of a unit of utility was formed precisely to account for different tastes. A widget might be useless to me but of great importance to you, which would explain why I fall on one side of the demand curve and you on the other.

Demogorgon

16th April 2007, 16:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:00 am
Economics is theory and a social science that cannot be "proven" by hard math.
Actually a lot of modern economics tries to do just that. More old fashioned studies of it are more in the standard social science means of doing things, but these days it is based more on using hard equations to calculate what is happening.

t_wolves_fan

16th April 2007, 16:34

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 16, 2007 03:31 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 16, 2007 03:31 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:00 am
Economics is theory and a social science that cannot be "proven" by hard math.
Actually a lot of modern economics tries to do just that. More old fashioned studies of it are more in the standard social science means of doing things, but these days it is based more on using hard equations to calculate what is happening. [/b]
Right, the social sciences use a lot of quantitative methods of analysis to judge success and predict the future (this is what I do for a living), but they can never get it totally right.

Ya know what I mean?

The Sloth

22nd April 2007, 02:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:16 pm
Okay, you're not smart enough to work the unerlying principle, I understand.

i've already elucidated the "underlying principle" for you, several times.. i have nothing to do with your illiteracy, except, perhaps, as a didactic foil. so, let's drag you back to the symposium:

Try this one:

-"I've caught a disease through natural causes."

-"Someone has deliberately injected me with a disease."

Spot the difference. If you can't, consider this debate over.

as noted, this has already been answered.

1) minute dietary choices are socially de-contextualized.. with such examples that you've given previously, you assume that the consequences for lacking strawberries are just as significant as poverty, etc. not so, hence my problem with your analogy.

2) your new example suffers from a similar problem. consider: "i've caught a disease through natural causes." again, if this kind of example (that is, an example with similar assumptions and parameters) were to be applied to the kinds of social questions we are discussing (labor, poverty, and coercion), then it obviously could not be used. first of all, it attempts to, yet again, EQUATE two unrealistic things. obviously, catching a disease "naturally" is no one's fault, and usually cannot be attributed to social causes; catching, say, the flu, is usually unpredictable, and sometimes unavoidable. there are few human variables that can intervene, and if they do, they are merely cursory, or done after-the-fact. moreover, there are roughly zero moral implications for "naturally" catching a disease.. it is caught or not, with grief, but without blame.

see the problem ? the issue with your first example was in trying to equate the CONSEQUENCES of strawberry-poverty with genuine, social poverty. the issue with your second example is in trying to equate "the natural" and "the blameless" (e.g., an uncontrollable disease) with a dominant social, political, and economic system, that is not, in fact, "blameless," but controlled by (or, rather, is the sum of) human agents, i.e. malleable participants. in this way, you caricature the implications of the examples, but absurdly consider them equivalent to real-world situations.

of course, if you refuse to apply your examples to realistic situations, then there's nothing wrong with your shitty existentialist novels and petty fads. but, just remember that they are merely shitty existentialist novels and petty fads, nothing more. your continual reluctance to set appropriate examples whose terms line up evenly/congruently with situations from the real world is basic to libertarian "thought."

Which of the above examples lack a concrete basis?

lol. you're good.

I was humouring you and I've led myself into no logical predicament.

well, there's a problem there. if you were, in fact, humoring me this entire time, and libertarianism is just a joke, there is not much room for anything but logical predicaments.

What sort of exceptions?

you know which exceptions. "everybody is required to work or starve." certainly, that philosophy ought to make some breathing space ? six year olds can work in factories, certainly, but no civilized person would force them into it. similarly, "government ought not to interfere with private business." yet, if this "private business" were to spill some quaint secrets, i doubt government would feel restrained.

hence, exceptions.. not only theoretical, but practical as well: we make them daily. i just make more of them, though, under philosophical pretexts different from your own.

As in "not working", "can't be arsed", "don't want to". I think it was quite obvious.

no, it's not at all obvious. again, clean up your act:

"not working." -- toddlers do not work. do families have the "right" to let them starve, or is that coercive on the family's part ? "not working." -- there is not one job available for someone. should that be considered "not working," on account of uncontrollable circumstances ? mental retardation: an "uncontrollable circumstance," for which the retarded person would be provided for, not punished. yet, it seems as if the "uncontrollable circumstance" of unemployed retards is treated differently from the "uncontrollable circumstance" of lack of jobs. why is that ?

("oh, it's not what i meant, etc. etc." -- yeah, then avoid generalities, because "not working" could mean anything.)

"don't want to" -- what does that mean ? pure laziness, which is infrequent in most of the acute unemployment cases, or

Usually not. Many people don't work because they simply don't have to. The system allows them to.

some certainly do take advantage of the system, and it's certainly expected (for reasons other than what you think, i'm afraid). some don't take advantage. for example, a toddler, by virtue of the system, does not have to work. yet, i doubt his case is very exploitative of the rest of the world.

yet, many people don't work because, 1) there are no jobs available, 2) difficult circumstances prevent the acquisition of a job, 3) the work alternatives are so poor that unemployment is far more attractive. perhaps such "attractiveness" should be eliminated (and, again, in different ways than you propose).

but, i can see why shitty existentialist novels are attractive.. they're a break from the hard facts of life, and difficult social questions that can be summarily assigned thoughtless, unexamined blame.. with the same victim, every time. i suspect work and unemployment are social questions, with socialized roots.. they're not purely "personal responsibilities," just like finding, making, and eating food (or any product) is a process, not a mere "wishing" of the will.

The question is, do the people granting this leeway really get a say in the matter? Answer that question and you've probably found the difference between my ideology and yours.

the question is certainly incoherent, and a bit hypocritical. hypocritical: under your proposed system, most people wouldn't get a say, in, like, getting butchered by haitian "libertarians" and other sophisticated, american-backed warlords (hey, it's been happening for decades). nor do poor people have a say in getting an education, and, in some cases, theft.. unless, of course, not eating is a realistic social option. incoherent: under your proposed system, there is an assumption that "leeway" ought to be given -- as a gift, no less.. charity!! -- by those on the very top, as if such a thing can be trusted to maximize happiness and human productivity.

i think, in fact, the two main differences between our ideologies are:

1) moral question are integral to me;
2) i'd like real-world examples, not existential evasions and equivocations.

Because the're ultimately destructive to other people?

ya, that's nice. such a reason is philosophically sound, but it does not prevent the socialization of a thief. if you wish to respond to that statement, read it carefully: it does not prevent the socialization of a thief, or some other sociopath.

but, i understand; preventing such socialization is not anyone's concern, excepts, perhaps, "the charitable," those with a deep, philanthropic heart. very well; enjoy world insecurity.

Rape is someone proactively using force against someone else without their consent. Genocide is the same in that sense, only more destructive by degrees. Mass starvation? Now there we have a problem- unless that starvation is caused by someone actually taking food from these masses, then it isn't a case of proactively using force. Hence the difference between these phenomenon. Like I said, initiating force is almost always a bad thing.

food was there. now it's not. try to have a longer memory than the decade after colonialism.

as for my other examples, you need to take your own advice and consider "the underlying principle."

Of couse, there are people who claim that we're somehow proactively using force against the starving by not providing for them.

sorry, no one is asking for your charity, only the destruction of your pitfalling assumption: that it is "your" decision whether someone starves or not. i should imagine it's a case of unwarranted self-importance.

I should imagine it's a case of self importance.

hey, whaddaya know..

<end the rest of the tired variations>

Tungsten

22nd April 2007, 09:58

i've already elucidated the "underlying principle" for you, several times.. i have nothing to do with your illiteracy, except, perhaps, as a didactic foil. so, let's drag you back to the symposium:
Not elucidated, just avoided.

2) your new example suffers from a similar problem. consider: "i've caught a disease through natural causes." again, if this kind of example (that is, an example with similar assumptions and parameters) were to be applied to the kinds of social questions we are discussing (labor, poverty, and coercion), then it obviously could not be used. first of all, it attempts to, yet again, EQUATE two unrealistic things.
obviously, catching a disease "naturally" is no one's fault, and usually cannot be attributed to social causes; catching, say, the flu, is usually unpredictable, and sometimes unavoidable. there are few human variables that can intervene, and if they do, they are merely cursory, or done after-the-fact. moreover, there are roughly zero moral implications for "naturally" catching a disease.. it is caught or not, with grief, but without blame.
Then why are there moral implications for starvation, but not diseases? Both are natural phenomenon and occur without anyone causing them.

see the problem ? the issue with your first example was in trying to equate the CONSEQUENCES of strawberry-poverty with genuine, social poverty. the issue with your second example is in trying to equate "the natural" and "the blameless" (e.g., an uncontrollable disease) with a dominant social, political, and economic system, that is not, in fact, "blameless," but controlled by (or, rather, is the sum of) human agents, i.e. malleable participants.
So no one has ever starved because they've actually run out of food, but only because the "system" and its "human agents" have somehow either stolen it or destroyed it? I think I'm wasting my time here.

of course, if you refuse to apply your examples to realistic situations, then there's nothing wrong with your shitty existentialist novels and petty fads.
You're as transparent as a lens. Starvation is a naturally occuring phenomenon. It can exist with or without human intervention. But when I suggest there's a difference between starvation caused by human intervention (theft) and starvation not caused by human intervention (drought), with different moral values, you dismiss it as an "unrealistic".

your continual reluctance to set appropriate examples whose terms line up evenly/congruently with situations from the real world is basic to libertarian "thought."
And what example would be appropriate? One that fits your worldview?

lol. you're good.
I know I'm good. Now answer the question.

no, it's not at all obvious. again, clean up your act:

"not working." -- toddlers do not work.
We were discussing adults, not toddlers.

do families have the "right" to let them starve,
Not until they're adults.

"not working." -- there is not one job available for someone. should that be considered "not working," on account of uncontrollable circumstances ?
And it's me that dreams up unrealistic examples and not you?

"don't want to" -- what does that mean ? pure laziness, which is infrequent in most of the acute unemployment cases, or
It's not the acute cases that are a problem.

yet, many people don't work because, 1) there are no jobs available,
Which is not an excuse in 99.999% of cases.

3) the work alternatives are so poor that unemployment is far more attractive. perhaps such "attractiveness" should be eliminated (and, again, in different ways than you propose).
Different in what way?

but, i can see why shitty existentialist novels are attractive.. they're a break from the hard facts of life,
I don't get my ideology from there, in fact, I'm not much of a fan. And what are these hard facts I'm supposedly ignoring? Whatever they are, I suspect they're not facts at all, but merely groundless asserions.

and difficult social questions that can be summarily assigned thoughtless, unexamined blame.
And your answers are presumably not.

the question is certainly incoherent, and a bit hypocritical. hypocritical: under your proposed system, most people wouldn't get a say, in, like, getting butchered by haitian "libertarians"
How do get buchered by someone who follows libertarianism, who would presumably find the initiation of force morally and politcally abhorrent? Have a think about it. It might give you headache, but it's worth it, trust me.

and other sophisticated, american-backed warlords (hey, it's been happening for decades).
America isn't libertarian and I shouldn't imagine the warlords are either.

nor do poor people have a say in getting an education, and, in some cases, theft.. unless, of course, not eating is a realistic social option. incoherent: under your proposed system, there is an assumption that "leeway" ought to be given -- as a gift, no less.. charity!!
Oh the horror. Not being able to simply demand food.

-- by those on the very top, as if such a thing can be trusted to maximize happiness and human productivity.
I've already explained the moral and practical consequences of a society centered around the garbage heap elsewhere.

i think, in fact, the two main differences between our ideologies are:

1) moral question are integral to me;
Moral questions are also integral to me too. It's just that like many of your kind, you seem to think you have a monopoly on morality.

2) i'd like real-world examples, not existential evasions and equivocations.
Correction, you live in a utopian fantasy world where all problems are caused by "capitalism", which is blamed for just about everything ("difficult social questions that can be summarily assigned thoughtless, unexamined blame"), even if the blame for one problem contradicts the blame for another (which leads on to ridiculous ideas like being "buchered by libertarians", which makes about as much sense as "pacifists declaring war").

food was there. now it's not. try to have a longer memory than the decade after colonialism.
What a ridiculous assertion. I doubt very much "the food was there". If it was, then why are the people still starving now the imperialists have gone? Did they take every concievable means of making food with them too? It's all very convenient.

sorry, no one is asking for your charity, only the destruction of your pitfalling assumption: that it is "your" decision whether someone starves or not.How is it a pitfalling assmption? And why is it not my descision? Don't tell me you're now trying to drag up a series of hoary, quasi-religious "moral imperatives", which "demand" that I "feed the poor". Why should I do this? Says who?

What will happen to me if I don't?

i should imagine it's a case of unwarranted self-importance.
If the decision to feed the starving is going to be taken out of my hands because I'm not important enough to decide it for myself, then who is important enough?

Let me guess...you?

The Sloth

22nd April 2007, 16:48

tungsten, tungsten.. you're getting more and more absurd with every post. a few instructive examples:

Then why are there moral implications for starvation, but not diseases? Both are natural phenomenon and occur without anyone causing them.

yes, that is the pitfalling assumption: starvation is a "natural" phenomenon without a shred of social context.

getting the flu after a cold winter jog is just about as "moral" as being hit by a rotten, falling tree. as noted, there is about zero chance of human intervention in those cases, meaning, blame/responsibility cannot be assigned, as they are not socialized cases (that is, situations which have developed according to an arranged, participatory social context).

so, let us falsify it. under which conditions would starvation be a-moral, that is, without the possibility of human intervention ? the only cases are those without society, i.e. strong human presence.

So no one has ever starved because they've actually run out of food, but only because the "system" and its "human agents" have somehow either stolen it or destroyed it?

oh, sure, people "run out of food," and starve, but for different reasons. (and, strangely, i don't think famines were much of a problem before monopolization -- of different times, colors, ideologies -- was introduced to the world.)

a person on a desert island might be reduced to eating leaves and sand.. certainly, no chance of human intervention there, and thus no responsibility. in other cases, human intervention is possible.

I think I'm wasting my time here.

who knows, you might be. i want proper examples that parallel real-world situations, and you want to discuss shitty existentialist novels divorced from all meaningful social context.

You're as transparent as a lens.

no, i suspect most of my body is opaque, the rest slightly translucent. thanks for looking, tho.

Starvation is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

on a desert island, yes. in the biological sense, yes. in a social sense, NO. how could the sum and difference of exchange, abundance, and human participation in the massive, global economy ever be divorced from its social context ?

the world is not a robot, tungsten.

But when I suggest there's a difference between starvation caused by human intervention (theft) and starvation not caused by human intervention (drought), with different moral values, you dismiss it as an "unrealistic".

ya, i guess you really DO need to make a caricature of everything, to suit your shitty existentialist novels.

in a minute, we'll examine your new example of "drought," and dismiss it once again (it's getting a bit redundant, by the way).

first, let's recapitulate your previous examples, and then compare.

the first example dealt with a lack of strawberries, as a "realistic" example of your world-view. my criticism was that a lack of strawberries amounts to nothing more than minute, inconsequential dietary limitations. additionally, other social phenomena -- such as poverty -- are much worse, have many more profound consequences, and thus cannot be compared to lacking strawberries in any meaningful sense.

the second example dealt with catching a disease, as another "realistic" example of your world-view. my criticism was that catching, say, a cold, is usually beyond human intervention, and thus not socially contextualized. again, it's like getting hit by a rotten, falling tree: no intervention is possible. starvation, on the other hand, is not "necessary," nor is it "natural" -- in MOST cases, starvation is the sum of social institutions interacting between agents and participants. in other words, it is malleable, and limited only by inaction. yet, no matter how hard one tries, no matter the "safety nets" one establishes, it's VERY difficult to avoid catching a cold. that is that.

after some impotence on your part, you insist on starvation's "naturalness" and then come to the example of drought. hopefully, this will be your last attempt at humor; i want you to be serious from now on.

drought, in most cases, is a natural phenomenon. on a desert island with a community of 50 or so people, it's hard to blame anyone for not intervening on behalf of the starving fifty. after all, no one knows who the fifty are, where they are, or if and when they are having a drought. again, this is equivalent to the "falling tree" phenomenon: regrettable, but nothing can be done.

yet, drought in africa -- which everybody might know about -- is different. intervention is possible, both short-term (immediate aid) and long-term (such as, throwing out the neoliberal thieves and investors).

in your immortal words, if you can't spot the difference, consider the conversation over.

And what example would be appropriate?

lol, after many examples and counter-examples, you ask for more ? either you did not read, you cannot read, or you simply don't want to read. i assure you, if you take the time to scroll up and examine the post, you'll see the criteria for suitable examples, as well as the suitable examples themselves. just don't be lazy, for god's sake.

One that fits your worldview?

yes! part of my world-view insists that abstractions, in reference to social policy and social situations, must have a real-world counterpart.. i.e., they must be applicable to the real world. yet, to a fad-fan existentialist such as yourself, such criteria is unacceptable. you want the philosophy, without the facts. and if the facts don't work, just make a caricature of everything, and hope no one notices.

well, i noticed.

We were discussing adults, not toddlers.

i believe you used the word "people," or something that implies "people."

so, let the exceptions begin!

Not until they're adults.

why not ? you DARE coerce the family into providing for the child, this parasite that eats, shits, and sleeps without doing even a little bit of work ? why feed him ? yeah, i know he'll starve, but since when is starvation -- a natural phenomenon, mind you -- the responsibility of anyone but the starving ? he is nothing but a tax on the family's income, and we all know how libertarians feel about taxation. why make exceptions for this child, if he's capable of working in a factory, getting lead in his lungs ?

(whew, so that's what it's like to be a libertarian...)

And it's me that dreams up unrealistic examples and not you?

one of the few honest things you've said all day.

by the way, look into what the objective/accusative declension is.

It's not the acute cases that are a problem.

indeed, they are the problem; acute unemployment is the most prominent unemployment. yet, it would be irrelevant either way, wouldn't it ? since when is it anyone's responsibility to provide a job for anyone, even for those that do want to work ?

Which is not an excuse in 99.999% of cases.

let's understand something about statistics and antecedents, shall we ?

1) it is not an excuse in, perhaps, 99.999% of the people that aren't working, and aren't looking for a job. i'm not working, nor looking for a job, and so, i cannot use the excuse that "there are no jobs." i'm simply not looking.

2) it is certainly the excuse for MANY people that ARE looking for a job. did the economic slump of the 1980s suddenly bring about acute laziness, or is unemployment a bit more complicated than that ? furthermore, this is anecdotal, but i knew and know countless poor and unemployed people that cannot get a job. in some places in harlem, new york city, there is, perhaps, a 50% unemployment rate, mostly affecting young males and adult males.

i don't know, perhaps blacks are a bunch of lazy parasites, yet, for some reason, i don't want to simplify harlem, nor the rest of the world, to such a silly, lazy conception. i admit, it's really convenient tho.

Different in what way?

to you, unemployment = let them starve.

to me, unemployment = change the conditions, find a job. in that order, of course.

I don't get my ideology from there, in fact, I'm not much of a fan. And what are these hard facts I'm supposedly ignoring? Whatever they are, I suspect they're not facts at all, but merely groundless asserions.

first of all, i think you meant "assyrians," not "asserions." although i don't see the relevance..

second, the "hard facts" have been listed, analyzed, and recapitulated several times. check the examples, criticisms of your examples, and my counter-examples for more info. if you've missed any of that, perhaps you're not reading carefully enough.

third, there is definitely a rather continuous line: "libertarians" and existentialists fall in roughly the same category, mostly because they deny the relevance of social contexts. and, if social context IS in any way emphasized, its distorted to fit the situation, as you have done, and as i have indicated.

How do get buchered by someone who follows libertarianism, who would presumably find the initiation of force morally and politcally abhorrent? Have a think about it. It might give you headache, but it's worth it, trust me.

because butchery is what libertarianism amounts to. guy philippe of haiti is a good example. loves reagan, loves pinochet, funded by america to overthrow aristide, encouraged the liberalization of the haitian economy.. then, of course, once the corporations came in, the humanity went out. this is what libertarianism amounts to, because, in case you didn't notice, business will NEVER decide to "divorce" itself from government. if you want libertarianism, you will need to settle for its imperfect forms.

unless, of course, you'd like a revolution. in that case, you'll get your wish, there will be no relationship between business and government (for a time), and we'll all be serfs. not you, perhaps -- you'll be the lord, with whip and all. yipee.

America isn't libertarian and I shouldn't imagine the warlords are either.

guy philippe is an avowed libertarian, but also a warlord.

america isn't libertarian at home, but likes to liberalize other nations' economies.

again, this is not the libertarianism that you envision, but it is the only kind of libertarianism possible.

Correction, you live in a utopian fantasy world where all problems are caused by "capitalism", which is blamed for just about everything

where did i blame capitalism for "everything" ?

shit, if i were a 13th century florentine merchant, you would have said i'm blaming feudalism for everything.

if i were in ancient rome, you'd say the same about slavery and mercantilism.

yet, it all, somehow, does not add up. there is, in fact, a commonality between all of those systems, and i'm "blaming everything" on that, yes, but not on the individual manifestations of the commonality.

What a ridiculous assertion. I doubt very much "the food was there". If it was, then why are the people still starving now the imperialists have gone? Did they take every concievable means of making food with them too? It's all very convenient.

you are funny. according to the accounts before colonialism started, africa, america, and the caribbean were considered lands of abundance, without starvation. sure, famines existed, like anywhere, but i dare say it was a "bit" (!!) different from now, and certainly different from the industrialized nations at that time.

as for the imperialists "leaving," you are utterly strange. how about you actually read something on the subject ? as early as 1961, before the algerian war was even over, there were predictions from many, especially frantz fanon, that decolonization would occur only in theory, in the superficial theater of political "transfers," and so on, but the economic domination (and political affilitation [read: support of massive dictatorships]) would continue, not only from the previous host countries, but from new folks looking to get some profit. colonialism never left.. even the most CASUAL perusal of the ENDLESS material on the subject will indicate this.

and yes, how "convenient" to ignore the facts by pretending they are not there.

How is it a pitfalling assmption? And why is it not my descision? Don't tell me you're now trying to drag up a series of hoary, quasi-religious "moral imperatives", which "demand" that I "feed the poor". Why should I do this? Says who?

who said that there is a logical imperative that you "ought" to do anything ? i've certainly never said that, as i maintain that there are no such things, in the physical sense, as moral imperatives.

it's really nothing but an appeal to most people's "sense" of good, to the emotions. thus, you cannot offer a "moral imperative" as to why i shouldn't forcefully fuck you in the ass, but i don't need an argument, or a threat, to NOT do it. same goes for anything. "morality" -- or, what ought to be done in non-rational (but not irrational) situations -- is not in the realm of logic; it's in the realm of, 1) how people are socialized, 2) how people respond to situations contrary and complementary to this socialization. nothing more.

certainly, nothing will "happen" to you, as nothing will "happen" to me if i kill somebody without getting caught. but, i wouldn't, simply because i wasn't socialized that way, and if i could "will" it, i would "will" communism into existence, because i've also been socialized against watching starvation and coercion.

If the decision to feed the starving is going to be taken out of my hands because I'm not important enough to decide it for myself, then who is important enough?

Let me guess...you?

yes, i am important enough to make that COLLECTIVE decision, as long as i'm in the world majority. that is part of the criteria. most south americans, haitians, africans, etc. strongly oppose the liberalization of their own economies (which is why south america hates america so much).. yet, they are not given much of a choice, are they ?

Tungsten

23rd April 2007, 17:30

yes, that is the pitfalling assumption: starvation is a "natural" phenomenon without a shred of social context.
Some starvation is natural (crop failiure), some isn't (someone burning your crops to the ground). Saying that all starvation is man-made is foolish. In the even of crop failure (a natural pheomenon) in country A, the social context (whether or not the neighbouring country, B, decides to share it's own food) is immaterial. Assuming country B did not cause the crop failure, then country B did not cause the resulting starvation either, even though it had the ability to aleviate it.

so, let us falsify it. under which conditions would starvation be a-moral, that is, without the possibility of human intervention ? the only cases are those without society, i.e. strong human presence.
You're assuming a duty of care exists (a form of moral intrincisim) and assigning blame to people who aren't responsible.

"Society is responsible for starvation because society is there" is poor reasoning.

a person on a desert island might be reduced to eating leaves and sand.. certainly, no chance of human intervention there, and thus no responsibility. in other cases, human intervention is possible.
Possible therefore imperative? That doesn't follow either.

i want proper examples that parallel real-world situations, and you want to discuss shitty existentialist novels divorced from all meaningful social context.
I'm not into shitty existantialist novels and I've not asked you to discuss them. Your continual harping about them suggests they're a thorn in your side. I can understand why.

on a desert island, yes. in the biological sense, yes. in a social sense, NO.
Why not?

drought, in most cases, is a natural phenomenon. on a desert island with a community of 50 or so people, it's hard to blame anyone for not intervening on behalf of the starving fifty. after all, no one knows who the fifty are, where they are, or if and when they are having a drought. again, this is equivalent to the "falling tree" phenomenon: regrettable, but nothing can be done.

yet, drought in africa -- which everybody might know about -- is different. intervention is possible, both short-term (immediate aid) and long-term (such as, throwing out the neoliberal thieves and investors).

in your immortal words, if you can't spot the difference, consider the conversation over.
No argument there. So how does it follow that because we know about it, it's everyone's duty to help? This is the weak point in your ideology, and the reason it's going to fall on it's ass.

why not ? you DARE coerce the family into providing for the child, this parasite that eats, shits, and sleeps without doing even a little bit of work ?
For starters, they're children, not adults, and I'd like to see proof that people, beyond the criminally insane, would happily let their children starve if there wasn't a law against it.

why feed him ? yeah, i know he'll starve, but since when is starvation -- a natural phenomenon, mind you -- the responsibility of anyone but the starving ? he is nothing but a tax on the family's income, and we all know how libertarians feel about taxation. why make exceptions for this child, if he's capable of working in a factory, getting lead in his lungs ?
Why do we not allow children to drive cars or vote? Answer that, and you've answered the question.

since when is it anyone's responsibility to provide a job for anyone, even for those that do want to work ?
Good question. While you're answering it, you can tell me where this duty of care comes from.

furthermore, this is anecdotal, but i knew and know countless poor and unemployed people that cannot get a job. in some places in harlem, new york city, there is, perhaps, a 50% unemployment rate, mostly affecting young males and adult males.

i don't know, perhaps blacks are a bunch of lazy parasites, yet, for some reason, i don't want to simplify harlem, nor the rest of the world, to such a silly, lazy conception. i admit, it's really convenient tho.
But you have simplified it. Unless you can provide proper evidence (anecdotes don't cut it, which I why don't use them. I have plenty of those to the contrary), I have no reason to believe it.

to you, unemployment = let them starve.

to me, unemployment = change the conditions, find a job. in that order, of course.
As usual, it's not what's said that's important, it's what isn't said. Change the conditions? That's nice and vague. What does that involve? Probably something coercive, at a guess.

second, the "hard facts" have been listed, analyzed, and recapitulated several times. check the examples, criticisms of your examples, and my counter-examples for more info. if you've missed any of that, perhaps you're not reading carefully enough.
Then list them in your reply, because I can't find any.

third, there is definitely a rather continuous line: "libertarians" and existentialists fall in roughly the same category, mostly because they deny the relevance of social contexts.
We most certainly do not. We just see it in a different way.

and, if social context IS in any way emphasized, its distorted to fit the situation, as you have done, and as i have indicated.
You're a hypocrite, as you'll see by reading the rest of this post.

because butchery is what libertarianism amounts to.
Under what logic?

guy philippe of haiti is a good example. loves reagan, loves pinochet, funded by america to overthrow aristide, encouraged the liberalization of the haitian economy.
I'm very wary of what anyone who uses the term "neo-liberal" calls "liberalisation", but I lack the "hard facts" of this so-called liberalisation, so I cannot venture an opinion.

then, of course, once the corporations came in, the humanity went out. this is what libertarianism amounts to, because, in case you didn't notice, business will NEVER decide to "divorce" itself from government. if you want libertarianism, you will need to settle for its imperfect forms.
It's not business's decision to make, and I'll remember this line argument when I'm dealing with socialist apologists.

unless, of course, you'd like a revolution. in that case, you'll get your wish, there will be no relationship between business and government (for a time), and we'll all be serfs. not you, perhaps -- you'll be the lord, with whip and all. yipee.
And I will justify this using which form libertarianism? Perhaps there's a form I'm unfamiliar with that believes the initiation of force to be proper, but I don't follow that and neither do any of the other libertarians I've met. Now whose making caricatures?

guy philippe is an avowed libertarian, but also a warlord.
By whose reckoning?

america isn't libertarian at home, but likes to liberalize other nations' economies.

again, this is not the libertarianism that you envision, but it is the only kind of libertarianism possible.
That isn't libertarianism, son. It's the polar opposite of it.

you are funny. according to the accounts before colonialism started, africa, america, and the caribbean were considered lands of abundance, without starvation. sure, famines existed, like anywhere, but i dare say it was a "bit" (!!) different from now, and certainly different from the industrialized nations at that time.

as for the imperialists "leaving," you are utterly strange. how about you actually read something on the subject ? as early as 1961, before the algerian war was even over, there were predictions from many, especially frantz fanon, that decolonization would occur only in theory, in the superficial theater of political "transfers," and so on, but the economic domination (and political affilitation [read: support of massive dictatorships]) would continue, not only from the previous host countries, but from new folks looking to get some profit. colonialism never left.. even the most CASUAL perusal of the ENDLESS material on the subject will indicate this.

and yes, how "convenient" to ignore the facts by pretending they are not there.
Nice try. If you're expecting to see a defence of imperialism, you won't see it, just like you won't see a defence of slavery. If find both abhorrent- from a modern standpoint, although I'm neutral about it when viewing it in a historical context.

who said that there is a logical imperative that you "ought" to do anything ? i've certainly never said that, as i maintain that there are no such things, in the physical sense, as moral imperatives.
You've implied it, quite explicitly, several times.

it's really nothing but an appeal to most people's "sense" of good, to the emotions.
The appeal being carried out by a person carrying a gun, presumably. And your emotions aren't a very good means of measuring morality. Of course, you know that already, having those shitty existentialist novels, although it should be quite obvious to figure this out yourself.

thus, you cannot offer a "moral imperative" as to why i shouldn't forcefully fuck you in the ass,
Yet you can somehow offer one to enslave me to the starving. That's not bad going.

but i don't need an argument, or a threat, to NOT do it. same goes for anything. "morality" -- or, what ought to be done in non-rational (but not irrational) situations -- is not in the realm of logic;
Your morality isn't in the realm of logic? Too true.

it's in the realm of, 1) how people are socialized, 2) how people respond to situations contrary and complementary to this socialization. nothing more.
In other words, you have no logical argument to support feeding the poor over, say, shaving your head, donning jackboots and gassing them instead.

Do you now realise why I think you people are a joke?

certainly, nothing will "happen" to you, as nothing will "happen" to me if i kill somebody without getting caught. but, i wouldn't, simply because i wasn't socialized that way, and if i could "will" it, i would "will" communism into existence, because i've also been socialized against watching starvation and coercion.
And you've absorbed these ideas without thinking about them- i.e. that coercion is wrong, unless it's for a "good cause", which leads you into contradictions.

yes, i am important enough to make that COLLECTIVE decision, as long as i'm in the world majority.
What does that matter? What difference does it make to me if the person holding a gun to my head works for a single dictator or belongs to a collective majority?

(Oh, and don't think I haven't noticed that this hasn't been replied to:

What will happen to me if I don't?

I think I know why, and I'm afraid there's no getting round it; your ideology is coercive.)

that is part of the criteria. most south americans, haitians, africans, etc. strongly oppose the liberalization of their own economies (which is why south america hates america so much).. yet, they are not given much of a choice, are they ?
About as much choice as I'll be given about whether to feed the starving or not. But I guess that doesn't "count".

The Sloth

24th April 2007, 01:14

a quick one this time:

Some starvation is natural (crop failiure), some isn't (someone burning your crops to the ground). Saying that all starvation is man-made is foolish.

where did i say that all starvation is man-made ?

you're being silly again, as i've even gave you examples of "natural" starvation.

You're assuming a duty of care exists (a form of moral intrincisim) and assigning blame to people who aren't responsible.

sorry, i do not believe in intrinsic moral values, as i've already indicated. there is no "duty" to care, for anybody -- and thus, there is no "duty" not to rape, kill, etc. yet, i will not; most will not, either. there is a difference between accepting morality as a "logical imperative" and simply accepting it out of socialization, and hope others will, too, without maintaining any imperatives.

again, you're getting into your caricatures again, because it's the easy thing to do.

"Society is responsible for starvation because society is there" is poor reasoning.

it's not "poor reasoning," friend.. it's NOT reasoning, at all. similarly, "coercion is wrong and should be avoided" is not reasoning, either; it's simply the expression of whatever value system you happen to entertain.

Possible therefore imperative? That doesn't follow either.

you're looking for logical arguments for being civilized.. again, you'll never find them.

I'm not into shitty existantialist novels and I've not asked you to discuss them.

yes you did, tungsten. every time you've asked me to entertain some kind of hypothetical model of starvation, disease, etc., you've deliberately (or ignorantly -- i know not) backed away from any meaningful social context, because the hard facts of life (e.g., machetes) do not fit with your ideas. therefore, you've discussed not good, detailed novels, but novels full of grand narratives and "big" ideas, without a single care for incorporating such paltry stuff into the real world.

Your continual harping about them suggests they're a thorn in your side.

not really.. sartre, camus, etc. as "writers" (they are not writers) do not exist for me. the only time i'm reminded of them, is when i'm discussing the real world with a libertarian, yet the libertarian incessantly reverts to perpetual falsification of the human record. that's it, really.

For starters, they're children, not adults, and I'd like to see proof that people, beyond the criminally insane, would happily let their children starve if there wasn't a law against it.

sorry, you have not maintained your alleged strict logical standard there.

first of all, you're attempting to extinguish the decision to NOT feed a starving child under the blanket of "criminally insane".. in other words, since the stingy mother is a "criminal," or "insane," or whatever, her decisions cannot seriously be taken into consideration when discussing your hypothetical terms. yet, as you have established, a state of mind -- sympathetic, empathetic, nice, mean, insane, criminal, etc. -- is not a sound, logical reason to help anyone.. it says something about the person, but nothing about the duty itself. so, your request for proof is being turned down, not because there is zero proof (there is, of course; sane people do insane things, all the time), but because it's irrelevant.

second, your use of the word "happily" again diverts attention. who says the mother may "happily" starve her child ? she may be crying while refusing him food, etc., but, again, the state of mind is irrelevant. we are talking about the DUTY itself.

third, "they're children, not adults," does not take away the fact that the family is being compelled by the government to provide the child food. in other words, it is coercion.. as noted, the child becomes a TAX on the mother's income. why should she be COERCED into providing for this child, even if he IS irresponsible and incapable of feeding himself ? if you think the child SHOULD be cared for because he is "young" and "helpless," you are therefore making an exception -- you are saying that, simply because someone is helpless, one has a "duty" to care for him. yet, as you've said, that does not logically follow, does it ?

fourth, you might say, "well, she should then give the child up to an orphanage or something." but, you are then COERCING her to actually drive to the orphanage (that is, at her own timely expense), and commit an ACT.. not to WORK, but simply to.. keep a child from starving. and, again, since when does she have the responsibility to "care" for someone against her will ?

being "young and helpless and irresponsible" does not cut it, apparently.. there is no "logical imperative" to care for the child, even under the most extreme circumstances.

Nice try. If you're expecting to see a defence of imperialism, you won't see it, just like you won't see a defence of slavery.

what's this, are you pretending that you don't know what you're replying to ?

here was your original statement, to which i made my reply:

What a ridiculous assertion. I doubt very much "the food was there". If it was, then why are the people still starving now the imperialists have gone?

obviously, i wasn't trying to trap you into admitting that slavery and imperialism are great. i did, however, point out that the imperialists actually have NOT left the colonized. why don't you answer that statement -- which was the only relevant one all along -- instead of trying to divert attention ?

(of course, under libertarianism, selling oneself into slavery is a "right," one which cannot be interfered with. but, that's a whole other discussion.)

(and the rest.. variations..) <snip>

pusher robot

24th April 2007, 02:23

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24, 2007 12:14 am
why should she be COERCED into providing for this child, even if he IS irresponsible and incapable of feeding himself ? if you think the child SHOULD be cared for because he is "young" and "helpless," you are therefore making an exception -- you are saying that, simply because someone is helpless, one has a "duty" to care for him. yet, as you've said, that does not logically follow, does it ?
You are skipping over a crucial element.

There is a needy dependent - true. But in this case, the mother (and father) caused the need. It is a direct effect of their actions. Cause. Effect. These things are not irrelevant. That is why he draws the distinction - the actions of the parents caused the need of the child - the actions of the parents did not cause the starvation of others. Therefore, the parents have a duty to the child. They do not have a duty to random hungry people. Duty flows from liability; liability is created by causation.

RNK

24th April 2007, 02:34

That's great. Now all you have to do is realize the full implications of that fact.

Tungsten

24th April 2007, 16:02

sorry, i do not believe in intrinsic moral values, as i've already indicated. there is no "duty" to care,
That's funny. Having to provide for the poor sounds like a "duty" to me.

it's not "poor reasoning," friend.. it's NOT reasoning, at all. similarly, "coercion is wrong and should be avoided" is not reasoning, either;
Not quite, "coercion is wrong and should be avoided" is indeed a value judgement, but "Society is responsible for starvation because society is there" is simply a judgement. It's wrong, but that's another issue.

you're looking for logical arguments for being civilized.. again, you'll never find them.
That's dependent on your value judgements. With mine, there's plenty of reasons to be civilised- it maximises the possibility of eudaimonia, for others, survival. I do think some morality is better than others.

yes you did, tungsten. every time you've asked me to entertain some kind of hypothetical model of starvation, disease, etc., you've deliberately (or ignorantly -- i know not) backed away from any meaningful social context, because the hard facts of life (e.g., machetes) do not fit with your ideas.
Accepting machetes as a fact, accepting them as an excuse and accepting them as desirable are three different things.

therefore, you've discussed not good, detailed novels, but novels full of grand narratives and "big" ideas, without a single care for incorporating such paltry stuff into the real world.
So let's hear how your big ideas are so very different and how they're going to work. In case you hadn't noticed, this has been asked several times since I've been here, by several different people and there hasn't been a convincing reply yet. We've established the idea that it's going to be wonderful and there's going to be a revolution involved somewhere along the line, but not much else. The devil as always, is in the details.

sorry, you have not maintained your alleged strict logical standard there.
And if I haven't, neither have you.

first of all, you're attempting to extinguish the decision to NOT feed a starving child under the blanket of "criminally insane".
Then what other description would you give to someone who lets their own child starve? Presumably, a sane parent values their own child otherwise they wouldn't have had one in the first place. After all, sane people act primarily to achieve their (own) values.

in other words, since the stingy mother is a "criminal," or "insane," or whatever, her decisions cannot seriously be taken into consideration when discussing your hypothetical terms.
Starving your offspring goes a bit beyond "stingy".

yet, as you have established, a state of mind -- sympathetic, empathetic, nice, mean, insane, criminal, etc. -- is not a sound, logical reason to help anyone.. it says something about the person, but nothing about the duty itself.
Pusher seems to have beaten me to it. And another thing: "Insane" and "criminal" is not an emotion. Not unless you believe in ideas like "crimethink".

(there is, of course; sane people do insane things, all the time),
Then don't, otherwise they're not, by definition, sane.

second, your use of the word "happily" again diverts attention. who says the mother may "happily" starve her child ? she may be crying while refusing him food, etc., but, again, the state of mind is irrelevant.
I was talking about emotions and insanity isn't an emotion.

third, "they're children, not adults," does not take away the fact that the family is being compelled by the government to provide the child food. in other words, it is coercion.. as noted, the child becomes a TAX on the mother's income. why should she be COERCED into providing for this child, even if he IS irresponsible and incapable of feeding himself ? if you think the child SHOULD be cared for because he is "young" and "helpless," you are therefore making an exception -- you are saying that, simply because someone is helpless, one has a "duty" to care for him. yet, as you've said, that does not logically follow, does it ?
Pusher seems to have beaten me to it again.

what's this, are you pretending that you don't know what you're replying to ?

here was your original statement, to which i made my reply:

What a ridiculous assertion. I doubt very much "the food was there". If it was, then why are the people still starving now the imperialists have gone?

obviously, i wasn't trying to trap you into admitting that slavery and imperialism are great. i did, however, point out that the imperialists actually have NOT left the colonized. why don't you answer that statement -- which was the only relevant one all along -- instead of trying to divert attention ?
I don't see the need, as I have nothing to prove. Since I don't support imperialism, what would I have to gain from diverting attention from it?

(of course, under libertarianism, selling oneself into slavery is a "right," one which cannot be interfered with. but, that's a whole other discussion.)
You can't, because a slave has no choice and doesn't own himself. You can work for nothing while wearing chains if you so wish, but no one has the right to force you to do so. Only when they do have that right can you be called a slave.

(and the rest.. variations..) <snip>
Nope. They're not variations, they're uncomfortable questions you don't want to answer:

yes, i am important enough to make that COLLECTIVE decision, as long as i'm in the world majority.

What does that matter? What difference does it make to me if the person holding a gun to my head works for a single dictator or belongs to a collective majority?

(Oh, and don't think I haven't noticed that this hasn't been replied to:

What will happen to me if I don't?

I think I know why, and I'm afraid there's no getting round it; your ideology is coercive.)

that is part of the criteria. most south americans, haitians, africans, etc. strongly oppose the liberalization of their own economies (which is why south america hates america so much).. yet, they are not given much of a choice, are they ?

About as much choice as I'll be given about whether to feed the starving or not. But I guess that doesn't "count".

Rawthentic

25th April 2007, 00:03

I think I know why, and I'm afraid there's no getting round it; your ideology is coercive
How exactly? Pull out quotes from Marx and Engels to prove this. It is coercive in that it will coerce the capitalist parasites from their stolen wealth, but thats a good thing.

RNK

25th April 2007, 04:12

About as much choice as I'll be given about whether to feed the starving or not. But I guess that doesn't "count".

What starving? Nobody will be asking you to give up a percentage of you earnings to feed some poor people. You'll be provided with the full value of your labour, just like everyone else -- including those former poor people who will find themselves earning a proper proportion of their worth. There will be no need for you to feed anybody (except your children -- i hope you don't feel having to take care of them is a *duty*) -- they will be provided the means to feed themselves.

It'd be a lot easier if you learned about Communism before trying to argue against it. Atleast us lefties have the experience of living in capitalism (and thus understanding it). It's all too easy to criticize something you quite apparently don't grasp.

Red Tung

25th April 2007, 09:00

That's funny. Having to provide for the poor sounds like a "duty" to me.

Whoever said you need to provide for them? But, I challenge you to defend rationally what is simply irrational and ethically undefendable. That is the ownership of accumulated wealth which given a trading relationship with a materially disadvantaged party is all but inevitable in an economy in which currency circulation is the principle means of trading for goods.

I challenge you to defend this and give me answer as to how a person that is dependent on wages which goes to purchases of necessities which is primarily produced for ownership by the class of people who hire that person and those like him can ever really choose his own way of living his life without being forced by material necessity at some point to work for people who are "richer" than him.

It's not necessary for you to have a duty to provide for the "poor" if the system of economics is changed so that labour compensation is based on rationed collective material output in addition to effort spent in training time and production time. Whether or not a workers production is desirable or not should be based on the market entirely, that is whether the community at large wants what he is able to make and not how profitable his work is for the owners. In short owners of means of production are entirely unnecessary.

No duty required.

Then what other description would you give to someone who lets their own child starve? Presumably, a sane parent values their own child otherwise they wouldn't have had one in the first place. After all, sane people act primarily to achieve their (own) values.

Then what other description would you give to someone who lets their own child starve?

Sociopathically rational.

Absent of all value judgements and proceeding from a entirely self-centered perspective the child is simply a bag of protein or potential production asset if marketed as a living sex toy.

Presumably, a sane parent values their own child otherwise they wouldn't have had one in the first place.

Sure, but chickens and cows are also "cared for" until they're potential as sources of protein is realized. Similarly a child can be "cared for" until their potential as sources of protein or rentable sex toy for income can be realized. See above.

Ol' Dirty

3rd May 2007, 02:05

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 03, 2007 08:56 pm
I've asked this question probably a hundred times but I can never seem to get an intellectually clear answer.

You guys claim that wage labor is coercive simply because if you refuse to do it, people go hungry, get sick and eventually die. Not true.

If you don't feed yourself you go hungry, get sick and eventually die.
If you don't breathe, you suffocate and die.

Apparently biological functions are considered coercive to the leftists.

You also state that if no capitalist sees any profit to be made in hiring you, then you suffer the same penalty completely regardless of your willingness to do wage-labor. Correct?

So now business owners should hire people even if they know it will lose them money?

Follow that logic to its natural conclusion and you end up with no businesses and no jobs.

It is freedom if workers are free to pursue their own business or jobs elsewhere... as is the case.

Now make your case.
Wage labor is coercive due to race, class and gender considerations.

Tungsten

3rd May 2007, 15:41

How exactly? Pull out quotes from Marx and Engels to prove this.
Then I suppose you want me to pull quotes out of Mein Kampf to "prove" fascism is coercive? I've made my case clear enough.

It is coercive in that it will coerce the capitalist parasites from their stolen wealth, but thats a good thing.
The wealth isn't stolen. That's the whole point.

-

What starving? Nobody will be asking you to give up a percentage of you earnings to feed some poor people. You'll be provided with the full value of your labour, just like everyone else -- including those former poor people who will find themselves earning a proper proportion of their worth.
They're already receiving the full value of their labour. But let's suppose they weren't and everyone recieved a 50% rise. The cost of labour would go up and the food would be proportionately more expensive. Getting rid of the bosses wouldn't result in the massive savings many of you seem to think.

-

Whoever said you need to provide for them?
He did.

But, I challenge you to defend rationally what is simply irrational and ethically undefendable.
Whos ethics? And in what way is it irrational.

I challenge you to defend this and give me answer as to how a person that is dependent on wages which goes to purchases of necessities which is primarily produced for ownership by the class of people who hire that person and those like him can ever really choose his own way of living his life without being forced by material necessity at some point to work for people who are "richer" than him.
Perhaps you ought to re-read my posts again.

It's not necessary for you to have a duty to provide for the "poor" if the system of economics is changed so that labour compensation is based on rationed collective material output in addition to effort spent in training time and production time.
You mean let's use the labour theory of value?

Whether or not a workers production is desirable or not should be based on the market entirely, that is whether the community at large wants what he is able to make and not how profitable his work is for the owners.
How is a product going to be profitable in the first place if it is not desirable?

Sure, but chickens and cows are also "cared for" until they're potential as sources of protein is realized. Similarly a child can be "cared for" until their potential as sources of protein or rentable sex toy for income can be realized. See above.
Your point?

-

Wage labor is coercive due to race, class and gender considerations.
:blink: Excuse me?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd May 2007, 19:31

The wealth isn't stolen. That's the whole point.

It is stolen, you ignoramus. The wealth generated by the workers is taken from said workers before it even reaches their paycheck, making it only look like it's not stealing. The worker does not have total control over the wealth they create.

They're already receiving the full value of their labour. But let's suppose they weren't and everyone recieved a 50% rise. The cost of labour would go up and the food would be proportionately more expensive. Getting rid of the bosses wouldn't result in the massive savings many of you seem to think.

Expensive? I'm an anarchist. I don't "believe" in the complex arcana propagated by the economic high priesthood, otherwise known as money.

Everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labour - that's the only way I can think of that would allow everyone on the planet to live a decent lifestyle.

Let's make things absolutely clear: Even in the currently ineffecient capitalist system, the production capacity is good enough to provide for everyone, but everyone does not get what they need. This needs to change as soon as possible. Attempting to reform the capitalist system has been tried more than once and has so far failed miserably - things are actually getting worse, mainly thanks to capitalist globalisation and neo-liberalism, but also due to the fact that the existance of money and the demon power means that, combined, produce a vicious cycle.
Money is power, politicians like power and therefore like money, and will do everything in their currently vested power (Not forgetting of course to occasionally increase their own power, but I digress) to make money, which effectively means putting profits before people.

How in the hell can anyone with an ounce of either simply compassion or the desire for a more rational society even begin to support the continuation of the system described above? Especially when the injustices (Both inherent within the system and the occasions of injustice caused by such built-in flaws) are repeatedly pointed out to them?

Red Tung

3rd May 2007, 20:29

You mean let's use the labour theory of value?

And what's wrong with that?

Simply because a product is more expensive because more labour went into it doesn't mean it is more desirable. Many "luxury" cars are nothing more than inefficient fuel wasters that break down regularly compared to many models of "econo" cars that are fuel efficient and spend less time in the repair shop than so-called overpriced "luxury" cars.

Similarly I can use the labour theory of value (not really because much labour has already been made insignificant compared to machine "labour") and produce something unreliable and "luxurious" that has much more physical resources devoted to it's production included labour than some typical, but reliable consumer good that when compared on a purely utilitarian basis is actually better quality than the luxury item.

Given that we also get rid of all the consumer culture snobbery that exists where thousands dollar "brand name" shirts are sold that are not anymore higher in quality than another generic shirt, why would any consumer buy an item of lower or same quality given one is more expensive in resources to produce (or simply arbitrarily priced higher) than the other? They wouldn't. Therefore the market takes care of itself in terms for inefficiently produced goods. The consumer would go for the best quality good regardless of the product price labour theory of value or not. The amount of labour going into any given product or service doesn't correspond to the desirability of it.

How is a product going to be profitable in the first place if it is not desirable?

And your argument for the correlation between high profits and desirability?

What about low or no profits and desirability?

In fact you cannot prove any correlation for the first claim and you cannot disprove the second claim because there are well known exceptions that has that very quality of low or no profits and high desirability.

pusher robot

3rd May 2007, 21:59

How in the hell can anyone with an ounce of either simply compassion or the desire for a more rational society even begin to support the continuation of the system described above?

I know you're probably being rhetorical, but at least one plausible answer is that there is little historical evidence that any specific change would actually improve things in the long run. Sometimes, better the devil you know.

Tungsten

3rd May 2007, 23:30

It is stolen, you ignoramus.
Go on then, tell us how it's stolen, bearing in mind that selling your labour for a said price isn't stealing if you've agreed to it.

The wealth generated by the workers is taken from said workers before it even reaches their paycheck, making it only look like it's not stealing. The worker does not have total control over the wealth they create.
Because they don't create all the wealth. If I buy something off you for $1 and I sell it to someone else for $2, I created that extra $1 profit, not you.

Expensive? I'm an anarchist. I don't "believe" in the complex arcana propagated by the economic high priesthood, otherwise known as money.
I should imagine the reason you don't believe in it and decribe it in such terms is because you don't understand it, nor care to. Not my problem.

Everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labour - that's the only way I can think of that would allow everyone on the planet to live a decent lifestyle.
I don't see how deciding what happens to the products of my labour as opposed to a someone doing it on my behalf will make the slightest bit of difference to my lifestyle. There's no guarantee I'd be richer or happier.

Let's make things absolutely clear: Even in the currently ineffecient capitalist system, the production capacity is good enough to provide for everyone, but everyone does not get what they need. This needs to change as soon as possible.
Providing for everyone maybe your goal, but it's not going to be everyone else's.

Attempting to reform the capitalist system has been tried more than once and has so far failed miserably - things are actually getting worse, mainly thanks to capitalist globalisation and neo-liberalism, but also due to the fact that the existance of money and the demon power means that, combined, produce a vicious cycle.
Well reforming capitalism into communism is bound to fail because it allows people to working for their own benefit instead of and being forced to work for someone else's, which is a complete contradiction.

How in the hell can anyone with an ounce of either simply compassion or the desire for a more rational society even begin to support the continuation of the system described above?
But when compared to what you want to replace it with, it doesn't look too bad.

-

And what's wrong with that?
Because it's a poor an inconsistent measure of value.

Given that we also get rid of all the consumer culture snobbery that exists where thousands dollar "brand name" shirts are sold that are not anymore higher in quality than another generic shirt, why would any consumer buy an item of lower or same quality given one is more expensive in resources to produce (or simply arbitrarily priced higher) than the other?
Oh you'll get rid of it...because it's not a value to you personally? So much for choice and freedom...I shouldn't imagine it's going to be the only choice taken out of our hands too.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th May 2007, 01:30

Go on then, tell us how it's stolen, bearing in mind that selling your labour for a said price isn't stealing if you've agreed to it.

Are you thick? Or are you simply ignorant of the fact that for most people in the world, the "choice" is to work for a pittance or starve?

Because they don't create all the wealth. If I buy something off you for $1 and I sell it to someone else for $2, I created that extra $1 profit, not you.

But without that product being made in the first place, there is no profit. And what is sold in almost all cases is not the product itself but the labour required to make it, the product being taken off the worker with little to no choice, with the owner being free to restrict supply of said product to artificially inflate the price (yet another flaw in the capitalist system) in addition to numerous other tricks designed to give the owner more £$£$ at the expense of the worker's well being.

The fact that you continually defend such practices is leading me to believe that you truly are a piece of shit and are not merely suffering from ignorance, which can be cured.

I should imagine the reason you don't believe in it and decribe it in such terms is because you don't understand it, nor care to. Not my problem.

I understand it enough to know that it is actively harming people (World Bank/IMF demands on debtor nations to privatise previously public services causing prices to rocket beyond local average wages, to give just one example). You don't seem to understand nor care, and that is a problem because too many people think like you. Hopefully others' minds can be changed by reason and debate, unlike your mind through which I have to hammer the point like a nail through two short stout planks.

I don't see how deciding what happens to the products of my labour as opposed to a someone doing it on my behalf will make the slightest bit of difference to my lifestyle. There's no guarantee I'd be richer or happier.

So you don't mind at all that at the moment your boss can make totally arbitrary decisions (Except if the company has shareholders, in which case your boss is beholden to the capitalist totems of the Pound, Dollar, Yen etc.) regarding the products & services that you make/provide, not to mention the fact your career (you're fired!) and therefore your future well being and happiness is in their hands to a measurable extent (Why should we hire you? You got fired from your last job). It seems doubtful that you have ever actually worked for a living, since you seem ignorant of just how powerless most working people are in their workplace.

Providing for everyone maybe your goal, but it's not going to be everyone else's.

And just because most people are too busy hoarding up in these uncertain times to care about others, means that it's perfectly acceptable to be a selfish self-serving prick right? :rolleyes: No, of course not.

Well reforming capitalism into communism is bound to fail because it allows people to working for their own benefit instead of and being forced to work for someone else's, which is a complete contradiction.

This isn't even grammatically correct so I don't know what you're getting at here. Repeat yourself, but first learn English properly so as to not make your efforts to be understood totally futile.

But when compared to what you want to replace it with, it doesn't look too bad.

This sentence simply takes the cake. Do you honestly believe in profits over people, or do you simply enjoy being made to look stupid? Either speaks volumes about you.

ZX3

4th May 2007, 11:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:31 pm
Everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labour - that's the only way I can think of that would allow everyone on the planet to live a decent lifestyle.

Let's make things absolutely clear: Even in the currently ineffecient capitalist system, the production capacity is good enough to provide for everyone, but everyone does not get what they need. This needs to change as soon as possible.
And herein lies the problem of why your anarchist theories would not result in what you want.

It is false to say that "everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labor." That cannot be the objective of any sort of rational economic thinking. Because if it was true, that would mean the producers of of goods would be the ones determining its disposition (ie that producers would be telling the consumers what they "need" in what quanity, in what quality, and in one intervals). In other words, production would be geared to satisfy the needs of the producers, and not not the needs of the consumer (ie the people). This does not result in an environment where everyone gets all what they need. It results in an environment where people get what someone else says is all that they need.

The other issue is the claim that capitalism produces enough to provide for everyone's needs, but is inefficient at distribution. Even if true, its an argument no anarchist, or socialist, can reasonably make. And that is because these production levels are the result of capitalist economic calculation, a calculation which is sure to be abolished, in some way, in an anarchist or socialist community. So your community cannot rely upon the benefits of capitalist production to support its anarchists or socialist ends. It has to start from scratch, which makes the capitalist production of the past absolutely irrelevent on your part as your anarchist and socialist community gioes forward.

Tungsten

4th May 2007, 15:58

Are you thick? Or are you simply ignorant of the fact that for most people in the world, the "choice" is to work for a pittance or starve?
So it isn't "stolen" at all then. The word was just added for effect, right?

But without that product being made in the first place, there is no profit.
That makes no difference. Your entitlement ended when you parted with the goods, depending on the situation.

The fact that you continually defend such practices is leading me to believe that you truly are a piece of shit and are not merely suffering from ignorance, which can be cured.
Your worldview is so evidently narrow and non-neutral, I don't really care what you think.

I understand it enough to know that it is actively harming people (World Bank/IMF demands on debtor nations to privatise previously public services causing prices to rocket beyond local average wages, to give just one example).
You don't. You've taken it for granted that it's supposedly harming people. And I don't support the IMF/WTO or any similar agency, so their escapades, real or alleged, are largely mine to condemn too.

You don't seem to understand nor care, and that is a problem because too many people think like you. Hopefully others' minds can be changed by reason and debate, unlike your mind through which I have to hammer the point like a nail through two short stout planks.
Socialism doesn't work through reason and debate. It work through a mixture populism and violence against people who haven't done anything. The posts that reinforce this are too numerous to list; this fact was evidently to much Sloth to handle.

So you don't mind at all that at the moment your boss can make totally arbitrary decisions (Except if the company has shareholders, in which case your boss is beholden to the capitalist totems of the Pound, Dollar, Yen etc.) regarding the products & services that you make/provide,
He can tip every product I make into the sea if he wants, providing I get paid. It won't lower my self esteem.

not to mention the fact your career (you're fired!) and therefore your future well being and happiness is in their hands to a measurable extent (Why should we hire you? You got fired from your last job).
Now you're changing the subject from deciding where my products go to getting fired, which is something different.

It seems doubtful that you have ever actually worked for a living, since you seem ignorant of just how powerless most working people are in their workplace.
According to your profile, you've just turned twenty, so I very much doubt you've been in the workplace (assuming you work at all) long enough to assess anything, so how would you know? What have you seen that you can relate to? You're not describing the plight of the working class. You're describing the plight of you and perhaps a handful of radical agitators/free-lunchers.

And just because most people are too busy hoarding up in these uncertain times to care about others,
That's neither the situation nor the reason. I've already this argument with our chrisian socialist friend earlier in the thread.

This isn't even grammatically correct so I don't know what you're getting at here. Repeat yourself, but first learn English properly so as to not make your efforts to be understood totally futile.
Turning capitalism into communism is bound to fail because capitalism allows people to work for their own benefit, while communism forces them to work primarlily for someone else's benefit. The transition causes contradictions. We see the resulting conflicts today. This is the so-called "crisis of capitalism", which is not caused by capitalism at all.

I await the usual.

Do you honestly believe in profits over people,
I don't believe that's a valid dichotomy.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th May 2007, 17:35

So it isn't "stolen" at all then. The word was just added for effect, right?

Most workers have no real choice in the matter. How is that not theft?

That makes no difference. Your entitlement ended when you parted with the goods, depending on the situation.

99% of the time the worker has no real choice as to whom the products/services they produce go to, it's let the boss decide or lose their job.

How many times do not only me, but the rest of the non-restricted membership have to repeat a point before it sinks into your pointy head?

Your worldview is so evidently narrow and non-neutral, I don't really care what you think.

Their is no such thing as a "neutral" worldview - all humans have bias. I just happened to be biased in favour of the oppressed majority while your bias is toward the privileged minority.

You don't. You've taken it for granted that it's supposedly harming people.

Not being paid a living wage is an example of harm, you damnable fuckwit.

Socialism doesn't work through reason and debate. It work through a mixture populism and violence against people who haven't done anything.

So war criminals and slave masters (otherwise known as politicians and bosses) are innocent of crimes against the vast majority of humanity? You fucking must be sniffing glue.

He can tip every product I make into the sea if he wants, providing I get paid. It won't lower my self esteem.

So you you're happy to do work for money rather than doing work because it's socially useful? That shows just how socially retarded you are - looking out for No.1 instead of being a contributing member of society. I don't think like that, and I encourage everyone else not to think like you seem to.

Now you're changing the subject from deciding where my products go to getting fired, which is something different.

But still relevant. Performing purposeful work should be a right, not a privilege.

According to your profile, you've just turned twenty, so I very much doubt you've been in the workplace (assuming you work at all) long enough to assess anything, so how would you know? What have you seen that you can relate to? You're not describing the plight of the working class. You're describing the plight of you and perhaps a handful of radical agitators/free-lunchers.

OK, so you have never worked for a living. Thanks for the answer.

Turning capitalism into communism is bound to fail because capitalism allows people to work for their own benefit,

WRONG! Earning a wage is not a benefit, it's a concession. The bosses reap the benefits of employing you, otherwise they would never hire you in the first place.

while communism forces them to work primarlily for someone else's benefit.

What benefits society benefits the individual.

The transition causes contradictions. We see the resulting conflicts today. This is the so-called "crisis of capitalism", which is not caused by capitalism at all.

All the concessions gained by past reformist movements are being eroded away - current society is not becoming more egalitarian but less so.

The failure of said reformist movements is why I want to smash the state and abolish capitalism, rather than attempt to give either of them a "human face", which in the long run prolongs the suffering.

I don't believe that's a valid dichotomy.

The profit motive is antithetical to widespread social improvement - witness the old social programs being torn down (and then privatised, coining money but in return providing a shitty and expensive service) in an era in which corporations report record profits.

pusher robot

4th May 2007, 18:03

What benefits society benefits the individual.

That is obviously not so. It may benefit society for me to be thrown into a furnace, but it does not benefit me.

It may be to society's benefit that I become a truck driver instead of an artist, but that does not benefit me if I hate driving trucks.

It may be to society's benefit to march me off to die in combat, but it is not to my benefit if I dislike combat.

It may be to society's benefit to execute nonconformists, but it is not to the nonconformists's benefit.

Clearly, there are many circumstances where society as a whole can benefit at the expense of a minority element.

P.S. Your blustering rhetorical style does more to hurt your arguments than to help them.

Ol' Dirty

4th May 2007, 21:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:41 am

Wage labor is coercive due to race, class and gender considerations.
:blink: Excuse me?
Why do you want to be excused? Be more specific.

Red Tung

4th May 2007, 23:52

And what's wrong with that?

Because it's a poor an inconsistent measure of value.

And value is a function of demand, so prices correlates to demand how? Many workers demands are not met with the product prices that are set by the employers be it food, housing, "luxuries" or wages. So much for subjectively set prices being correlated to demand.

Given that we also get rid of all the consumer culture snobbery that exists where thousands dollar "brand name" shirts are sold that are not anymore higher in quality than another generic shirt, why would any consumer buy an item of lower or same quality given one is more expensive in resources to produce (or simply arbitrarily priced higher) than the other?
Oh you'll get rid of it...because it's not a value to you personally? So much for choice and freedom...I shouldn't imagine it's going to be the only choice taken out of our hands too.

No, it will be rid of when the economic system changes to proportional compensation for work done in addition to bonuses as defined as work automatically done through technology. Now why should a nuclear power plant owner be rich whether he be a Capitalist owner or "Communist" party boss simply because he is the director of the plant? Because he generated all that electricity from the uranium he shit out his arse? :lol:

Why don't you just stop the pretence about protecting "liberty" and "freedom" and tell us why you feel that it is a necessity and why it is possible that a few super-wealthy people can afford to buy over-priced luxury items as status symbols? It is because it is a symbol of the inequality of wealth and power over others who are unable to buy such status symbols. It is a way of flaunting to others the message: "Look at me! I am much more wealthy and privileged than you because I can buy something of the same functionality, but at a much higher price than what you need to pay your rent and food with!" In other words, "luxury items" serves as an insult to the common working man/woman who's year in pay that goes to necessities can't afford to buy that $20,000 fashion handbag or fancy suit.

Not that anybody actually need to do away with these items since with the change in economic system to a more proportional compensatory scheme, there would simply be no market for such overpriced symbols of undeserved privilege. But, still the question to ask is why should I or anybody that values fairness is society respect your "freedom" for such aristocratic symbols of undeserved privilege? Here's an idea. Since present day "luxury" is mainly about power and privilege and being dominant over others that are "weak" why don't you simply stick out your penis or breasts. It'll save a lot of waste with resources that could go to more utilitarian ends.

Cheung Mo

5th May 2007, 15:18

Capitalism can only be a meritocratic system if everyone is born into an identical set of material circumstances.

Lynx

5th May 2007, 22:43

Perhaps those in favor of meritocracy would be in favor of a heavy inheritance tax to ensure everyone starts off with the same material circumstance?

Coercion = manipulation - subtlety

Demogorgon

5th May 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:30 am
Are you thick? Or are you simply ignorant of the fact that for most people in the world, the "choice" is to work for a pittance or starve?

I have long come to the conclusion a lot of these clowns don't give two hoots about the real world. The trouble is that in their fantasy world what they say is true, because everyone is freely and openly making choices in a fair manner. The trouble is we don't live in their fantasy world, but try telling them that.

And calling capitalism meritocracy is preposterous. It is oligarchy through and through.

Red Tung

6th May 2007, 01:38

Are you thick? Or are you simply ignorant of the fact that for most people in the world, the "choice" is to work for a pittance or starve?

I have long come to the conclusion a lot of these clowns don't give two hoots about the real world. The trouble is that in their fantasy world what they say is true, because everyone is freely and openly making choices in a fair manner. The trouble is we don't live in their fantasy world, but try telling them that.

And calling capitalism meritocracy is preposterous. It is oligarchy through and through.

But, you are missing the point. And that is that people upon reaching a position of power and wealth enjoy being in that position. Being sensible or rational has nothing to do with it. Why do you think "luxury" items are all the rage among the rich and powerful even though on a functional level they're not much different than so-called "econo" models. People in power and I'm talking about people in general like to show off their genitals to show how much of dominant dick or **** they are over the sheepish followers. And who are these sheepish followers execpt for the unthinking general population who like to look up to these big dicks and ****s?

The society that you end up with is the society that the majority of the population is capable of understanding and supporting. Psychologically, people haven't really changed much since the days of tribal chieftans, personal duels and vendettas to settle disputes and looking at the genital sizes of their potential mates for attractiveness. Sorry to break it to you, but most people or psycho-sexual, sadomasochistic butt sniffers (http://www.smellmeand.com/) that are only one step above the butt-sniffing, territory marking family dog than rational, logically-minded, materialist, utilitarian scientist/engineers. Unfortunately, we live in a technological/scientific world that is created by these intellectual mutants (myself included) where it contradicts with a majority population that didn't really evolved past the territory-marking-with-urine, pink-butt-flashing stage of the primate evolutionary tree.

RebelDog

6th May 2007, 10:17

That is obviously not so. It may benefit society for me to be thrown into a furnace, but it does not benefit me.

Most individuals and society as a whole would benefit from this. One less pro-capitalist in the world.

It may be to society's benefit that I become a truck driver instead of an artist, but that does not benefit me if I hate driving trucks.

Do you think anybody wants to drive a truck for 80hours a week for shite wages and no personal life?

It may be to society's benefit to march me off to die in combat, but it is not to my benefit if I dislike combat.

It would benefit me as an individual and society if I were to fight and help destroy capitalism. Capitalists never engage in combat themselves anyway, don't worry.

It may be to society's benefit to execute nonconformists, but it is not to the nonconformists's benefit.

It depends to what extent they refuse to 'conform'. If you continue to agitate for capitalism after its been destroyed and communism has been established, then yes, your community will have to make decisions based on its future, not yours, and act against you.

Clearly, there are many circumstances where society as a whole can benefit at the expense of a minority element.

Like the overthrow of capitalism.

RebelDog

6th May 2007, 10:20

Originally posted by ZX3+May 04, 2007 10:24 am--> (ZX3 @ May 04, 2007 10:24 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 01:31 pm
Everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labour - that's the only way I can think of that would allow everyone on the planet to live a decent lifestyle.

Let's make things absolutely clear: Even in the currently ineffecient capitalist system, the production capacity is good enough to provide for everyone, but everyone does not get what they need. This needs to change as soon as possible.
And herein lies the problem of why your anarchist theories would not result in what you want.

It is false to say that "everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labor." That cannot be the objective of any sort of rational economic thinking. Because if it was true, that would mean the producers of of goods would be the ones determining its disposition (ie that producers would be telling the consumers what they "need" in what quanity, in what quality, and in one intervals). In other words, production would be geared to satisfy the needs of the producers, and not not the needs of the consumer (ie the people). This does not result in an environment where everyone gets all what they need. It results in an environment where people get what someone else says is all that they need.

The other issue is the claim that capitalism produces enough to provide for everyone's needs, but is inefficient at distribution. Even if true, its an argument no anarchist, or socialist, can reasonably make. And that is because these production levels are the result of capitalist economic calculation, a calculation which is sure to be abolished, in some way, in an anarchist or socialist community. So your community cannot rely upon the benefits of capitalist production to support its anarchists or socialist ends. It has to start from scratch, which makes the capitalist production of the past absolutely irrelevent on your part as your anarchist and socialist community gioes forward. [/b]
All that makes about as much sense as an ashtray on a motorbike. Where do you get this rubbish? Start from scratch? What are you talking about?

pusher robot

6th May 2007, 19:22

Most individuals and society as a whole would benefit from this. One less pro-capitalist in the world.

So you admit your statement is wrong?

Do you think anybody wants to drive a truck for 80hours a week for shite wages and no personal life?

Irrelevant.

It would benefit me as an individual and society if I were to fight and help destroy capitalism. Capitalists never engage in combat themselves anyway, don't worry.

Irrelevant.

It depends to what extent they refuse to 'conform'. If you continue to agitate for capitalism after its been destroyed and communism has been established, then yes, your community will have to make decisions based on its future, not yours, and act against you.

So you admit your statement is wrong?

Like the overthrow of capitalism.

So you admit your statement is wrong? Let's stay on track here. Do you retract your assertion that whatever is good for society is automatically good for every individual? Do you concede that you are actually promoting what might be good for society at the expense of some minority of individuals?

Demogorgon

6th May 2007, 19:33

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 06:22 pm

Do you think anybody wants to drive a truck for 80hours a week for shite wages and no personal life?

Irrelevant.

And why is it irrelevent? Do you think your pretentious rationalisations about capitalism are more relevant than the actual lives people live?

pusher robot

7th May 2007, 04:49

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 06, 2007 06:33 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 06, 2007 06:33 pm)
pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 06:22 pm

Do you think anybody wants to drive a truck for 80hours a week for shite wages and no personal life?

Irrelevant.

And why is it irrelevent? Do you think your pretentious rationalisations about capitalism are more relevant than the actual lives people live? [/b]
It's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that it is not true that what benefits society automatically benefits the individual.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

7th May 2007, 05:05

It's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that it is not true that what benefits society automatically benefits the individual.

If The Dissenter concedes that society's gain is sometimes the person's loss, will you concede that the person's gain is sometimes society's loss?

Anyways, if my advances and liberties are gained at the expense of soldiers getting killed, people doing menial labour or people in furnaces then it might as well be considered akin to capitalism or something similar even if it's capitalists who are the ones being persecuted.

syndicat

7th May 2007, 05:47

Here's an answer to the basic question about why wage-labor is coercive. if other people set up and control conditions that make it such that you suffer greatly, such as large economic losses, if you don't do what they say, then you are FORCED to do what they say.

For example, someone comes up to you late at nite on the street and points a gun at you and says, "Your money or your life?" we'd all agree you were forced to give the thief your money. you had the *capacity* to not do so....you could have tried to flee or overpower the thief. but that would have risked being shot.

now, the situation with wage-labor is that only about 8 percent of the population in the USA own the businesses. the vast majority can only get a livelihood by accepting an offer to work under some boss, that is, an offer from an employer.

since the consequences of not going along are that you have no income, no livelihood...very dire consequences...you are forced to go along, and thus work under a tyrannical regime, that is, the capitalist workplace, which is a "do as your told" relationship from bosses to workers, that is, a tyranny.

you migth say that no individual employer can force you to work for him, but the point is that the social order is one that allows a few to have a de facto monopolization over means of production, and thus, as a class, they can force workers, as a class, to do as they want them to do, within certain limits, mainly determined by what people will put up without revolting.

you're coerced or constrained by the social order, the way society is arranged, to put yourself under the dictatorial regime of some employer or other. it's coercive because consquences for you are dire if you don't go along. you have no income, no livelihood.

we can define this for you logically as follows. X is forced to do A if other people set up or control some conditions which make it the case that, if X doesn't do A, there is a very good likelihood of dire consequences for X.

take the holdup scenario again. in that case the thief forces X to do A (hand over the money) because if X doesn't do A, he's taking a good chance of being shot (dire consequences)., where some people (namely the thief) has set up the situation to have this dire consequence if X doesn't do A.

similarly, X, the worker, is forced to do A (take a job where she must submit to the orders of the capitalist management) because, if X doesn't do A, there is a high likelihood of dire consequences for X (having no livelihood, no income) since X owns no means of production, and this is a situation that is maintained and controlled by the capitalists because they control the state, and have long pursued having society structured this way, which allows them to accumulate ownership of means of production into the hands of a few. it is not a natural condition because of course the society could change it, through a social transformation where the means of production are made common property of everyone and the entire workforce collectively controls the labor process, and is not forced to work to enrich a few, under the control of a tyrannical managerial regime.

RebelDog

7th May 2007, 09:45

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 06:22 pm

Most individuals and society as a whole would benefit from this. One less pro-capitalist in the world.

So you admit your statement is wrong?

Do you think anybody wants to drive a truck for 80hours a week for shite wages and no personal life?

Irrelevant.

It would benefit me as an individual and society if I were to fight and help destroy capitalism. Capitalists never engage in combat themselves anyway, don't worry.

Irrelevant.

It depends to what extent they refuse to 'conform'. If you continue to agitate for capitalism after its been destroyed and communism has been established, then yes, your community will have to make decisions based on its future, not yours, and act against you.

So you admit your statement is wrong?

Like the overthrow of capitalism.

So you admit your statement is wrong? Let's stay on track here. Do you retract your assertion that whatever is good for society is automatically good for every individual? Do you concede that you are actually promoting what might be good for society at the expense of some minority of individuals?
I think its blindingly fucking obvious that the introduction of socialism/communism/anarchism is not good news for the ruling class dictatorship of society, thats why they oppose it so bitterly in all circumstances of working class rebellion. I couldn't give a fuck who it doesn't suit. We are acting in our class interests by fighting for change and you are acting in yours by fighting against change.

ZX3

7th May 2007, 12:20

Originally posted by The Dissenter+May 06, 2007 04:20 am--> (The Dissenter @ May 06, 2007 04:20 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:24 am

[email protected] 03, 2007 01:31 pm
Everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labour - that's the only way I can think of that would allow everyone on the planet to live a decent lifestyle.

Let's make things absolutely clear: Even in the currently ineffecient capitalist system, the production capacity is good enough to provide for everyone, but everyone does not get what they need. This needs to change as soon as possible.
And herein lies the problem of why your anarchist theories would not result in what you want.

It is false to say that "everyone decides what happens to the products of their own labor." That cannot be the objective of any sort of rational economic thinking. Because if it was true, that would mean the producers of of goods would be the ones determining its disposition (ie that producers would be telling the consumers what they "need" in what quanity, in what quality, and in one intervals). In other words, production would be geared to satisfy the needs of the producers, and not not the needs of the consumer (ie the people). This does not result in an environment where everyone gets all what they need. It results in an environment where people get what someone else says is all that they need.

The other issue is the claim that capitalism produces enough to provide for everyone's needs, but is inefficient at distribution. Even if true, its an argument no anarchist, or socialist, can reasonably make. And that is because these production levels are the result of capitalist economic calculation, a calculation which is sure to be abolished, in some way, in an anarchist or socialist community. So your community cannot rely upon the benefits of capitalist production to support its anarchists or socialist ends. It has to start from scratch, which makes the capitalist production of the past absolutely irrelevent on your part as your anarchist and socialist community gioes forward.
All that makes about as much sense as an ashtray on a motorbike. Where do you get this rubbish? Start from scratch? What are you talking about? [/b]
I'm thinking about things which socialists rarely bother to do: Thinking about socialism in the context of socialism. Most socialists hereabouts (including yourself) argue that: Capitalism is "bad" because (fill in the evil). They then conclude socialism will be "better." They are thinking about socialism in the context of capitalism.

So when it is argued along the lines that capitalist economic production is suffient enough to satisy all need and wants but is lousy at distribution, or when it is argued that socialism can only come about after the "material forces" of society are suffient (again, as a result of capitalism) to support it, I say nonsense. Because all the industry, all that development, is the result of capitalist economic calculation. It exists because of capitalism. So when the socialist community proposes to eliminate that source of knowledge, that source of economic calculation, they as a result eliminate that base of that economic production. So the socialist community is not building upon the back of capitalism, but starting from scratch, since it needs to produce according to an entire new way. And since the existing factories, transportation systems, are designed to function to satisfy the needs of capitalist calculation, not socialist calculation, the socialist community cannot rely upon those factories to function in the same manner as they did under capitalism, since they won't be used in the same way.

In other words, the socialist community cannot rely upon past capitalist production methods to kickstart the socialist community.

Thinking about socialism in terms of socialism. You socialists need to start doing that.