Log in

View Full Version : The problem with capitalism



Dr Mindbender
26th May 2007, 20:53
I get quite annoyed when I read arguments from pedantic right wingers, so I'll do my best to cover everything now. Here's my $0.02


Reactionaries are quick to sing the praises of those who do the least work, eg. Large business people, politicians, church leaders, Royalty etc. The reality is the USA state that calls itself the worlds seat of 'democracy' has little to offer the world in the way of example. Unelected privatised companies with power over essential services (transport health etc) have taken accountability away so that the vote has but no true meaning. This is why the remedy is blanket nationalistion, to ensure these essential services are brought back into accountable government hands. Already the US companies are becoming so huge they have leverage in affecting the democratic processes of other nations, particularly in the 3rd world.
In the UK we are sleepwalking towards a non pluralised plutocratic dictatorship as all 3 major parties sing from precisely the same right-of-centre hymn book.
Communism/Socialism (in my view at least) does not take away the apparatus of plural democracy, on the contary it was this mistake that led to the downfall of revolutions of yore. There is no reason to deny the reactionaries equal forum, the idea is their arguments will be irrelevant in the face of proletarian prosperity which is precisely why they so fear a shift in the status quo.
Capitalism is also guilty of wasting resources, not just mineral (which is an important point I'll come back to) but also human- Vast numbers within the workforce, many of whom are ex-graduates are syphoned off into forms of employment which have little or no relevance to their education or talents, and are there purely because of the demands of the 'market'. Clearly the focus should be on guiding them into areas where they will be of maximum benefit to society, the arts, and the sciences. This brings me onto my final point, science. Reactionaries accuse communists and other progressives of being backward, regressive etc. Clearly the opposite is the case whenever you consider we live in an age where various forms of renewable energies are available yet our primary source of transport is still dependent of the 4-stroke cycle. Rather than upset the apple cart, government leckies shuffle their feet when it comes to approve new technolgies which can run independent of the multi-billion dollar black juice and the obvious environmental catastrophe involved.

colonelguppy
26th May 2007, 23:36
accountability in the private sector comes from competition usually. i haven't seen much evidence that government, at the national level atleast, is more acountable than a number of firms in a given market.

la-troy
26th May 2007, 23:52
The Government will not be automatically more accountable but it stands to reason that they will. If ulster is referring to "democratic socialism" as I think he is, his argument makes sense. The governments number one aim would be to get reelected right? so they will naturally try to run these services better. A campaign on issues is always good . If the government handles the services well they will be elected. If they do not they will not be elected as the opposing party can say "look they ran your services amok"
Hence there is more accountability than say a company or a CEO that does not necessarily need the the support of the people especially when he controls a monopoly.

But I also think he has alluded to the problem with "democratic socialism" but I believe If we apply Marx's theory of permanent revolution we can avoid this.

BobKKKindle$
27th May 2007, 04:11
accountability in the private sector comes from competition usually. i haven't seen much evidence that government, at the national level atleast, is more acountable than a number of firms in a given market.

What competition? In all Capitalist Markets the exists a tendency towards the centralisation of Capital as more advanced and efficient firms are able to purchase the assets of companes that may be facing financial insolevency, as as a market tends towards monopoly, dominant firms are able to establish barriers to entry. This is especially true in markets where there exist large economies of scale. As a result of monopoly, you cannot describe markets as 'accountable' in any respect. If you examine the UK transport network most notably the underground system, since privatisation, one will see that in the absence of public control there exists inefficieny and the exploitation of consumer and worker.

Dr Mindbender
28th May 2007, 11:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:36 pm
accountability in the private sector comes from competition usually. i haven't seen much evidence that government, at the national level atleast, is more acountable than a number of firms in a given market.
The buick of that 'accountability' stops as far as the best way of making more profit, as opposed to the interests of whoever needs your service. If I own a big company whose interests are being threatened by my competitors, I can simply buy them over giving me back my de facto monopoly and we are back to square one.

Tungsten
29th May 2007, 16:46
As a result of monopoly, you cannot describe markets as 'accountable' in any respect.
Which presuppose that monopolies are inevitable and aare rule rather than an exception. They're actually quite rare, so they're not the rule.

If you examine the UK transport network
The one being propped up on government money?

one will see that in the absence of public control there exists inefficieny and the exploitation of consumer and worker.
Assuming it was efficient before it was privatised, which it wasn't. If it was pulling a profit, it wouldn't need to be propped up on government money; you had to pay for public transport before it was privatised and you obviously still have to pay for it now, so how is it any more exploitation now than it was then? What a ridiculous argument.

colonelguppy
29th May 2007, 18:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:11 pm

accountability in the private sector comes from competition usually. i haven't seen much evidence that government, at the national level atleast, is more acountable than a number of firms in a given market.

What competition? In all Capitalist Markets the exists a tendency towards the centralisation of Capital as more advanced and efficient firms are able to purchase the assets of companes that may be facing financial insolevency, as as a market tends towards monopoly, dominant firms are able to establish barriers to entry. This is especially true in markets where there exist large economies of scale. As a result of monopoly, you cannot describe markets as 'accountable' in any respect. If you examine the UK transport network most notably the underground system, since privatisation, one will see that in the absence of public control there exists inefficieny and the exploitation of consumer and worker.
the occurances of monopolies in most markets is extremely rare, and usually short lived. obviously transportation such as road networks and subways will be easily monopolized simply because of geography, i'd much rather those be publicly owned for that reason.

colonelguppy
29th May 2007, 18:27
The buick of that 'accountability' stops as far as the best way of making more profit, as opposed to the interests of whoever needs your service. If I own a big company whose interests are being threatened by my competitors, I can simply buy them over giving me back my de facto monopoly and we are back to square one.

but that rarely ever happens. why do you think this is?

Dr Mindbender
30th May 2007, 00:17
Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 29, 2007 05:25 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 29, 2007 05:25 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 10:11 pm

accountability in the private sector comes from competition usually. i haven't seen much evidence that government, at the national level atleast, is more acountable than a number of firms in a given market.

What competition? In all Capitalist Markets the exists a tendency towards the centralisation of Capital as more advanced and efficient firms are able to purchase the assets of companes that may be facing financial insolevency, as as a market tends towards monopoly, dominant firms are able to establish barriers to entry. This is especially true in markets where there exist large economies of scale. As a result of monopoly, you cannot describe markets as 'accountable' in any respect. If you examine the UK transport network most notably the underground system, since privatisation, one will see that in the absence of public control there exists inefficieny and the exploitation of consumer and worker.
the occurances of monopolies in most markets is extremely rare, and usually short lived. obviously transportation such as road networks and subways will be easily monopolized simply because of geography, i'd much rather those be publicly owned for that reason. [/b]
In my experience, monopolies were and are still more common than you suggest. Under the Thatcher cabinet in the UK, British telecom had a monopoly over telecoms (as a rule of thumb they still own the vast majority of UK phone lines) and british gas its own respective industry. While resident in Manchester, my commute to college was blighted by First buses and its monopolised route to Rochdale. Without either your beloved 'competition' or state influence to keep tabs on them, they were free to charge me extortionate fares for what was frankly, a piss poor service. On that note, Manchester also suffers from a private monopolised tram service who are every bit as bad and as expensive. I dare say my experiences are a microcosm of what goes on in every other major british city. While I accept you acknowledge it will be a common occurance in transport (and its shortcomings), it doesnt really validate your claim that it is 'rare'. Nor does it give the concept of privatisation any moral favour, especially over such a bread and butter issue. Also dont United Utilities have a monopoly over UK water billing? my goodness, the list goes on...

colonelguppy
30th May 2007, 00:36
industries which depend on geographically limited infrastructure such as transport and telecom are infact easier to monopolize (although with the increases in wireless technology this is no longer true), but outside of that i can't think of any recent significant occurances of monopolies at anything other than the local level for any significant period of time.

less competitive markets can usually be attributed to government protectionism, although not always. i don't know much about markets in the UK, but i'm sure you're government isn't doing much to help.

Dr Mindbender
30th May 2007, 00:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:36 pm


less competitive markets can usually be attributed to government protectionism, although not always. i don't know much about markets in the UK, but i'm sure you're government isn't doing much to help.
It really says more about their own brand of neo-liberalism, rather than any contribution theyve made to socialism; contrary to popular belief.

luxemburg89
30th May 2007, 14:38
. i don't know much about markets in the UK, but i'm sure you're government isn't doing much to help.


You seem to think you're pretty smart. Let's begin:

Start of a sentence CAPITAL FUCKING LETTER.

Also 'you're government' reads 'you are government' what you mean is 'your government' as in the ownership of something.

Finally if you don't know much about UK markets, how can you be sure the government isn't doing much?

Ah the joys of pedantry. I enjoy using the instruments of bourgeois society against itself.

Tungsten
30th May 2007, 15:30
In my experience, monopolies were and are still more common than you suggest. Under the Thatcher cabinet in the UK, British telecom had a monopoly over telecoms (as a rule of thumb they still own the vast majority of UK phone lines) and british gas its own respective industry.
So British Telecom only had a monopoly after they were privatised? What did they have before, when it was state-owned? And how is that any different from a monopoly, in practice? Use some common sense.

BobKKKindle$
30th May 2007, 16:37
So British Telecom only had a monopoly after they were privatised? What did they have before, when it was state-owned? And how is that any different from a monopoly, in practice? Use some common sense.

That is an inane argument. Monoplies are harmful primarily when they are under the control of the private sector, for the simple reason that firms aim to maxomise profits, and so in the absence of market compeition they will raise prices because consumers do not have an alternative choice.

When companies are managed in a manner that aims to maximise public welfare, this does not occur - in fact, one of the main arguments put forward in support of the nationalisation of transport is that it is often non-proftable to service isolated areas but it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a reasonabke standard of welfare for the inhabitants of the areas in question.

pusher robot
30th May 2007, 17:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:37 pm

So British Telecom only had a monopoly after they were privatised? What did they have before, when it was state-owned? And how is that any different from a monopoly, in practice? Use some common sense.

That is an inane argument. Monoplies are harmful primarily when they are under the control of the private sector, for the simple reason that firms aim to maxomise profits, and so in the absence of market compeition they will raise prices because consumers do not have an alternative choice.

When companies are managed in a manner that aims to maximise public welfare, this does not occur - in fact, one of the main arguments put forward in support of the nationalisation of transport is that it is often non-proftable to service isolated areas but it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a reasonabke standard of welfare for the inhabitants of the areas in question.
The flipside of that is that a government operated monopoly has no incentive whatsoever to minimize costs; in fact, for political and budgeting purposes, it often has an incentive to inflate them as much as possible. Runaway costs will be a huge drag on any economy.

Tungsten
30th May 2007, 18:36
That is an inane argument. Monoplies are harmful primarily when they are under the control of the private sector, for the simple reason that firms aim to maxomise profits, and so in the absence of market compeition they will raise prices because consumers do not have an alternative choice.
So how is a public sector monopoly any different? (Apart from the fact that, unlike the private sector, it's capable of forcing you to be it's customer whether you use its services or not, under threat of criminal prosecution.)

When companies are managed in a manner that aims to maximise public welfare, this does not occur - in fact, one of the main arguments put forward in support of the nationalisation of transport
Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time. You make it sound like nationalisation of transport is something new that's never been tried. Public transport was no better prior to privatisation.

is that it is often non-proftable to service isolated areas but it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a reasonabke standard of welfare for the inhabitants of the areas in question.
Or in electoral terms, Pork.

Jazzratt
30th May 2007, 23:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:36 pm

That is an inane argument. Monoplies are harmful primarily when they are under the control of the private sector, for the simple reason that firms aim to maxomise profits, and so in the absence of market compeition they will raise prices because consumers do not have an alternative choice.
So how is a public sector monopoly any different? (Apart from the fact that, unlike the private sector, it's capable of forcing you to be it's customer whether you use its services or not, under threat of criminal prosecution.)
The thing is with private companies is they all fucking suck - look at Transport for a good example. You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.



When companies are managed in a manner that aims to maximise public welfare, this does not occur - in fact, one of the main arguments put forward in support of the nationalisation of transport
Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time. You make it sound like nationalisation of transport is something new that's never been tried. Public transport was no better prior to privatisation.

Actually most of the stuff ran on time and, more importantly, no one was forced to pay through the fucking nose. Seriously fucking show one example of how private companies are better.



is that it is often non-proftable to service isolated areas but it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a reasonabke standard of welfare for the inhabitants of the areas in question.
Or in electoral terms, Pork.

Your pork barrel shit is only popular among a small group of libertarians, most people like to have free stuff on demand.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/Jazzratt/eatmyass.jpg

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 00:18
You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.

Oooh, yeah...I'm going to have to sort of...go ahead and "disagree" there. UPS, Federal Express, DHL - all of them are almost always far better for shipping than the USPS. For freight, privately owned rail and privately owned trucking concerns do a perfectly good job. The privately owned Megabus can get me from city to city for US$3 or less, while it costs me more than $3 just to take a government owned-and-operated city bus from one side of the city to the other. And since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

Now maybe you were talking about infrastructure and not actual transportation service, in which case you might have a point. But private transportation does a great job, at least in the U.S.

colonelguppy
31st May 2007, 00:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:38 am

. i don't know much about markets in the UK, but i'm sure you're government isn't doing much to help.


You seem to think you're pretty smart. Let's begin:

Start of a sentence CAPITAL FUCKING LETTER.

Also 'you're government' reads 'you are government' what you mean is 'your government' as in the ownership of something.

Finally if you don't know much about UK markets, how can you be sure the government isn't doing much?

Ah the joys of pedantry. I enjoy using the instruments of bourgeois society against itself.
what the fuck are you blathering about? this isn't an acedemic journal, it's a goddamn forum.

Herman
31st May 2007, 00:45
Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 30, 2007 10:05 pm--> (Jazzratt @ May 30, 2007 10:05 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 05:36 pm

That is an inane argument. Monoplies are harmful primarily when they are under the control of the private sector, for the simple reason that firms aim to maxomise profits, and so in the absence of market compeition they will raise prices because consumers do not have an alternative choice.
So how is a public sector monopoly any different? (Apart from the fact that, unlike the private sector, it's capable of forcing you to be it's customer whether you use its services or not, under threat of criminal prosecution.)
The thing is with private companies is they all fucking suck - look at Transport for a good example. You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.



When companies are managed in a manner that aims to maximise public welfare, this does not occur - in fact, one of the main arguments put forward in support of the nationalisation of transport
Except when it doesn't, which is most of the time. You make it sound like nationalisation of transport is something new that's never been tried. Public transport was no better prior to privatisation.

Actually most of the stuff ran on time and, more importantly, no one was forced to pay through the fucking nose. Seriously fucking show one example of how private companies are better.



is that it is often non-proftable to service isolated areas but it is necessary to do so in order to ensure a reasonabke standard of welfare for the inhabitants of the areas in question.
Or in electoral terms, Pork.

Your pork barrel shit is only popular among a small group of libertarians, most people like to have free stuff on demand.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/Jazzratt/eatmyass.jpg [/b]
Hahaha... Jazzrat's brilliant in his insults.

Jazzratt
31st May 2007, 01:45
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 11:18 pm

You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.

Oooh, yeah...I'm going to have to sort of...go ahead and "disagree" there
Yeah and you can go right ahead and fuck yourself. Any British member of this forum will agree with me.


. UPS, Federal Express, DHL - all of them are almost always far better for shipping than the USPS.

Sorry, what the fuck are you on about? Think Parcel Farce vs. The Post Office (or Consignia or whatever the Government meat-flaps want to call it).


For freight, privately owned rail and privately owned trucking concerns do a perfectly good job.

And for passenger services?


The privately owned Megabus can get me from city to city for US$3 or less, while it costs me more than $3 just to take a government owned-and-operated city bus from one side of the city to the other.

Yeah and B&H buses cost me £2 for a single over just a few miles. There is no cheaper govt. alternative.


And since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

And how sustainable is that, twat?


Now maybe you were talking about infrastructure and not actual transportation service, in which case you might have a point. But private transportation does a great job, at least in the U.S.

The US can lick my fucking bollocks.

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 05:06
Jazzratt your fucking insults are da bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jazzrat's insults are cowardly. I've bent over backwards to be civil and show respect even to people I strongly disagree with. If he wants to poison the well of civil discourse, I can handle it, I'm a big boy. But it's not cool, it's sad.

EDIT: I know I'm setting myself up for him to respond with some blistering insult. But it would only prove my point.

IcarusAngel
31st May 2007, 06:12
Insults are always the lowest thing you can result to while arguing. The person who throws the most mud usually manages to distort the debate so much that whatever you were currently discussing becomes lost. This is because the person really has the options of (1) replying to the insult, or (2) ignoring the argument all together, as its fallacious. The worst kinds of insults are where you say things like "That's the way it works, if you disagree, you're a fucking idiot" because not only is it an ad-hominem attack, but you're attaching prejudicial language to it that makes it seem as if anyone who disagrees is a moron.

The last forum I was on that was nearly all insults was Protest-Warrior. But even there I don't think ever saw people actually quote someone just to encourage them to insult with lines equivalent to "yeah, call him a stupid head again." That is really stupid, even below PW.

Politics is very complex and very entangled, you have to deal with so many situations and possible outcomes it's hard to know where to even begin, but since it affects so many people, it should thus should be taken very seriously. What's interesting is when people debate Astronomy or whatever you don't have them going, "Nu uh, there are 100 billion billion stars, you fucking idiot," but instead an explanation of why that's the current prediction.

On the privatization of public utilities, it's a very hot topic, very debatable. Even the UPS versus USPS scenario. Even one man's action can help prevent the privatization of things. Anyway, while it is true that UPS is more reliable, has better contractual options and insurance, and so on, USPS is by far the cheaper service (what the market is supposed to be doing anyway, make things really cheap) and often even speedier I've found, but definitely not more reliable. Well, who benefits the most from cheap service for letters and small packages? The poor, of course. Many people can't afford the rates of UPS to send their things.

The same is true with like private rail lines versus public, as mentioned. In public transportation, you often have buses or light rail systems that have more desolated and unpopular routes and lines. For example, you might have a route that provides access to only a few people late at night, whereas if it's privatized, since they're not making a profit from that particular route they'll just shut it down. That leaves the poor people without transportation and with the options of taking a taxi-cab limousine, or something.

Well, that may make economic sense, but it doesn't really make human sense. That person might end up on welfare or without a job, unable to provide their services to anybody. In the end, then, it may not even make economic sense in regard to state spending.

That's why in political science privatization is usually called "regressive politics" and public control is called progressive, because of the private business factor.

So again, we see another issue with no easy answers and both "human yardsticks" and "economic yardsticks" can be used as measurements justifiably.

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 06:33
Actually, I agree that at the very bottom end there can be a role for government subsidization for "essential" services like mail and transportation. So there can be a role for government-owned and operated services. I just disagree that (1) they are always, or even often, better than privately-run companies and that (2) government-owned and operated service monopolies are practically ever useful.

And thanks for sticking up for civil discourse.

red team
31st May 2007, 10:30
Originally posted by pusher robot
since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

We've got this gem here that cuts through the crap goes right to exposing the operation of Capitalism itself which is only a disguised form of slavery.

If fuel has gotten much more expensive then it logically follows that only if aircraft engines have gotten much more efficient then the plane would travel the same distance given the cost of fuel to power it.

Since aircraft engines have not gotten much more efficient then it must mean that much more money must be spent on fuel for it to travel the same distance, but since the total cost in operations is much less since the customer is charged much less, unless the airline is purposely operating on loss of profit which is ridiculous, then from a much less total operating budget the increase in fuel cost must come from the lowering of other costs like equipment quality, skills training and labour costs.

That's the "efficiency" of Capitalism for you! Make it efficient for returning profits at the cost of labour compensation and product safety. :lol:

ZX3
31st May 2007, 14:36
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 28, 2007 05:46 am
The buick of that 'accountability' stops as far as the best way of making more profit, as opposed to the interests of whoever needs your service. If I own a big company whose interests are being threatened by my competitors, I can simply buy them over giving me back my de facto monopoly and we are back to square one.
In a capitalist community, in order for you to "buy" a competitor, that competitor would need to be willing to "sell." Hence, solving the problem is not as simple as you think.

However, it is understandable, given that socialists seem to think any threat to ITS existence, can be easily disposed.

So much of socialism seems to be based upon its faulty analysis of capitalism.

ZX3
31st May 2007, 14:45
Originally posted by red team+May 31, 2007 04:30 am--> (red team @ May 31, 2007 04:30 am)
pusher robot
since deregulation, airline prices have gotten much cheaper even as fuel has gotten much more expensive.

We've got this gem here that cuts through the crap goes right to exposing the operation of Capitalism itself which is only a disguised form of slavery.

If fuel has gotten much more expensive then it logically follows that only if aircraft engines have gotten much more efficient then the plane would travel the same distance given the cost of fuel to power it.

Since aircraft engines have not gotten much more efficient then it must mean that much more money must be spent on fuel for it to travel the same distance, but since the total cost in operations is much less since the customer is charged much less, unless the airline is purposely operating on loss of profit which is ridiculous, then from a much less total operating budget the increase in fuel cost must come from the lowering of other costs like equipment quality, skills training and labour costs.

That's the "efficiency" of Capitalism for you! Make it efficient for returning profits at the cost of labour compensation and product safety. :lol: [/b]
Airlines never return profit, they always operate at a loss. The question is always "how great a loss."

Your analysis of the airline industry is interesting, and cuts to the chase of socialisms analysis of capitalism

1. Air traffic remains the safest mode of transportation, and accidents HAVE NOT increased as a result of airline deregulation a quarter century ago.

2. Deregulation has made it cheaper for people to use airline service, thus more people are using it (why more people travelling by air, thus able to go farther, in a shorter period of time is considered a problem for the socialist is mysterious).

3. Compensation has increased. The problem which exists are for the older carrierrs because of their needs to pay pensions, health care ect, of older and retiring employees, whereas the newer ones do not have these pressures. But of course, these problems would exist for the socialist run airline as well.

Dr Mindbender
31st May 2007, 15:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

In a capitalist community, in order for you to "buy" a competitor, that competitor would need to be willing to "sell." Hence, solving the problem is not as simple as you think.


Under Capitalism, every capitalist has his/her price. If I own a big company and you are competing against my monopoly which I view as a threat, would you not rather take X million immediately from me rather than risk making significantly less over a longer period of time?

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 15:54
If fuel has gotten much more expensive then it logically follows that only if aircraft engines have gotten much more efficient then the plane would travel the same distance given the cost of fuel to power it.

Yes, that's true enough.




Since aircraft engines have not gotten much more efficient then it must mean that much more money must be spent on fuel for it to travel the same distance

But that's wrong; aircraft engines have seen substantial efficiency gains over the past several decades.



but since the total cost in operations is much less since the customer is charged much less
That's wrong too. The customer is charged less because when the airlines were regulated, they could use their monopoly position to generate large profits. Now they can't. The lower prices have come directly at the expense of profits (or net income), which are currently razor-thin or nonexistent in the airline industry.


unless the airline is purposely operating on loss of profit which is ridiculous
But many do, at least for a while.


then from a much less total operating budget the increase in fuel cost must come from the lowering of other costs like equipment quality, skills training and labour costs.
You say that like lowering costs is automatically a bad thing. If you can get the same quality equipment at a lower cost, why should you prefer getting it at a higher cost? Spite? Suppose an Airbus is less expensive than an equivalent Boeing. Why shouldn't the airline buy the Airbus? By doing so, they lower their costs. Why is this a bad thing?

Tungsten
31st May 2007, 17:42
The thing is with private companies is they all fucking suck - look at Transport for a good example.
Well guess what- nationalised companies fucking suck too. All of them.

You may be able to try another company, but they might not be the same one that owns the track/road and would therefore have more trouble. Privatisation fucking sucks.
Having different companies owning different parts of a train track is hardly essential to privatisation.

Actually most of the stuff ran on time
Evidence, please.

and, more importantly, no one was forced to pay through the fucking nose.
Do you know what nationalisation actually *is* and where these services get their money from?

Seriously fucking show one example of how private companies are better.
I never said they provided a better service. It just means only the people using the service have to pay for it, instead of everyone.

Your pork barrel shit is only popular among a small group of libertarians,
Do you even know what pork barreling *is*?

most people like to have free stuff on demand.
Especially when they know someone else is picking up the bill. What a completely evasive response. Why did you even bother posting?

Yeah and you can go right ahead and fuck yourself. Any British member of this forum will agree with me
Most of other British members aren't even old enough to remember nationalisation. Yourself included. You've known nothing else.

Sorry, what the fuck are you on about? Think Parcel Farce vs. The Post Office (or Consignia or whatever the Government meat-flaps want to call it).
Compared to what?

Yeah and B&H buses cost me £2 for a single over just a few miles. There is no cheaper govt. alternative.
You mean you want a £2-a-mile service where you pay, say, 10 pence and everyone else who didn't use the service pays the remaining £1.90? Talk about egotisitical. How old are you?

Besides, the current public transport already is government subsidised. Nationalising it wouldn't improve it one iota.

The US can lick my fucking bollocks.
They'll have to find them first. :lol:

-


That's why in political science privatization is usually called "regressive politics" and public control is called progressive, because of the private business factor.
What's progressive/regressive about it? Academia should learn to rise above such politically-rigged dialogue. I agree with you 100% about the shit-slinging. Completely worthless.

luxemburg89
31st May 2007, 17:50
What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags. Politics is a serious business, which is why capitalism exists - it lightens the mood by being an utterly stupid system.

Pusher Robot you are a pretencious twat, and i don't really care if you think even worse of me for insulting you. The fact of the matter is that you only come on this website to try and make yourself seem better than us (you aren't doing very well btw); yet when you receive insults you cannot take it.


Besides, the current public transport already is government subsidised. Nationalising it wouldn't improve it one iota.

QUOTE
The US can lick my fucking bollocks.


They'll have to find them first.


Well, it's not like the US is very good at finding anything, *cough* Nuclear weapons in Iraq *cough*. So they obviously wouldn't finding Jazz's balls, because the US are useless at finding things.

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 18:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:50 pm
What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags. Politics is a serious business, which is why capitalism exists - it lightens the mood by being an utterly stupid system.
So I'm merely a means to your ends. How progressive.

luxemburg89
31st May 2007, 18:02
Who's in the picture Pusher Robot?

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 18:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:02 pm
Who's in the picture Pusher Robot?
My avatar is Herbert F. Kornfeld.

luxemburg89
31st May 2007, 18:19
thank you very much.

Tungsten
31st May 2007, 18:19
What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags.

*Chuckle*

And what do you think I'm here for? To "convert" you losers? Even if I was, most of you are less than worthless and I certanly wouldn't want you on my side anyway. Just look at the level of debate that goes on here to see what I'm talking about. *cough* Jazzrat *cough*

Don't you think I realise that no amount of exposure to reality is going to change your opinions or put a stop to any of your swivel-eyed utopian lunacy? You're no different to religious cultists and the results of your actions are pretty much the same.

Like when doomesday preachers claim the world is going to end on a certain date; when the date arrives and the world doesn't end, they don't dissappear and go home, they just make up a different date and carry on regardless. So it is with communism. If it collapses, it's state capitalism. If it doesn't work, it's never been tried. If there's a pile of corpses at the end of it, they deserved it etc.

Yeah, whatever.

luxemburg89
31st May 2007, 18:26
most of you are less than worthless

Well you cannot actually be less than worthless. If you are worthless you have no worth so how can you have even less worth than being worthless? Jazzratt is, in fact, a highly intelligent member of this site as I'm sure a comrade will verify in a while. You see Jazzratt's very busy, and unfortunately doesn't want to have to waste valuable typing time on you and so can only afford the simplistic brilliance of their beautifully crafted insults.

pusher robot
31st May 2007, 19:38
If you are worthless you have no worth so how can you have even less worth than being worthless?

Something is less than worthless if it has a negative worth. For example, a pile of rotting garbage on your lawn is less than worthless, because it's actually worth something for you to be rid of it.

Jazzratt
31st May 2007, 20:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:19 pm

What Tungston and Pusher Robot fail to understand is that the OI section is just here for us to amuse ourselves, you have become our verbal punchbags.

*Chuckle*

And what do you think I'm here for? To "convert" you losers?
See I was considering replying to the post you made in lieu of an intelligent, coherent reply but since you've pretty much admitted you're simply a troll there's no fucking point.


Even if I was, most of you are less than worthless and I certanly wouldn't want you on my side anyway. Just look at the level of debate that goes on here to see what I'm talking about. *cough* Jazzrat *cough*

I take it you often read through debates in other parts of the forums then, if you know so damn much about our debate style? The fact we're demeaning to you and your empty-headed ****frothery is because you're a bunch of retards, we have no interest in proving shit to you until you can show you're willing to learn or at least argue intelligently and coherently (like Publius) without being bloody minded and ultimately thick as shit (like wtfm8lol). Oh yes and my username has more than one 't' in it knobgoblin.


Don't you think I realise that no amount of exposure to reality is going to change your opinions or put a stop to any of your swivel-eyed utopian lunacy? You're no different to religious cultists and the results of your actions are pretty much the same.

The sad thing is you probably do think that you're trying to "enlighten" us "lunatics" with "reality". It's a shame that your reality is, plainly, a complete fantasy made up of capitalist wishful thinking and poor excuses for excesses and inefficiency. You know there are more than a few people who have argued to me that "reality" involves a big invisible wizard in the sky who will set me on fire and never put because of who I choose to make love to. I'm afraid you can't just declare your rose-tinted world-view infallible fact without a few questioning you, or requesting that you go very far away, very quickly.


Like when doomesday preachers claim the world is going to end on a certain date; when the date arrives and the world doesn't end, they don't dissappear and go home, they just make up a different date and carry on regardless. So it is with communism. If it collapses, it's state capitalism. If it doesn't work, it's never been tried. If there's a pile of corpses at the end of it, they deserved it etc.

Wait when have we done anything similar to the "date setters"? Oh wait, we haven't you're just fond of your strawman arguments.
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8979/strawmanfallacyuz1.jpg

As for the rest of your shit, it's not even worth bothering with, considering you're just a worthless troll.


Yeah, whatever.

Given that you have nothing, logically, to gain from this I suggest you fuck off and die.

http://masklinnscans.free.fr/4chan/you_fail_06.jpg

ZX3
31st May 2007, 21:23
Originally posted by la-[email protected] 26, 2007 05:52 pm
The Government will not be automatically more accountable but it stands to reason that they will. If ulster is referring to "democratic socialism" as I think he is, his argument makes sense. The governments number one aim would be to get reelected right? so they will naturally try to run these services better. A campaign on issues is always good . If the government handles the services well they will be elected. If they do not they will not be elected as the opposing party can say "look they ran your services amok"
Hence there is more accountability than say a company or a CEO that does not necessarily need the the support of the people especially when he controls a monopoly.

But I also think he has alluded to the problem with "democratic socialism" but I believe If we apply Marx's theory of permanent revolution we can avoid this.
The issue from the point of the OIers hereabouts (or at least this one) has never been that socialists wll NOT try to do better, or that they would INTENTIONALLY try to do worse. The issue has been whether socialists have the ability to do better when trying to solve problems while using their prefered (socialist) means.

ZX3
31st May 2007, 21:35
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+May 31, 2007 09:44 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ May 31, 2007 09:44 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

In a capitalist community, in order for you to "buy" a competitor, that competitor would need to be willing to "sell." Hence, solving the problem is not as simple as you think.


Under Capitalism, every capitalist has his/her price. If I own a big company and you are competing against my monopoly which I view as a threat, would you not rather take X million immediately from me rather than risk making significantly less over a longer period of time? [/b]
Your initial comment in this thread contained the old standard socialist fallacy: Production for profit is different from production for use. The reality remains that capitalists can only accrue profits when they produce items others find useful. In other words, production for profit IS production for use. Which means the pursuit of profit will result in production which is beneficial for people.

So when you are talking about a situation where a smaller company is competing against a larger one, you suggest the smaller capitalist might sell out. Maybe.

But not always so. Smaller capitalists have thrived, and in some cases overcome, their much larger brethren by focusing on areas that larger guys overlooked, or did a task better, than the larger guys.

And the way that occurred is by the smaller company pursuing profits, which means they satisfied the overlooked needs, or satisfied needs in a better fashion than did the larger folks.

luxemburg89
31st May 2007, 23:29
Something is less than worthless if it has a negative worth. For example, a pile of rotting garbage on your lawn is less than worthless, because it's actually worth something for you to be rid of it.


Well fuckwit it still has a worth then doesn't it. Even if it has a negative worth it is not worthless. You really aren't half as smart as you think you are.

pusher robot
1st June 2007, 00:01
Even if it has a negative worth it is not worthless.

Correct, it has a worth value that is less than worthless, just like -5 is less than 3 even though it isn't 0. I'm happy we agree.

Ele'ill
1st June 2007, 00:03
Wait when have we done anything similar to the "date setters"? Oh wait, we haven't you're just fond of your strawman arguments.

I agree with him in that many (not necessarily you) on the left get hyped up about a revolution or revolutionary action when absolutely nothing worthwhile in the last several years has been done by anyone to move any leftist movement forward. I guess he was referring to the fact that many on the left also excuse this lack of 'movement' with 'the masses aren't ready for revolution' which for the most part is accurate. So it's comparable to the date setters in that there's a lot of hype but not a lot of happening.

Capitalism obviously rejects any type of revolution against it as any system will but it doesn't necessarily reject reform. Rather than waiting for the masses to turn against a system that they're content with why not *educate them about the possibility for change*, Environmental issues, economic issues, etc. Start by gaining a little bit of contentment that the system is changing on issues that you're concerned with and maybe, as people realize how much can and needs to be changed, you'll have more support. Not support for outright communism, anarchism or whatever but a hybrid system that's mixed and matched.

I know 90% of the revleft community are against reformists but that's ok because i'm not a reformist. I'm just presenting an idea, and i'm curious as to what you all think of it.

Jazzratt
1st June 2007, 00:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:03 pm

Wait when have we done anything similar to the "date setters"? Oh wait, we haven't you're just fond of your strawman arguments.

I agree with him in that many (not necessarily you) on the left get hyped up about a revolution or revolutionary action when absolutely nothing worthwhile in the last several years has been done by anyone to move any leftist movement forward. I guess he was referring to the fact that many on the left also excuse this lack of 'movement' with 'the masses aren't ready for revolution' which for the most part is accurate.
Well there is that and the fact a lot of leftists are lazy or settled into sectarianism, however having a non-class concious and brainwashed proletariat does not help. Which is why we don't say there will be a revolution today, tomorrow or even in a decade's time.


So it's comparable to the date setters in that there's a lot of hype but not a lot of happening.

I disagree entirely. Most sensible leftists I have spoken to are not "hyping" a revolution that is just around the corner, they are advocating a revolutionary destruction of the society we currently live in as a medium-to-long-term goal.


Capitalism obviously rejects any type of revolution against it as any system will but it doesn't necessarily reject reform. Rather than waiting for the masses to turn against a system that they're content with why not *educate them about the possibility for change*, Environmental issues, economic issues, etc.

There is no real problem with this tactic as long as you realise how limited it is, in its way. Class consciousness comes fastest either from education or extreme mistreatment, and naturally the former is preferable but not as effective as the latter (just to clarify I'm not cynical enough to want to make my life miserable so my peers start to share my world-view.).


Start by gaining a little bit of contentment that the system is changing on issues that you're concerned with and maybe, as people realize how much can and needs to be changed, you'll have more support. Not support for outright communism, anarchism or whatever but a hybrid system that's mixed and matched.

A hybrid system is no good to the working class, bollocks to it and the horse it rode in on.


I know 90% of the revleft community are against reformists but that's ok because i'm not a reformist. I'm just presenting an idea, and i'm curious as to what you all think of it.

I think it's too limited, but may help in these the early days. The main danger is that people get caught up in the reform and abandon the revolution in favour of playing the bourgeois politics game.

What were you restricted for, by the way?

luxemburg89
1st June 2007, 00:23
I guess he was referring to the fact that many on the left also excuse this lack of 'movement' with 'the masses aren't ready for revolution' which for the most part is accurate. So it's comparable to the date setters in that there's a lot of hype but not a lot of happening.


Hate to admit it, but you're probably right there. I think most people here know we are no-where near ready for a revolution and it would be foolish to think we are. That shouldn't mean that we don't prepare for one though. Although there are some on the left (not necessarily on this site) who mistake preparation for petty-thugery.

Dr Mindbender
1st June 2007, 01:07
Originally posted by ZX3+May 31, 2007 01:36 pm--> (ZX3 @ May 31, 2007 01:36 pm)
Your initial comment in this thread contained the old standard socialist fallacy: Production for profit is different from production for use. The reality remains that capitalists can only accrue profits when they produce items others find useful. In other words, production for profit IS production for use. Which means the pursuit of profit will result in production which is beneficial for people.[/b]
How do you explain then, when in practice for example the vast majority of food which is unsold by supermarkets eg.Walmart are piled up in a storehouse ready for disposal rather than hand it out to the homeless population?
Why is it the United states alone produces enough grain to feed the planet 3 times over yet still sees the need to dump vast amounts of unsold surplus in the ocean?
I fail to see how this is 'beneficial' when you consider the amount of people who could benefit from a different system of distribution.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

So when you are talking about a situation where a smaller company is competing against a larger one, you suggest the smaller capitalist might sell out. Maybe.
In the real world, whenever the money is on the table the capitalist is more likely to want to cash his chips and run, and repeat the process by using their money to threaten another monopoly.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

But not always so. Smaller capitalists have thrived, and in some cases overcome, their much larger brethren by focusing on areas that larger guys overlooked, or did a task better, than the larger guys.
You're probably referring to niche markets that appeal to peoples creature comforts rather than their day to day needs. I was referring mainly to industries which affect bread and butter issues like medical care and transport, which is why i mentioned my experiences in Manchester.


[email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

And the way that occurred is by the smaller company pursuing profits, which means they satisfied the overlooked needs, or satisfied needs in a better fashion than did the larger folks.
Yadda yadda yadda. Same as above. Who cares if its not reducing my commute to work, or reducing my wait time for a live saving operation?

Tungsten
1st June 2007, 01:07
See I was considering replying to the post you made in lieu of an intelligent, coherent reply but since you've pretty much admitted you're simply a troll there's no fucking point.
What a convenient get-out clause.

I take it you often read through debates in other parts of the forums then, if you know so damn much about our debate style?
I couldn't care less what goes on in other part of the forum. It's here - where differing views are aired - that the nature of the beast comes out. When I see talk of torture and homicide to those who happen not to agree with your private vision of utopia, it doesn't take long to work out the score.

The fact we're demeaning to you and your empty-headed ****frothery is because you're a bunch of retards, we have no interest in proving shit to you until you can show you're willing to learn or at least argue intelligently and coherently
Until I'm willing to learn? You mean "until I've learned to agree with you", don't you? You might want to try doing that yourself.

(like Publius)
:lol: You're joking aren't you? Just because you and Publius happen to have some beliefs that overlap at the edges doesn't put you in the same league as him. At least he has his own ideas- as erroneous as I find them; unilke yours, his posts don't consist of a string of insults passed off as arguments.

Oh yes and my username has more than one 't' in it knobgoblin.
Go and tell someone who cares.

The sad thing is you probably do think that you're trying to "enlighten" us "lunatics" with "reality".
No, I don't. The true believer isn't interested in facts, their beliefs are an article of faith, so it is with you.

You know there are more than a few people who have argued to me that "reality" involves a big invisible wizard in the sky who will set me on fire and never put because of who I choose to make love to.
When I see gays set on fire, I'll believe there's a wizard in sky. When I see communism succeed without turning into some variation of North Korea, I might entertain the idea that you could be right.

I'm afraid you can't just declare your rose-tinted world-view infallible fact without a few questioning you, or requesting that you go very far away, very quickly.
Hypocracy noted.

Wait when have we done anything similar to the "date setters"? Oh wait, we haven't
So if I were to search this forum, I won't find any Soviet/red China apologists or any claims that these countries weren't communist or were attempting communism, or that they practiced the invalid concept known as "state capitalism"? Are you sure?
http://masklinnscans.free.fr/4chan/you_fail_06.jpg
That's funny, I'm not the one dependent on public transport...or welfare cheques...or the NHS. If all that makes me a failure, what does it make you?

Dr Mindbender
1st June 2007, 01:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:07 am
[/IMG]
That's funny, I'm not the one dependent on public transport...or welfare cheques...or the NHS. If all that makes me a failure, what does it make you?
You condenscending ****! So what if he uses public transport, at least he doesnt have a carbon footprint the size of bigfoot.
:angry:

luxemburg89
1st June 2007, 01:25
Until I'm willing to learn? You mean "until I've learned to agree with you", don't you? You might want to try doing that yourself.

I agree, we cannot stress the importance of the left agreeing with itself.


When I see gays set on fire, I'll believe there's a wizard in sky.

Well, now, this is an interesting idea. What happens if you saw someone you know set a gay person on fire? Would that mean that there's a wizard in the fire?


So if I were to search this forum, I won't find any Soviet/red China apologists or any claims that these countries weren't communist or were attempting communism, or that they practiced the invalid concept known as "state capitalism"? Are you sure?


So you're suggesting that the true extent of communism is Soviet/red China? However I find you contradict that statement with this:


When I see communism succeed without turning into some variation of North Korea,

Now this suggests that communism and North Korea (which you obviously associate with Soviet/red China) are two distinctly different things. That is North Korea is a mutilated version of communism, but surely this does not corroborate with you the previous statement? Ah must just be my eyes.


That's funny, I'm not the one dependent on public transport...or welfare cheques...or the NHS. If all that makes me a failure, what does it make you?

Well that's your fucked up bourgeois perception of failure. For me, and for Jazzratt (to whom I am supposing your reactionary tirade was addressed) and any other leftist member of the site, being dependent on the NHS is a success. It shows that man is caring for fellow man, and would be present after our revolution so yeah, it's a positive thing. Being dependent on public transport is fine, it can be very convenient. To be dependent on a welfare cheque may not necessarily mean failure, it could be someone got sacked for no apparent reason and was forced on the dole. You seem to have a low opinion of the proletariat, well let's take them out of society and see how you cope for a week, you bourgeois ****. So if we can feel pride in those things you listed, then we are a success and you, remain, a failure.

Lot's of love, Lux :D

Ele'ill
1st June 2007, 01:44
I disagree entirely. Most sensible leftists I have spoken to are not "hyping" a revolution that is just around the corner, they are advocating a revolutionary destruction of the society we currently live in as a medium-to-long-term goal.

But what have they actually done for themselves or for others to break free of capitalism.



A hybrid system is no good to the working class, bollocks to it and the horse it rode in on.

Well ok but by 'hybrid system' I simply mean something we haven't thought of yet. Something unforeseeable.


I think it's too limited, but may help in these the early days. The main danger is that people get caught up in the reform and abandon the revolution in favour of playing the bourgeois politics game.

Revolutionary reform could be a demand for change through revolution. Revolution doesn't have to be an abolishment of an entire world economic system. (Although this makes me sound in favor of the world economic system, I am not in favor)



What were you restricted for, by the way?

For interrupting the left's back patting circle jerk and asking some very important questions. I am on the left, but find it so hard to admit it because of certain people, in fact, most of the left makes me embarrassed to even have a political orientation.

ZX3
1st June 2007, 02:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:03 pm

I agree with him in that many (not necessarily you) on the left get hyped up about a revolution or revolutionary action when absolutely nothing worthwhile in the last several years has been done by anyone to move any leftist movement forward. I guess he was referring to the fact that many on the left also excuse this lack of 'movement' with 'the masses aren't ready for revolution' which for the most part is accurate. So it's comparable to the date setters in that there's a lot of hype but not a lot of happening.

Capitalism obviously rejects any type of revolution against it as any system will but it doesn't necessarily reject reform. Rather than waiting for the masses to turn against a system that they're content with why not *educate them about the possibility for change*, Environmental issues, economic issues, etc. Start by gaining a little bit of contentment that the system is changing on issues that you're concerned with and maybe, as people realize how much can and needs to be changed, you'll have more support. Not support for outright communism, anarchism or whatever but a hybrid system that's mixed and matched.

I know 90% of the revleft community are against reformists but that's ok because i'm not a reformist. I'm just presenting an idea, and i'm curious as to what you all think of it.
The weakness in the reformist language is this:

It seeks to slowly strangle capitalism. The result is that production declines, as wealth and property are slowly removed and capitalist actions are restricted, resulting in increased misery for workers. The refornist naturally and properly gets the blame for the problem at election time. It also allows for the capitalist to marshall its resources and work to obstruct the advance of socialism.

Which is the other problem: The reformist has to actually argue in favor of something. They actually have to convince people that their way is the best way.

The more hardcore revolutionary socialist types of course disdain such debate, probably because they revel in the fact they have absolutely no idea of how to go about and create a socialist community. Its far better just to create "the conditions neccessary" for a socialist revolt (which of course such socialists have no idea what they are) blame all the problems on capitalism and invest no further intellectual activity.

luxemburg89
1st June 2007, 02:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:44 am

I disagree entirely. Most sensible leftists I have spoken to are not "hyping" a revolution that is just around the corner, they are advocating a revolutionary destruction of the society we currently live in as a medium-to-long-term goal.

But what have they actually done for themselves or for others to break free of capitalism.



A hybrid system is no good to the working class, bollocks to it and the horse it rode in on.

Well ok but by 'hybrid system' I simply mean something we haven't thought of yet. Something unforeseeable.


I think it's too limited, but may help in these the early days. The main danger is that people get caught up in the reform and abandon the revolution in favour of playing the bourgeois politics game.

Revolutionary reform could be a demand for change through revolution. Revolution doesn't have to be an abolishment of an entire world economic system. (Although this makes me sound in favor of the world economic system, I am not in favor)



What were you restricted for, by the way?

For interrupting the left's back patting circle jerk and asking some very important questions. I am on the left, but find it so hard to admit it because of certain people, in fact, most of the left makes me embarrassed to even have a political orientation.
You seem reasonably intelligent so I apologise for insulting you. Look, I'm sure the left is frustrating atm - and even I get annoyed by the 'gun-crazy' nature of certain comrades (again not necessarily on his site) but stick with us, if capitalism's gonna be overthrown, I believe I'm in the right place, and amongst the right people.

ZX3
1st June 2007, 02:32
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+May 31, 2007 07:07 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ May 31, 2007 07:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Your initial comment in this thread contained the old standard socialist fallacy: Production for profit is different from production for use. The reality remains that capitalists can only accrue profits when they produce items others find useful. In other words, production for profit IS production for use. Which means the pursuit of profit will result in production which is beneficial for people.
How do you explain then, when in practice for example the vast majority of food which is unsold by supermarkets eg.Walmart are piled up in a storehouse ready for disposal rather than hand it out to the homeless population?
Why is it the United states alone produces enough grain to feed the planet 3 times over yet still sees the need to dump vast amounts of unsold surplus in the ocean?
I fail to see how this is 'beneficial' when you consider the amount of people who could benefit from a different system of distribution.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

So when you are talking about a situation where a smaller company is competing against a larger one, you suggest the smaller capitalist might sell out. Maybe.
In the real world, whenever the money is on the table the capitalist is more likely to want to cash his chips and run, and repeat the process by using their money to threaten another monopoly.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

But not always so. Smaller capitalists have thrived, and in some cases overcome, their much larger brethren by focusing on areas that larger guys overlooked, or did a task better, than the larger guys.
You're probably referring to niche markets that appeal to peoples creature comforts rather than their day to day needs. I was referring mainly to industries which affect bread and butter issues like medical care and transport, which is why i mentioned my experiences in Manchester.


[email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

And the way that occurred is by the smaller company pursuing profits, which means they satisfied the overlooked needs, or satisfied needs in a better fashion than did the larger folks.
Yadda yadda yadda. Same as above. Who cares if its not reducing my commute to work, or reducing my wait time for a live saving operation? [/b]
Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism from the point of their writing about it. The present world just sort of happened. But one cannot look at it that way. When the observation is made that the USA produces enough food to feed the world three times over, it is so because of capitalism. You can't just say "well, if there was a better distribution system" everything would just continue to flow the same, America would continue to feed the world. Change the system, and the results change. There is no way around.

Which is why your reference to some problem with the NHS is so curious. The NHS is a microscosm of how a socialist community would function. Because what the NHS does is allocate resources in a certain way. You will ALWAYS have to wait on line, because everyone in the UK cannot work in health care, nor can doctors operate on more than one person at a time. And the doctor is not a slave, and has the "right" (certainly in a socialist community) to free time. So how is the care parcelled out? Yep, wait on line, since other methods of allocating the resources are frowned upon. That the socialist criticises the capitalist method of allocating resources does not mean that the socialist community will not confront the same problem.

Specifically, your complaint at the end of your note is that the capitalist community has not solved the problems of a socialist segment of the community in its allocation of resources. Its sort of a weak criticism of capitalism, and a weak argument for socialism.

Dr Mindbender
1st June 2007, 14:29
Originally posted by ZX3+May 31, 2007 01:36 pm--> (ZX3 @ May 31, 2007 01:36 pm)
Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism from the point of their writing about it. The present world just sort of happened. But one cannot look at it that way. When the observation is made that the USA produces enough food to feed the world three times over, it is so because of capitalism. You can't just say "well, if there was a better distribution system" everything would just continue to flow the same, America would continue to feed the world. Change the system, and the results change. There is no way around.[/b]

Highly debatable. If there were the resources there to begin with, it wouldnt matter what political ideaology was distributing it, it would still be there. The difference is capitalism chooses to dump it in the ocean rather than over the people who need it.
I would argue that under socialism there would be MORE resources rather than fewer, as the labour of all people would be utilised and scientific progress would be concentrated more on agricultural and industrial endeavours as opposed to the military and the various niche markets.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Which is why your reference to some problem with the NHS is so curious. The NHS is a microscosm of how a socialist community would function. Because what the NHS does is allocate resources in a certain way. You will ALWAYS have to wait on line, because everyone in the UK cannot work in health care, nor can doctors operate on more than one person at a time. And the doctor is not a slave, and has the "right" (certainly in a socialist community) to free time. So how is the care parcelled out? Yep, wait on line, since other methods of allocating the resources are frowned upon. That the socialist criticises the capitalist method of allocating resources does not mean that the socialist community will not confront the same problem.
To which I would disagree with angrilly, there is a misconception that state owned health care is inefficient slow per se which is blatant spin on the part of the profiteers. The reason the UK NHS is falling to pieces is because it is underfunded by a capitalist government. At the peak of the Cuban revolution, Cuba had a health care system which was the envy of the western world. You would have struggled to find anywhere (in that region at least) where you could find a doctor with such speed and efficiency.

[email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Specifically, your complaint at the end of your note is that the capitalist community has not solved the problems of a socialist segment of the community in its allocation of resources. Its sort of a weak criticism of capitalism, and a weak argument for socialism.
Its at this point when its not even a political argument anymore but comes philosphical. If a means of government produces more misery than it does joy, is there any moral grounds for mantaining it?
The reason the capitalist 'community' has no onus to solve the unequal distribution is because if it did so then it would lose its means of control over those who need it. Without the desperation caused by the inequality, they are unable to extort cheap labour from deperate people for as little money as possible.

Tungsten
1st June 2007, 15:42
You condenscending ****!
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

So what if he uses public transport, at least he doesnt have a carbon footprint the size of bigfoot.
Neither do I. What does public transport run on anyway, moonbeams?

-


So you're suggesting that the true extent of communism is Soviet/red China?
Not limited to it, no.

Now this suggests that communism and North Korea (which you obviously associate with Soviet/red China) are two distinctly different things.
No it doesn't suggest that. You're clutching at straws and it's lame.

That is North Korea is a mutilated version of communism, but surely this does not corroborate with you the previous statement? Ah must just be my eyes.
Yes, it must be. You're reading something that isn't there.

Well that's your fucked up bourgeois perception of failure. For me, and for Jazzratt (to whom I am supposing your reactionary tirade was addressed)
Reaction against the ridiculous isn't fucked up. It's sensible.

and any other leftist member of the site, being dependent on the NHS is a success.
Being dependent on others is a sign of sucess? I guess being on the dole all your life must be a sign of sucess too, where you're completely dependent on others. If that's sucess, what's failure? Getting a job and not having to claim other people's money? You should listen to yourself.

It shows that man is caring for fellow man, and would be present after our revolution
I wouldn't say that made you a giver of virtue but a collector of it. Is the reciever of charity morally equal to the giver? I don't think so.

You seem to have a low opinion of the proletariat,
I'm more descriminating about what I call the proletariat (which, unlike you, I happen to be part of). People who actually work are what I consider working class, which doesn't include people on welfare cheques, as they don't.

well let's take them out of society and see how you cope for a week,
Take out all the people who don't work and we'll see what? Less taxes? Bring it on.

you bourgeois ****.
Why criticise the bourgoise? I thought they were dependent on the proletariat. By your standards, we ought to consider them sucessful because of it.

So if we can feel pride in those things you listed, then we are a success and you, remain, a failure.
In the same way someone comitting suicide is a success when they leap off a tall building. Good job.

pusher robot
1st June 2007, 15:46
Highly debatable. If there were the resources there to begin with, it wouldnt matter what political ideaology was distributing it, it would still be there.

Ten years ago, when Zimbabwe farms were owned as capital and operated for profit, Zimbabwe was a net food exporter. Food as a resource was plentiful.

Now, with the farms nationalized and operated as an affirmative action jobs program, Zimbabwe is a net food importer that routinely faces famines and relies on other capitalist countries for food assistance.

This, I think, should clearly demonstrate that political ideology does indeed matter; the resources will not just automatically "be there."

luxemburg89
1st June 2007, 23:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:42 pm

You condenscending ****!
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

So what if he uses public transport, at least he doesnt have a carbon footprint the size of bigfoot.
Neither do I. What does public transport run on anyway, moonbeams?

-


So you're suggesting that the true extent of communism is Soviet/red China?
Not limited to it, no.

Now this suggests that communism and North Korea (which you obviously associate with Soviet/red China) are two distinctly different things.
No it doesn't suggest that. You're clutching at straws and it's lame.

That is North Korea is a mutilated version of communism, but surely this does not corroborate with you the previous statement? Ah must just be my eyes.
Yes, it must be. You're reading something that isn't there.

Well that's your fucked up bourgeois perception of failure. For me, and for Jazzratt (to whom I am supposing your reactionary tirade was addressed)
Reaction against the ridiculous isn't fucked up. It's sensible.

and any other leftist member of the site, being dependent on the NHS is a success.
Being dependent on others is a sign of sucess? I guess being on the dole all your life must be a sign of sucess too, where you're completely dependent on others. If that's sucess, what's failure? Getting a job and not having to claim other people's money? You should listen to yourself.

It shows that man is caring for fellow man, and would be present after our revolution
I wouldn't say that made you a giver of virtue but a collector of it. Is the reciever of charity morally equal to the giver? I don't think so.

You seem to have a low opinion of the proletariat,
I'm more descriminating about what I call the proletariat (which, unlike you, I happen to be part of). People who actually work are what I consider working class, which doesn't include people on welfare cheques, as they don't.

well let's take them out of society and see how you cope for a week,
Take out all the people who don't work and we'll see what? Less taxes? Bring it on.

you bourgeois ****.
Why criticise the bourgoise? I thought they were dependent on the proletariat. By your standards, we ought to consider them sucessful because of it.

So if we can feel pride in those things you listed, then we are a success and you, remain, a failure.
In the same way someone comitting suicide is a success when they leap off a tall building. Good job.
Being dependent on other is a sign of a successful society. How would you know I'm not a member of the proletariat? Besides, guessing from your nature, you are in fact petit-bourgeois.


Why criticise the bourgoise?

*Sigh* Ok, let's go back to the beginning. B O U R G E O I S; and also the plural is B O U R G E O I S I E. Not that you'd actually know because you probably haven't read The Communist Manifesto.


Is the reciever of charity morally equal to the giver? I don't think so.

1 in 3 people get cancer, I've lost 4 people to it already, let's hope you're one of those 1 in 3, that you have no money, and that no one gives you any money to help you recover - then you might change your fucking mind. People like you are a disgrace, you are implying that a person should actually feel guilty for RECEIVING charity. You're probably one of those people who gives to charity on the odd occaision to make yourself feel better, instead of wanting to help them. Moral highground has no place in charity, charity should itself be so common that there should be no qualms on either side; that is the provider and the charity in question.

Anyway:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/Jazzratt/handgrenades.jpg

*courtesy of Jazzratt_Images*

Jazzratt
1st June 2007, 23:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:42 pm

So what if he uses public transport, at least he doesnt have a carbon footprint the size of bigfoot.
Neither do I. What does public transport run on anyway, moonbeams?
So you don't understand fuel efficiency and the benefits of public transport? Fine, just don't pretend your ignorance holds any weight. Since the amount of energy used per person is less with a public transport system than with everyone owning a car I suggest you fuck off. Cars are good for having fun in but hopelessly ineffeciant at transport.



So you're suggesting that the true extent of communism is Soviet/red China?
Not limited to it, no.

No, I expect your wonderful repetoire of strawmen is practically limitless, but please do spare us the details of your moronic beliefs.



Now this suggests that communism and North Korea (which you obviously associate with Soviet/red China) are two distinctly different things.
No it doesn't suggest that. You're clutching at straws and it's lame.

DPRK =/= Stateless Classless Society. get the fuck over yourself, you're the guy who has come here to get his jollies by trolling a forum.



Well that's your fucked up bourgeois perception of failure. For me, and for Jazzratt (to whom I am supposing your reactionary tirade was addressed)
Reaction against the ridiculous isn't fucked up. It's sensible.

So wait, because I've recognised that you coming on this website, dick in hand, ready for a trolling session indicates that your life is a hollow failure you feel you're in a position to declare some of our most progressive achievements "ridiculous".



and any other leftist member of the site, being dependent on the NHS is a success.
Being dependent on others is a sign of sucess? I guess being on the dole all your life must be a sign of sucess too, where you're completely dependent on others. If that's sucess, what's failure? Getting a job and not having to claim other people's money? You should listen to yourself.

You've never had a period of prolonged unemployment in your privileged life so you clearly don't understand how important things like food on the table, actually having a table and a roof over your head become in those situations, you'd rather just hoard all your resources and pretend that somehow this makes you a success rather than facing up to the fact that all it means is that others will starve to death because of you, this is why you're scum and this is why you should die in a fire. I think a sign of a successful life is one that is enjoyed by the person living it and one that furthers society. So a communist on the dole is worth a fuck of a lot more than some nob in a suit.



You seem to have a low opinion of the proletariat,
I'm more descriminating about what I call the proletariat (which, unlike you, I happen to be part of). People who actually work are what I consider working class, which doesn't include people on welfare cheques, as they don't.

You don't know shit about the proletariat. Stop pretending that you're anything but a petit-bourgeois ****. Most of the proletariat go through periods of unemployment, as it is the nature of the bourgeois slave masters to occaisonally take away the one thing they give the workers - a wage.



well let's take them out of society and see how you cope for a week,
Take out all the people who don't work and we'll see what? Less taxes? Bring it on.

Well let's see, first we'll start with your strawman: what would happen if the unemployed proletariat were removed:

1) Suddenly the labour pool would be dramatically reduced as anyone looking for a job dissapears.

2) No new workers come into this pool, after all they have to start out as unemployed.

3) Your society is fucked

Now imagine this situation if all proletarians were removed. See why we don't think you and your class are that great? You couldn't do shit without us.



So if we can feel pride in those things you listed, then we are a success and you, remain, a failure.
In the same way someone comitting suicide is a success when they leap off a tall building. Good job.

I don't think you quite understood what he meant, but that's okay because you're a moron and I understand you understand things more slowly than others.

Because society provides for the destitute, the left can feel a small sense of success.

Tell you what, why don't you go and protest the tax rate by immolating yourself?

Dr Mindbender
1st June 2007, 23:56
Originally posted by tungsten+--> (tungsten)If you can't take it, don't dish it out.[/b]
Who's dishing it out? If you have to resort to infantile mudslinging on the basis of financial or class status, then you insult us all, chump.

tungsten

Neither do I. What does public transport run on anyway, moonbeams?
Which is beside the point. Havent you ever heard of a car pool? Or the concept of having just one polluting vehicle per x number of people rather than a polluting vehicle per person? Duhhh!!!!!!!! :wacko:

Dr Mindbender
2nd June 2007, 00:02
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 01, 2007 02:46 pm

Highly debatable. If there were the resources there to begin with, it wouldnt matter what political ideaology was distributing it, it would still be there.

Ten years ago, when Zimbabwe farms were owned as capital and operated for profit, Zimbabwe was a net food exporter. Food as a resource was plentiful.

Now, with the farms nationalized and operated as an affirmative action jobs program, Zimbabwe is a net food importer that routinely faces famines and relies on other capitalist countries for food assistance.

This, I think, should clearly demonstrate that political ideology does indeed matter; the resources will not just automatically "be there."
Point A- When I refer to resources, I didnt necessarilly mean agricultural resources such as tractors, harvesters etc but natural ones such as corn, wheat etc which seem to have done a perfectly good job fending for themselves naturally before the intervention of man.

Point B- Zimbabwe is a brutal dictatorship whose leader has fascistic tendencies, who is currently stopping at nothing to marginalise his political opponents through all means necessary. Such a climate is hardly a fair acid test for the credibility of nationalisation, and does nothing to discredit the case for it.

ZX3
2nd June 2007, 01:38
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 01, 2007 06:02 pm
Point A- When I refer to resources, I didnt necessarilly mean agricultural resources such as tractors, harvesters etc but natural ones such as corn, wheat etc which seem to have done a perfectly good job fending for themselves naturally before the intervention of man.

Point B- Zimbabwe is a brutal dictatorship whose leader has fascistic tendencies, who is currently stopping at nothing to marginalise his political opponents through all means necessary. Such a climate is hardly a fair acid test for the credibility of nationalisation, and does nothing to discredit the case for it.
Point A- So in a socialist community people will not have access to consume wheat, corn ect.? I would find that highly unlikely.

Point B- That type of activity is EXACTLY the type of activity one would expect with nationalisations. I meangee whiz, don't you socialists even read each others notes? Ripping land and capital from the capitalist is EXACTLY what socialists here propose. And ONLY revolutionary socialists pass muster on this board. Evolutionary folks who preach gradual takeover are panned, and wind up subject to the restricted list. Mugabe is behaving precisely as one could expect from a revolutionary socialist- grabbing the land of the wealthy and crushing all those who resist. And the results are what OIers expect.

Dr Mindbender
2nd June 2007, 01:50
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)Point A- So in a socialist community people will not have access to consume wheat, corn ect.? I would find that highly unlikely.[/b]
No... good grief... :huh:

The original (and frankly naive) insination was that the reason that the vast abundancy of crops had been harvested in the first place, was solely thanks to the capitalist industrial methods of the USA.
I was simply pointing out that Mother nature had done a fairly good job before uncle sam arrived on the scene.

Originally posted by [email protected]

Point B- That type of activity is EXACTLY the type of activity one would expect with nationalisations. I meangee whiz, don't you socialists even read each others notes? Ripping land and capital from the capitalist is EXACTLY what socialists here propose. No what Mugabe does it take the land from the profiteer, and use the benefit of the land specifically for himself and his immediate cronies which is precisely what Stalin did. No one on the board is advocating that

ZX3
And ONLY revolutionary socialists pass muster on this board. Evolutionary folks who preach gradual takeover are panned, and wind up subject to the restricted list. Mugabe is behaving precisely as one could expect from a revolutionary socialist- grabbing the land of the wealthy and crushing all those who resist. And the results are what OIers expect.
You convieniently forgot to acknowledge that Mugabe is a fascist, who allocates the resources on the basis of their ethnicity, not just their political allegiances. If you ignore the fact that Zimbabwe is surrounded by states who are hostile towards it, Socialists on this board advocate distributing the resources regardless of their creed, sex etc. That is VERY different to the situation in Zimbabwe.

ZX3
2nd June 2007, 02:17
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 01, 2007 08:29 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 01, 2007 08:29 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism from the point of their writing about it. The present world just sort of happened. But one cannot look at it that way. When the observation is made that the USA produces enough food to feed the world three times over, it is so because of capitalism. You can't just say "well, if there was a better distribution system" everything would just continue to flow the same, America would continue to feed the world. Change the system, and the results change. There is no way around.

Highly debatable. If there were the resources there to begin with, it wouldnt matter what political ideaology was distributing it, it would still be there. The difference is capitalism chooses to dump it in the ocean rather than over the people who need it.
I would argue that under socialism there would be MORE resources rather than fewer, as the labour of all people would be utilised and scientific progress would be concentrated more on agricultural and industrial endeavours as opposed to the military and the various niche markets.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Which is why your reference to some problem with the NHS is so curious. The NHS is a microscosm of how a socialist community would function. Because what the NHS does is allocate resources in a certain way. You will ALWAYS have to wait on line, because everyone in the UK cannot work in health care, nor can doctors operate on more than one person at a time. And the doctor is not a slave, and has the "right" (certainly in a socialist community) to free time. So how is the care parcelled out? Yep, wait on line, since other methods of allocating the resources are frowned upon. That the socialist criticises the capitalist method of allocating resources does not mean that the socialist community will not confront the same problem.
To which I would disagree with angrilly, there is a misconception that state owned health care is inefficient slow per se which is blatant spin on the part of the profiteers. The reason the UK NHS is falling to pieces is because it is underfunded by a capitalist government. At the peak of the Cuban revolution, Cuba had a health care system which was the envy of the western world. You would have struggled to find anywhere (in that region at least) where you could find a doctor with such speed and efficiency.

[email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Specifically, your complaint at the end of your note is that the capitalist community has not solved the problems of a socialist segment of the community in its allocation of resources. Its sort of a weak criticism of capitalism, and a weak argument for socialism.
Its at this point when its not even a political argument anymore but comes philosphical. If a means of government produces more misery than it does joy, is there any moral grounds for mantaining it?
The reason the capitalist 'community' has no onus to solve the unequal distribution is because if it did so then it would lose its means of control over those who need it. Without the desperation caused by the inequality, they are unable to extort cheap labour from deperate people for as little money as possible. [/b]
For the socialist, distribution is the major problem. That is because a socialist community is wrong in how it approaches the problem of production and distribution. It thinks its job is provide everyone with meaningful labor, while distributing sufficent goods to be equitably distributed (or as near as possible) to the community. Hence, it is constantly vexed on the subject.

For the capitalist, distribution is a not a problem. Since the capitalist produces for profit, it means that his goods has to be distributed at the point of production. He produces because somebody wants the item. If he is wrong, the capitalist finds out pretty quickly (such as when Microsoft carved a niche market out of IBM's errors in its production). Which is why I laugh at your twice mention remarks of capitalism dumping products in the sea, which if true, would represent a fairly signifigant environmental issue which the greenies have heretofor been silent,a nd would mean capitalists DO NOT produce for profit, which would pretty much end the reason for socialism existence. Such behavior (if at all) would be expected to be seen in a socialist community since it admits to having problems with distribution and one can easily situations for errors.

Cuba had the best health care and was the wealthiest country in the Carribean and Latin America BEFORE the revolution. As far as the wonders of present Cuban medicine, Castro himself required a Spanish doctor during his recent health woes. I doubt all Cubans have such options in the treatment of THEIR health issues. Certainly they don't have the option of coming to the USA, as so many in the UK and Canada do for THEIR medical treatment.

Health care will ALWAYS be underfunded, and more so in a socialist community. And that is because a community cannot deploy all of its resources to be used in healthcare. So decisions and allocations of healthcare will need to be made. And the most equitable, the most fair way of allocation (in a socialist community) is put you in a line. But the world can do better.

ZX3
2nd June 2007, 02:37
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 01, 2007 07:50 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 01, 2007 07:50 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)Point A- So in a socialist community people will not have access to consume wheat, corn ect.? I would find that highly unlikely.[/b]
No... good grief... :huh:

The original (and frankly naive) insination was that the reason that the vast abundancy of crops had been harvested in the first place, was solely thanks to the capitalist industrial methods of the USA.
I was simply pointing out that Mother nature had done a fairly good job before uncle sam arrived on the scene.

[email protected]

Point B- That type of activity is EXACTLY the type of activity one would expect with nationalisations. I meangee whiz, don't you socialists even read each others notes? Ripping land and capital from the capitalist is EXACTLY what socialists here propose. No what Mugabe does it take the land from the profiteer, and use the benefit of the land specifically for himself and his immediate cronies which is precisely what Stalin did. No one on the board is advocating that

ZX3
And ONLY revolutionary socialists pass muster on this board. Evolutionary folks who preach gradual takeover are panned, and wind up subject to the restricted list. Mugabe is behaving precisely as one could expect from a revolutionary socialist- grabbing the land of the wealthy and crushing all those who resist. And the results are what OIers expect.
You convieniently forgot to acknowledge that Mugabe is a fascist, who allocates the resources on the basis of their ethnicity, not just their political allegiances. If you ignore the fact that Zimbabwe is surrounded by states who are hostile towards it, Socialists on this board advocate distributing the resources regardless of their creed, sex etc. That is VERY different to the situation in Zimbabwe. [/b]
There are millions of "cronies" of Mugabe. At that point, the term "crony" loses all meaning. Mugabe rewards those who back him. Fine. Spend some time on these boards and the revlefters (those few who have had the courage to actually try to defend their version of socialism) will concede that opponents of the socialist community will have a fairly rough time of it during the transition and afterwards. In other words, those who don't tow the line are in for some problems. Perhaps they don't mean in the manner which Mugabe has done. But so what? The problem still exists and it it always seems to be solved the same way. Maybe that is because it is the only rational way for it to be solved, even if the genuine intentions are not looking in that manner.



In 1790, 90% of Americans were farmers, and the USA still needed to import food.
In 1890, something like 40% of Americans were farmers, and the USA was an exporter of food.
Today, what, 1 or 2 percent of Americans are farmers and the country produces enough to feed the world (but I do think that three time over figure might be a bit high). Most of the land used in the USA was not growing corn, and rice, wheat ect. naturally. And if it did, of what possible relevence is it to a Russian or a Bermudan? hell, if North Dakota was a socialist community, it would still have no relevence. Food has to be grown, and shipped. Even in a socialist community. It doesn't happen by magic.

Dr Mindbender
2nd June 2007, 15:33
Originally posted by ZX3+May 31, 2007 01:36 pm--> (ZX3 @ May 31, 2007 01:36 pm)

For the socialist, distribution is the major problem. That is because a socialist community is wrong in how it approaches the problem of production and distribution. It thinks its job is provide everyone with meaningful labor, while distributing sufficent goods to be equitably distributed (or as near as possible) to the community. Hence, it is constantly vexed on the subject.[/b]
It isnt that difficult. You make your own contribution, and afterwards you take your own equal stake in the final production afterwards. I think thats a lot simpler than a few bone idle suits at the top taking almost everything.
As Ive said before, capitalism squanders the techological and scientific means at its disposable, so actually contrary to your cliched view, things would actually be easier under socialism regarding the logistical side.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

For the capitalist, distribution is a not a problem. Since the capitalist produces for profit, it means that his goods has to be distributed at the point of production. He produces because somebody wants the item. If he is wrong, the capitalist finds out pretty quickly (such as when Microsoft carved a niche market out of IBM's errors in its production). Which is why I laugh at your twice mention remarks of capitalism dumping products in the sea, which if true, would represent a fairly signifigant environmental issue which the greenies have heretofor been silent,a nd would mean capitalists DO NOT produce for profit, which would pretty much end the reason for socialism existence. Such behavior (if at all) would be expected to be seen in a socialist community since it admits to having problems with distribution and one can easily situations for errors.
So for example, If I want a box of cornflakes, the capitalist is going to go into a corn field with a sickle and prepare me a box, on demand? What utter BS. Obviously he is going to mass produce in bulk, without any guarantee how many he will sell. The rest has to get thrown out, because just giving it away will create a 'negative precidence'.
http://www.nofear.org/Archives/2005/06/food_wastage_so.html

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Cuba had the best health care and was the wealthiest country in the Carribean and Latin America BEFORE the revolution. As far as the wonders of present Cuban medicine, Castro himself required a Spanish doctor during his recent health woes. I doubt all Cubans have such options in the treatment of THEIR health issues. Certainly they don't have the option of coming to the USA, as so many in the UK and Canada do for THEIR medical treatment.
BEFORE the revolution the vast majority of cubans lived in destitution thanks to the negligence of the Batista regime, which was the revolution's pre-cursor. Secondly, I said the health system was superior at the PEAK of the revolution prior to US sanctions, not necessarilly today, and lastly, if the Cuban health system is so inferior can you kindly explain why they still could find surplus doctors to send to the USA to help in the aftermath of Katrina?
http://medschool.ucsf.edu/news/features/pu...70423_Cuba.aspx (http://medschool.ucsf.edu/news/features/public_service/20070423_Cuba.aspx)

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Health care will ALWAYS be underfunded, and more so in a socialist community. And that is because a community cannot deploy all of its resources to be used in healthcare. So decisions and allocations of healthcare will need to be made. And the most equitable, the most fair way of allocation (in a socialist community) is put you in a line. But the world can do better.
Yes, I agree the health system will always be underfunded (largely because there will probably always be ailments we cannot cure)but the measure by which it should be graded is that there should be at least a bed for every sick person and enough resources to alleviate the symptoms as best as possible. What socialism would do different is channel the resources into finding remedies rather than into the military, or national space exploration and other gung ho crap that has no other purpose but to divide the proletariat.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

There are millions of "cronies" of Mugabe. At that point, the term "crony" loses all meaning. Mugabe rewards those who back him. Fine. Spend some time on these boards and the revlefters (those few who have had the courage to actually try to defend their version of socialism) will concede that opponents of the socialist community will have a fairly rough time of it during the transition and afterwards. In other words, those who don't tow the line are in for some problems.
That really depends what you mean by 'Socialist community'. Some may choose to include the third reich in that definition whom I hope posters here would be ideaolligically symetrical to.

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm
Perhaps they don't mean in the manner which Mugabe has done. But so what? The problem still exists and it it always seems to be solved the same way. Maybe that is because it is the only rational way for it to be solved, even if the genuine intentions are not looking in that manner.
Youre entitled to your view but please dont insinunate that Mugabe or the present Zimbabwaen state is 'left-wing' or 'revolutionary socialist' by any measure as this is an insult to my intelligence.

[email protected] 31, 2007 01:36 pm

Most of the land used in the USA was not growing corn, and rice, wheat ect. naturally. And if it did, of what possible relevence is it to a Russian or a Bermudan? hell, if North Dakota was a socialist community, it would still have no relevence. Food has to be grown, and shipped. Even in a socialist community. It doesn't happen by magic.
Precisely. Food has to be grown and shipped. By who? Poor old Joe Muggins, the ordinary working man thats who. Meanwhile, where was the ruling class beourgiouse during all this? Who knows, who cares.

ZX3
3rd June 2007, 20:11
It isnt that difficult. You make your own contribution, and afterwards you take your own equal stake in the final production afterwards. I think thats a lot simpler than a few bone idle suits at the top taking almost everything.
As Ive said before, capitalism squanders the techological and scientific means at its disposable, so actually contrary to your cliched view, things would actually be easier under socialism regarding the logistical side.


So for example, If I want a box of cornflakes, the capitalist is going to go into a corn field with a sickle and prepare me a box, on demand? What utter BS. Obviously he is going to mass produce in bulk, without any guarantee how many he will sell. The rest has to get thrown out, because just giving it away will create a 'negative precidence'.



BEFORE the revolution the vast majority of cubans lived in destitution thanks to the negligence of the Batista regime, which was the revolution's pre-cursor. Secondly, I said the health system was superior at the PEAK of the revolution prior to US sanctions, not necessarilly today, and lastly, if the Cuban health system is so inferior can you kindly explain why they still could find surplus doctors to send to the USA to help in the aftermath of Katrina?
[url=http://medschool.ucsf.edu/news/features/public_service/20070423_Cuba.aspx]http://medschool.ucsf.edu/news/features/pu...70423_Cuba.aspx (http://www.nofear.org/Archives/2005/06/food_wastage_so.html)

Yes, I agree the health system will always be underfunded (largely because there will probably always be ailments we cannot cure)but the measure by which it should be graded is that there should be at least a bed for every sick person and enough resources to alleviate the symptoms as best as possible. What socialism would do different is channel the resources into finding remedies rather than into the military, or national space exploration and other gung ho crap that has no other purpose but to divide the proletariat.
That really depends what you mean by 'Socialist community'. Some may choose to include the third reich in that definition whom I hope posters here would be ideaolligically symetrical to.

Precisely. Food has to be grown and shipped. By who? Poor old Joe Muggins, the ordinary working man thats who. Meanwhile, where was the ruling class beourgiouse during all this? Who knows, who cares.
[/QUOTE]




[QUOTE]

And how does one determine the value of your contribution compared to somebody else's?


No, but such a sitiation is not going to occur in a socilaist community either.
The capitalist is going to produce the amounts he thinks people will purchase so as to give him a profit. He may indeed overproduce, or underproduce as nobody is perfect. But that is not his objective since after all capitalists produce for profit. If nobody purchases the item, if nobody wants it, then the capitalist won't turn a profit on it.

Whatever the living conditions of Cubans in 1959, it was superior to those in other Carribean countries at the same time.
The sanctions began during the Kennedy Administration. Whatever superior health care existed at that time was a legacy of the Batista government, not Castro's. During the next thirty years, Cuba would have access to the USSR, and for the entire 40+ years, the rest of Europe (including the UK). And Castro still couldn't find a locally trained doctor to treat his ailment.
And those doctorsd were available for one simple reason. In Cuba, all doctors work for the government. If Castro said "Go to New Orleans" then they go to New Orleans.

In New York City, the great debate on health care is to shut down hospitals, because there are TOO MANY beds available. They are not all being used, and it is a drain on te system. Such are the benefits of capitalist allocated medical system. It would seem a far better problem to have than what currently exists in the UK, eh?

I mean by "socialist community" however the socialists involved choose to define it.

The "bougeoise" was doing what they always do- assuming the risk in that economic activity, devising the best ways to ship the product ect.

Dr Mindbender
4th June 2007, 01:33
Your reply was a bit of a disconcerted mess, but I'll do my best to reply...


Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
And how does one determine the value of your contribution compared to somebody else's?[/b]
The idea of someone's work being more 'valuable' is beourgiouse snobbery.

Under your definition you might argue that a doctors role is more valuable than a binman for example, but without waste disposal we will get rats, that spread bubonic plague in endemic proportions. All of a sudden, with more patients than the doctor can deal with, suddenly his phD isnt worth the paper its printed on.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
No, but such a sitiation is not going to occur in a socilaist community either.[/b]
Sorry, I hate to sound condenscending, but was that an answer to one of my statements or just random rhetoric? Try to get the hang of cut n paste and quote tags please.

Originally posted by ZX3

The capitalist is going to produce the amounts he thinks people will purchase so as to give him a profit. He may indeed overproduce, or underproduce as nobody is perfect. But that is not his objective since after all capitalists produce for profit. If nobody purchases the item, if nobody wants it, then the capitalist won't turn a profit on it.
Which is more of pre-conclusion, rather than a moral justification for capitalism at large. Yes, some capitalists do under-produce, but I'm primarilly concerned with the bigger firms responsible for the large wastage I'm referring to. Bearing in mind that the food is harvested through the labour of the american working class anyway, and without using your usual pseudo-economics, morally speaking, how do you justify dumping surplus food in a world where 19 000 people die every day from malnutrition and various other preventable causes?

Originally posted by ZX3

Whatever the living conditions of Cubans in 1959, it was superior to those in other Carribean countries at the same time.
the living condition of the Cuban ruling class, absolutely. Revolutions dont have a tendency to happen without a particular motive.

Originally posted by ZX3

The sanctions began during the Kennedy Administration.
So what?

Originally posted by ZX3

Whatever superior health care existed at that time was a legacy of the Batista government, not Castro's. During the next thirty years, Cuba would have access to the USSR, and for the entire 40+ years, the rest of Europe (including the UK). And Castro still couldn't find a locally trained doctor to treat his ailment.

Originally posted by Richard Curtis of People's weekly world+ 10/12/94--> (Richard Curtis of People's weekly world @ 10/12/94)
The Cuban medical system is the most efficient in this hemisphere. Everyone has a family doctor and Cuba still supplies young doctors to other countries for their rural health programs. These days Cuba is selling temporary interest in its beaches to international hotel companies so that it has enough money for national health care.

You hear a lot of criticism of Cuba in our country, all of it (that I have heard) lies and distonions. Yet, just about everywhere else, when the national budget comes up short it is people's social programs that get cut. Do they have family doctors in every town of El Salvador or Brazil, or Mississippi for that matter? We even have a higher infant mortality rate in our capital than theirs.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/035.html
[/b]

ZX3

And those doctorsd were available for one simple reason. In Cuba, all doctors work for the government. If Castro said "Go to New Orleans" then they go to New Orleans.
So what if they work for the government? Most Doctors in the UK do as well, but they dont jump through hoops for the prime minister.

Originally posted by ZX3

In New York City, the great debate on health care is to shut down hospitals, because there are TOO MANY beds available. They are not all being used, and it is a drain on te system. Such are the benefits of capitalist allocated medical system. It would seem a far better problem to have than what currently exists in the UK, eh?
They probably have too many beds cause no fucker can afford to use them.

[email protected]

I mean by "socialist community" however the socialists involved choose to define it.
I made that distinction cause Ive noticed you cappies like to tar us with the same brush as the fash.

ZX3

The "bougeoise" was doing what they always do- assuming the risk in that economic activity, devising the best ways to ship the product ect.
Other than having lots of money and ownership of the shipping companies, they were qualified for this role, how?

colonelguppy
4th June 2007, 05:00
The idea of someone's work being more 'valuable' is beourgiouse snobbery.

Under your definition you might argue that a doctors role is more valuable than a binman for example, but without waste disposal we will get rats, that spread bubonic plague in endemic proportions. All of a sudden, with more patients than the doctor can deal with, suddenly his phD isnt worth the paper its printed on.

no it's valuable because there are less people capable of being doctors than garbage men thus making that particular labor market less competitive, and the training requires more time and recources thus requiring the potential rewards to be greater inorder to provide a proper incentive.

pusher robot
4th June 2007, 06:09
Every doctor can be a garbage collector. But not all garbage collectors can be doctors. That the doctor's work is more valuable is not a moral judgment, it is a simple description of the reality of scarce resources.

ZX3
4th June 2007, 16:40
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 03, 2007 07:33 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 03, 2007 07:33 pm) Which is more of pre-conclusion, rather than a moral justification for capitalism at large. Yes, some capitalists do under-produce, but I'm primarilly concerned with the bigger firms responsible for the large wastage I'm referring to. Bearing in mind that the food is harvested through the labour of the american working class anyway, and without using your usual pseudo-economics, morally speaking, how do you justify dumping surplus food in a world where 19 000 people die every day from malnutrition and various other preventable causes?

Originally posted by Richard Curtis of People's weekly world+ 10/12/94--> (Richard Curtis of People's weekly world @ 10/12/94)
The Cuban medical system is the most efficient in this hemisphere. Everyone has a family doctor and Cuba still supplies young doctors to other countries for their rural health programs. These days Cuba is selling temporary interest in its beaches to international hotel companies so that it has enough money for national health care.

You hear a lot of criticism of Cuba in our country, all of it (that I have heard) lies and distonions. Yet, just about everywhere else, when the national budget comes up short it is people's social programs that get cut. Do they have family doctors in every town of El Salvador or Brazil, or Mississippi for that matter? We even have a higher infant mortality rate in our capital than theirs.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/035.html
[/b]

Originally posted by ZX3

And those doctorsd were available for one simple reason. In Cuba, all doctors work for the government. If Castro said "Go to New Orleans" then they go to New Orleans.
So what if they work for the government? Most Doctors in the UK do as well, but they dont jump through hoops for the prime minister.

Originally posted by ZX3

In New York City, the great debate on health care is to shut down hospitals, because there are TOO MANY beds available. They are not all being used, and it is a drain on te system. Such are the benefits of capitalist allocated medical system. It would seem a far better problem to have than what currently exists in the UK, eh?
They probably have too many beds cause no fucker can afford to use them.

[email protected]

I mean by "socialist community" however the socialists involved choose to define it.
I made that distinction cause Ive noticed you cappies like to tar us with the same brush as the fash.

ZX3

The "bougeoise" was doing what they always do- assuming the risk in that economic activity, devising the best ways to ship the product ect.
Other than having lots of money and ownership of the shipping companies, they were qualified for this role, how? [/b]
1. Excess Food is absolutely given away.

2. In NYC, the problem of empty hospital beds is not because people can't afford them, it is because there is insufficient demand. Contrary to myth, nobody in the USA is denied health care. The issue is the best way to deliver it. But I think the starting point for reform (at least in NYC) is far better a situation than the starting point in the UK.
In Cuba, medications are scarce. It has nothing to do with USA sanctions, since every other western countries trades with Cuba and have normal relations with Cuba. Its the same problem which afflicts the UK; its socialist system cannot do what it claims to do, because the socialist system is unable to do what it wishes to do. The perfect sign tof the failures of socialism is that Cuba is leasing its beaches. Cuba has an abundance of beaches, with plenty of wealthy Europeans willing to exploit it. Its value to Cuba is great. So it seeks to profit on what it has in abundence to aquire what it has in scarcity- adequate medical care. Cuba would probably find that a greatt deal of its problems would be solved if it simply continued to spread capitalism throughout the country.

Dr Mindbender
4th June 2007, 23:06
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. Excess Food is absolutely given away. [/b]
Yes, to the fish.


Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
2. In NYC, the problem of empty hospital beds is not because people can't afford them, it is because there is insufficient demand. Contrary to myth, nobody in the USA is denied health care. [/b]
By 'nobody' and 'demand' presumably you mean insurance policy holders. NYC is famous for its vigrant population, I dare say most of these people have a hard time getting taken seriously by insurance companies. Without state funding, how else do your hospitals get money?

Originally posted by ZX3

The issue is the best way to deliver it. But I think the starting point for reform (at least in NYC) is far better a situation than the starting point in the UK.
Which so far, you've been fairly vague regarding.

Originally posted by ZX3

In Cuba, medications are scarce. It has nothing to do with USA sanctions, since every other western countries trades with Cuba and have normal relations with Cuba. Its the same problem which afflicts the UK; its socialist system cannot do what it claims to do, because the socialist system is unable to do what it wishes to do.
..which would appear to come into conflict with Mr Curtis's testimony, of not 15 years ago.

Originally posted by ZX3

The perfect sign tof the failures of socialism is that Cuba is leasing its beaches. Cuba has an abundance of beaches, with plenty of wealthy Europeans willing to exploit it. Its value to Cuba is great. So it seeks to profit on what it has in abundence to aquire what it has in scarcity- adequate medical care. Cuba would probably find that a greatt deal of its problems would be solved if it simply continued to spread capitalism throughout the country.
Cuba's present hardships doesn't disprove socialism per se, all it proves is Lenin and Trotsky's theory that a socialist economy is unable to survive in an isolated state alongside a capitalist superpower. The USA used its economic power and diplomatic clout to wreak similar devastation on the DPRK.

[email protected]

no it's valuable because there are less people capable of being doctors than garbage men thus making that particular labor market less competitive, and the training requires more time and recources thus requiring the potential rewards to be greater inorder to provide a proper incentive.
Apart from the obvious cliches regarding class culture, the biggest factor in making would be bin men unable to become doctors or academics of any other discription is the fact that the universities as a rule of thumb have a tendency to charge extortionate fees, which creates a discouraging precidence against those from more dispriveleged areas. This says more of the nature of the class system than of the individual merit of the concerned workers.


pusher robot

Every doctor can be a garbage collector. But not all garbage collectors can be doctors. That the doctor's work is more valuable is not a moral judgment, it is a simple description of the reality of scarce resources.
That state of affairs, again as I said above is a precidence created by the class system.

colonelguppy
5th June 2007, 08:28
Apart from the obvious cliches regarding class culture, the biggest factor in making would be bin men unable to become doctors or academics of any other discription is the fact that the universities as a rule of thumb have a tendency to charge extortionate fees, which creates a discouraging precidence against those from more dispriveleged areas. This says more of the nature of the class system than of the individual merit of the concerned workers.

i don't see how this changes that the nature of the work is more valuable, just because some people can't afford the training doesn't mean the relative value of the skill is changed.

pusher robot
5th June 2007, 14:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:28 am

Apart from the obvious cliches regarding class culture, the biggest factor in making would be bin men unable to become doctors or academics of any other discription is the fact that the universities as a rule of thumb have a tendency to charge extortionate fees, which creates a discouraging precidence against those from more dispriveleged areas. This says more of the nature of the class system than of the individual merit of the concerned workers.

i don't see how this changes that the nature of the work is more valuable, just because some people can't afford the training doesn't mean the relative value of the skill is changed.
More to the point, it is a skill that demands technical and intellectual ability that not everyone is capable of achieving.

Perhaps this makes more sense: every professional basketball player can be a trash collector, but not all trash collectors can be professional basketball players.

Tungsten
5th June 2007, 19:18
Being dependent on other is a sign of a successful society.
You'll have to do better than just spouting glib assertions.

How would you know I'm not a member of the proletariat?
Because you're 17 years old and the chances of that are pretty slim.

*Sigh* Ok, let's go back to the beginning. B O U R G E O I S; and also the plural is B O U R G E O I S I E.
That's it, start *****ing about spelling. That's sure to win your brownie points with those in the peanut gallery.

1 in 3 people get cancer, I've lost 4 people to it already, let's hope you're one of those 1 in 3, that you have no money, and that no one gives you any money to help you recover - then you might change your fucking mind.
Fantasy projection now is it? In fact, why bother with money at all when we can just cut out the middle-man and get a friend to point a fucking shotgun at a doctor's head and make him remove the cancer? Now doesn't that sound sucessful and cilivized society? To you, it might be, because it's a safe bet you're another one of these violent revolutionary types. To me, no. It's the opposite.

I've already pointed out elsewhere that a free healthcare service would be quite affordable providing it was reserved for those who genuinely couldn't pay for treatment.


People like you are a disgrace, you are implying that a person should actually feel guilty for RECEIVING charity.
I don't imply that. I'm saying you shouldn't take it for granted. Plus, services funded by taxation aren't really forms of charity are they?

You're probably one of those people who gives to charity on the odd occaision to make yourself feel better, instead of wanting to help them.
I've never suggested that I did. You can't buy morals.

----


So you don't understand fuel efficiency and the benefits of public transport? Fine, just don't pretend your ignorance holds any weight. Since the amount of energy used per person is less with a public transport system than with everyone owning a car I suggest you fuck off.
I don't see how having a train or bus with about three people on board is efficient, which is about how many they carry most of the time. Especially not the buses who leave me in a cloud of black smoke when they pull away. I'd better stop now before this sounds like some silly "greener than though" competition, that I couldn't care about whether I win or lose.

Cars are good for having fun in but hopelessly ineffeciant at transport.
It's easy to critcise something you don't have or can't afford.

DPRK =/= Stateless Classless Society.
No attempt at communism is ever likely to result a stateless classless society. You don't get it, do you?

So wait, because I've recognised that you coming on this website, dick in hand, ready for a trolling session indicates that your life is a hollow failure you feel you're in a position to declare some of our most progressive achievements "ridiculous".
How does it follow that my life's a failure because I find your arguments ridiculous?This is just ad hominem.

You've never had a period of prolonged unemployment in your privileged life
Priveleged as in attented school, did my homework, sat my exams and then got a job instead of lounging around on the dole blaming "the system"*?

*My careers advisor was actually quite surprised to hear that I wanted a job. He said most people my age just wanted to go on the dole.


so you clearly don't understand how important things like food on the table, actually having a table and a roof over your head become in those situations, you'd rather just hoard all your resources and pretend that somehow this makes you a success rather than facing up to the fact that all it means is that others will starve to death because of you,
Even if I did "hoard resources", which I don't. I doubt it would in anyway affect your position or take food off your table. Your position here is muddled mess.
I've got a better idea: Take a minute or two to consider all the choices you've made in your life. Actually, don't bother; we both know it's virtually impossible to
tally them all up. I doubt there any rational arguments you can use to hold the system responsible for the whatever real or fictional position you're in at the moment. Perhaps you some have anecdotal evidence to the contrary you want to share with me? Doubtful, otherwise you'd have mentioned it by now.


this is why you're scum and this is why you should die in a fire. I think a sign of a successful life is one that is enjoyed by the person living it and one that furthers society. So a communist on the dole is worth a fuck of a lot more than some nob in a suit.
How does a communist on the dole futher society exactly, besides draining from it, dreaming up homicidal fantasies and wanting to frogmarch everyone else into their own personal vision of utopia? Not even the most ruthless nobs in suits I've met desire that. And that's saying something.

And even then, we're assuming that communism or the pursuit of it furthers society, which is another questionable assumption.

The rest of this drivel really isn't worth responding to.

----


Which is beside the point. Havent you ever heard of a car pool? Or the concept of having just one polluting vehicle per x number of people rather than a polluting vehicle per person?
The number of people I see on each bus can more often than not, be counted on one hand. Same with the trains.

Anyway, fuck this thread.

Dr Mindbender
5th June 2007, 20:12
Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy)
i don't see how this changes that the nature of the work is more valuable, just because some people can't afford the training doesn't mean the relative value of the skill is changed.[/b]
The original point was in relation to the worth to society as a whole. Doctor A can only treat x number of patients. If binman B provides a service which prevents number of people x^n becoming sick, then clearly his role is as important, if not more so to society as a whole.
Where the technocrats and beourgiouse hang-up comes from is the amount of time and effort doctor A has put into to become a doctor. I could spend precisely the same amount of time and effort learning to play guitar as well as Jimmy Hendrix or to play basketball like Shaquelle O'Neill, it would'nt necessarilly make my role more 'valuable' to society. I accept people go into academic roles for the sake of financial gain, however that state of affairs is created by capitalism. Largely it is a moot point anyway, since for most it is a side motive. Most people are motivated by the fact primarilly that their job is the one which theyre most interested in but not necessarilly the best paid. I dont know which jobs pay the best in your country, but for the sake of argument lets say that doctors get paid more than lawyers who get paid more than computer technicians. Why dont the core of computer technicians aim to become Lawyers or doctors if those jobs pay more? Its because the substance of the job doesnt interest them.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
More to the point, it is a skill that demands technical and intellectual ability that not everyone is capable of achieving.
[/b]
...and the circumstances under which they born plays no part? Ive encountered equal measure of lack of 'intellectual ability' from both sides of the class division, yet irrevertably it is the ranks of beourgiouse and petit beourgiouse who predominate the most prestitigious halls of learning. I would argue that this is precedence mantained by the establishment to mantain the illusion that 'stupidity' is somehow a 'working class phenomenon'

pusher [email protected]

Perhaps this makes more sense: every professional basketball player can be a trash collector, but not all trash collectors can be professional basketball players.
By your logic, basketball is hardly a 'technically demanding' career so assuming that one didnt suffer from a physically restrictive disabillity then I fail to see why not. I suspect that the vast majority of working class people dont have the necessary time to put into the gym since they have to devote 40 hours a week in their menial £5 an hour existence.

Tungsten

The number of people I see on each bus can more often than not, be counted on one hand. Same with the trains.
Thats probably cause most toffs I've met live in the outer-suburbs, where there is about 5 cows for every person. You should try coming to a bus/train station in a relatively built up area.
BTW hyperbole or not, realistically how many people can you fit in a car?

pusher robot
5th June 2007, 20:46
The original point was in relation to the worth to society as a whole. Doctor A can only treat x number of patients. If binman B provides a service which prevents number of people x^n becoming sick, then clearly his role is as important, if not more so to society as a whole.

Well, okay, I can accept that, if you agree that logically then there is a divide between the value of the role of the binman and any individual person serving that role. The point is that replacing an individual binman is easy. Replacing an individual doctor is difficult. For that reason, the labor of that individual doctor is said to be more valuable than the labor of that individual binman.

Again, it's not a moral judgment, it's just supply and demand.

Dr Mindbender
5th June 2007, 21:05
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 05, 2007 07:46 pm

The original point was in relation to the worth to society as a whole. Doctor A can only treat x number of patients. If binman B provides a service which prevents number of people x^n becoming sick, then clearly his role is as important, if not more so to society as a whole.

Well, okay, I can accept that, if you agree that logically then there is a divide between the value of the role of the binman and any individual person serving that role. The point is that replacing an individual binman is easy. Replacing an individual doctor is difficult. For that reason, the labor of that individual doctor is said to be more valuable than the labor of that individual binman.

Again, it's not a moral judgment, it's just supply and demand.
My point is that doctors (as well as other academics) would be far more available if everyone had the same opportunity and access to higher education, which as i argued earlier they blatantly do not.

As for supply and demand, its the established status quo which prevents the lack of supply, Not necessarilly a lack of people wanting to acheive that profession.

ZX3
6th June 2007, 00:05
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 05, 2007 03:05 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 05, 2007 03:05 pm)
pusher [email protected] 05, 2007 07:46 pm

The original point was in relation to the worth to society as a whole. Doctor A can only treat x number of patients. If binman B provides a service which prevents number of people x^n becoming sick, then clearly his role is as important, if not more so to society as a whole.

Well, okay, I can accept that, if you agree that logically then there is a divide between the value of the role of the binman and any individual person serving that role. The point is that replacing an individual binman is easy. Replacing an individual doctor is difficult. For that reason, the labor of that individual doctor is said to be more valuable than the labor of that individual binman.

Again, it's not a moral judgment, it's just supply and demand.
My point is that doctors (as well as other academics) would be far more available if everyone had the same opportunity and access to higher education, which as i argued earlier they blatantly do not.

As for supply and demand, its the established status quo which prevents the lack of supply, Not necessarilly a lack of people wanting to acheive that profession. [/b]
In Canada, and I believe the UK, the government restricts the number of people who can be doctors. So I suppose it is the established, socialist status quo, which is the hurdle to overcome. Naturally, the capitalist USA health care system places no such artificial restrictions.

ZX3
6th June 2007, 00:16
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 04, 2007 05:06 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 04, 2007 05:06 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. Excess Food is absolutely given away. [/b]
Yes, to the fish.


Originally posted by ZX3

2. In NYC, the problem of empty hospital beds is not because people can't afford them, it is because there is insufficient demand. Contrary to myth, nobody in the USA is denied health care.
By 'nobody' and 'demand' presumably you mean insurance policy holders. NYC is famous for its vigrant population, I dare say most of these people have a hard time getting taken seriously by insurance companies. Without state funding, how else do your hospitals get money?

Originally posted by ZX3

The issue is the best way to deliver it. But I think the starting point for reform (at least in NYC) is far better a situation than the starting point in the UK.
Which so far, you've been fairly vague regarding.

Originally posted by ZX3

In Cuba, medications are scarce. It has nothing to do with USA sanctions, since every other western countries trades with Cuba and have normal relations with Cuba. Its the same problem which afflicts the UK; its socialist system cannot do what it claims to do, because the socialist system is unable to do what it wishes to do.
..which would appear to come into conflict with Mr Curtis's testimony, of not 15 years ago.

Originally posted by ZX3

The perfect sign tof the failures of socialism is that Cuba is leasing its beaches. Cuba has an abundance of beaches, with plenty of wealthy Europeans willing to exploit it. Its value to Cuba is great. So it seeks to profit on what it has in abundence to aquire what it has in scarcity- adequate medical care. Cuba would probably find that a greatt deal of its problems would be solved if it simply continued to spread capitalism throughout the country.
Cuba's present hardships doesn't disprove socialism per se, all it proves is Lenin and Trotsky's theory that a socialist economy is unable to survive in an isolated state alongside a capitalist superpower. The USA used its economic power and diplomatic clout to wreak similar devastation on the DPRK.

[email protected]

no it's valuable because there are less people capable of being doctors than garbage men thus making that particular labor market less competitive, and the training requires more time and recources thus requiring the potential rewards to be greater inorder to provide a proper incentive.
Apart from the obvious cliches regarding class culture, the biggest factor in making would be bin men unable to become doctors or academics of any other discription is the fact that the universities as a rule of thumb have a tendency to charge extortionate fees, which creates a discouraging precidence against those from more dispriveleged areas. This says more of the nature of the class system than of the individual merit of the concerned workers.


pusher robot

Every doctor can be a garbage collector. But not all garbage collectors can be doctors. That the doctor's work is more valuable is not a moral judgment, it is a simple description of the reality of scarce resources.
That state of affairs, again as I said above is a precidence created by the class system. [/b]
1. I have no idea where this fascination of surplus being dumped in the ocean comes from.

2. It is illegal in the USA to deny anyone health coverage. So people who do not have insurance can be seen in emergency rooms. Of course, the thinking is that preventive care is cheaper than emergency care, and if all had insurance that problem would vanish. The experiences of socialised medicine, I think do not support that contention.
Hospitals generally rely upon state funding for a large portions of their budgets. But there are plenty of private ones as well. The reaons for the hospital shutdowns is because it deemed wasteful to sink money into half empty hospitals. Better to spend that money where it is needed.

3. If a socialist community is unable to compete with a capitalist one, it scarcely is much of an endorsement of socialism. After all, in the real world, it has to be expected there will be periods of time when a socialist regime co-exists with a capitalist one. Wishing it was not so is not realistic.

4. People are not blank slates. Simply saying that the reason one might be good/interested in particular careers is based upon class is absurd. It should also point out that the great players in the NBA, are generally from poor backgrounds.

Dr Mindbender
6th June 2007, 02:11
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. I have no idea where this fascination of surplus being dumped in the ocean comes from.[/b]
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/disaster-foreign-aid.html

Originally posted by Oxfam+--> (Oxfam)
In a world prone to natural and human disasters, where 850 million people still suffer from hunger, food aid can sometimes be a crucial lifeline. However, food aid has also been used for less noble aims, including to dump surplus production and promote donor country exports.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/...p71_foodaid.htm (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp71_foodaid.htm)[/b]

Originally posted by ZX3

2. It is illegal in the USA to deny anyone health coverage.
Really? Is that a federal law or just NYC? Anecdotal evidence would suggest the contrary.

Originally posted by ZX3

So people who do not have insurance can be seen in emergency rooms. Of course, the thinking is that preventive care is cheaper than emergency care, and if all had insurance that problem would vanish. The experiences of socialised medicine, I think do not support that contention.
In a country like the USA, it simply isnt practical for everyone to have insurance because there are so many people who arent in a position to apply for it.
Most experiences of socialised health services were run alongside free market economies, therefore they werent running at full efficiency.

Originally posted by ZX3

Hospitals generally rely upon state funding for a large portions of their budgets. But there are plenty of private ones as well. The reaons for the hospital shutdowns is because it deemed wasteful to sink money into half empty hospitals. Better to spend that money where it is needed.
That last statement would carry some merit if it wasnt for the fact that the White house spends so much on its onslaught in the middle east as well as other white elephants like 'Son of Star wars'.

Originally posted by ZX3

3. If a socialist community is unable to compete with a capitalist one, it scarcely is much of an endorsement of socialism. After all, in the real world, it has to be expected there will be periods of time when a socialist regime co-exists with a capitalist one. Wishing it was not so is not realistic.
Lenin and Trotsky based their theories on global socialism, not Stalin's more insular model of 'socialism only within one country' which was my original point.

[email protected]

4. People are not blank slates. Simply saying that the reason one might be good/interested in particular careers is based upon class is absurd.
Why?

BTW I didnt say peoples's interests are based upon class, I said that their life opportunities, by in large were. (Even Robot pusher hasnt disputed this with me yet.)

ZX3

It should also point out that the great players in the NBA, are generally from poor backgrounds.

Which proves nothing. Im not sure how it works in the USA but over here the only reason that professional sportspeople or footballers do the job they have, is because they were lucky enough to be spotted by a talent scout.

red team
6th June 2007, 08:40
Cars are good for having fun in but hopelessly ineffeciant at transport.
It's easy to critcise something you don't have or can't afford.

That depends on the car. Most moderns cars are hopelessly inefficient, but they don't need to be that way.

The hybrid models out now simply proves that if a company uses it's resources to achieve a particular goal they can achieve it. Whether or not they want to achieve it depends upon they're ultimate motivation which in a system driven by money means? I'll leave it up to you answer that question. It's a good test of your intelligence to see if you can give a rational answer and to know how leaving it up to the producers would inevitably lead to monopoly rule and corruption especially if more money means more "value" which is not the same as more material wealth which has already been paid for and in the possesion of the consumers.



DPRK =/= Stateless Classless Society.

No attempt at communism is ever likely to result a stateless classless society. You don't get it, do you?

That's only because no new system can really begin until the old one has entirely collapsed and an intervening dark ages has passed. You don't see many slave empires like Rome now do you? That's because slavocracy has been entirely supplanted by a new system that is more productive, but could be just as brutal and bloody.

Personally, I'm indifferent because collapse is as inevitable and historically necessary as the sack of Rome was inevitable and historically necessary.

But the question to ask is after the collapse of the economic system which has fictitious value built up as debt to support an equally fictitious and superficial society of consumerism is whether or not a radically new economic system can take it's place. (plus whether or not it's true that human flesh tastes like chicken when we start hunting each other for food in the intervening dark ages. :lol:)


Where the technocrats and beourgiouse hang-up comes from is the amount of time and effort doctor A has put into to become a doctor. I could spend precisely the same amount of time and effort learning to play guitar as well as Jimmy Hendrix or to play basketball like Shaquelle O'Neill, it would'nt necessarilly make my role more 'valuable' to society.

But, how can this be abused? Have you thought of that? If you don't think someone could abuse that then you really don't know how money works.

I'm all in favour of paid training which some companies actually do. They pay they're employees through month long training programs especially for skilled positions before they even let them touch the expensive equipment they have. If paid training time is a feasible and reasonable policy for companies because they want competent, skilled workers then it really doesn't make much sense not to have paid schooling for students which amounts to the same thing does it?

So where's the logic in tuition fees where the student pays for training time simply to get a higher paid job later which is permanently higher paid which may not be in proportion to the training time it takes to master those skills? Only in a market that relies on some subjective notion of "value" to quantify costs would you get such idiocy.

ZX3
8th June 2007, 12:22
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 05, 2007 08:11 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 05, 2007 08:11 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. I have no idea where this fascination of surplus being dumped in the ocean comes from.[/b]
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/disaster-foreign-aid.html

Originally posted by Oxfam

In a world prone to natural and human disasters, where 850 million people still suffer from hunger, food aid can sometimes be a crucial lifeline. However, food aid has also been used for less noble aims, including to dump surplus production and promote donor country exports.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/...p71_foodaid.htm (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp71_foodaid.htm)

Originally posted by ZX3

2. It is illegal in the USA to deny anyone health coverage.
Really? Is that a federal law or just NYC? Anecdotal evidence would suggest the contrary.

Originally posted by ZX3

So people who do not have insurance can be seen in emergency rooms. Of course, the thinking is that preventive care is cheaper than emergency care, and if all had insurance that problem would vanish. The experiences of socialised medicine, I think do not support that contention.
In a country like the USA, it simply isnt practical for everyone to have insurance because there are so many people who arent in a position to apply for it.
Most experiences of socialised health services were run alongside free market economies, therefore they werent running at full efficiency.

Originally posted by ZX3

Hospitals generally rely upon state funding for a large portions of their budgets. But there are plenty of private ones as well. The reaons for the hospital shutdowns is because it deemed wasteful to sink money into half empty hospitals. Better to spend that money where it is needed.
That last statement would carry some merit if it wasnt for the fact that the White house spends so much on its onslaught in the middle east as well as other white elephants like 'Son of Star wars'.

Originally posted by ZX3

3. If a socialist community is unable to compete with a capitalist one, it scarcely is much of an endorsement of socialism. After all, in the real world, it has to be expected there will be periods of time when a socialist regime co-exists with a capitalist one. Wishing it was not so is not realistic.
Lenin and Trotsky based their theories on global socialism, not Stalin's more insular model of 'socialism only within one country' which was my original point.

[email protected]

4. People are not blank slates. Simply saying that the reason one might be good/interested in particular careers is based upon class is absurd.
Why?

BTW I didnt say peoples's interests are based upon class, I said that their life opportunities, by in large were. (Even Robot pusher hasnt disputed this with me yet.)

ZX3

It should also point out that the great players in the NBA, are generally from poor backgrounds.

Which proves nothing. Im not sure how it works in the USA but over here the only reason that professional sportspeople or footballers do the job they have, is because they were lucky enough to be spotted by a talent scout. [/b]
1. Your point about the food is a perversion of capitalism by introducing socialist elements into it. Its a way to try to solve the old saw socialist buzzsaw of capitalists driving down wages so as to accrue larger profits.
But you are right- it is absurd to pay people NOT to grow food.

2. It is a federal law since 1988. The problems that the socialist healthcare system in the UK is in itts supplying healthcare. That is not the problem in the capitalist sytem. Heaslthcare is being provided the USA, the debate is whether it is being done in the best way possible. It seems this a is a far preferable "problem" to have, and indicates that that the origin of the problem for the socialist is not a socialist healthcare system running alongside an otherwise capitalist community, but the socialist healthcare system itself.
The cutbacks are from state, not federal money. It has nothing to do the war in Iraq.

3. I understood te distiction being made between Lenin and Stalin. My only comment was that in the real world, the Lenninists are going to have to deal with capitalist comminities, even if only for a short period. And if the short period of time becomes a long period f time (as it of course did) then it would seem to call into question the socialist analysis of capitalism as a whole. Which would further call into question the beliefs of the socialist for a worldwide socialist community.

4. Saying that people's interests are based upon people's life experiences seems kind of meaningless. Having lived my life in urban areas, I suppose I will never be a wheat farmer. I fail to see how things would be different in that regard a socialist community.

ZX3
8th June 2007, 12:28
Originally posted by red [email protected] 06, 2007 02:40 am


Cars are good for having fun in but hopelessly ineffeciant at transport.
It's easy to critcise something you don't have or can't afford.

That depends on the car. Most moderns cars are hopelessly inefficient, but they don't need to be that way.

The hybrid models out now simply proves that if a company uses it's resources to achieve a particular goal they can achieve it. Whether or not they want to achieve it depends upon they're ultimate motivation which in a system driven by money means? I'll leave it up to you answer that question. It's a good test of your intelligence to see if you can give a rational answer and to know how leaving it up to the producers would inevitably lead to monopoly rule and corruption especially if more money means more "value" which is not the same as more material wealth which has already been paid for and in the possesion of the consumers.


Sure, auto makers can make hybrids. They can also produce electric cars, and produce cars that are built like tanks.

That is never the issue. The issue is whether people want those items (how efficient is a system which produces items which nobody wishes to consume?), and whether they can be produce in an inexpensive enough fashion.

Honda just this week ended the hybrid Accord because there was no real interest in it by the public. Should have Honda continued to produce something people do not want?

Dr Mindbender
8th June 2007, 23:42
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. Your point about the food is a perversion of capitalism by introducing socialist elements into it. Its a way to try to solve the old saw socialist buzzsaw of capitalists driving down wages so as to accrue larger profits.
But you are right- it is absurd to pay people NOT to grow food.[/b]
How can I PERVERSE capitalism if two non-partisan sources have also confirmed that this is actually happening? If Im a large farmer then of course I'm going to destroy/dump my unsellable crops if no one will take them off me if even for a small amount since otherwise it creates a negative image to my more affluent customers.

Im not sure I fully appreciate your point about paying people NOT to grow food-can you elaborate?

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
2. It is a federal law since 1988. The problems that the socialist healthcare system in the UK is in itts supplying healthcare. That is not the problem in the capitalist sytem. Heaslthcare is being provided the USA, the debate is whether it is being done in the best way possible. It seems this a is a far preferable "problem" to have, and indicates that that the origin of the problem for the socialist is not a socialist healthcare system running alongside an otherwise capitalist community, but the socialist healthcare system itself.
The cutbacks are from state, not federal money. It has nothing to do the war in Iraq.[/b]
I will have to concede to superior knowledge regarding the American system, however regarding the UK socialism has had nothing to do with the deterioration of the NHS. If you are familiar with the recent political history here you would know that as each private-finance friendly has become increasingly zestful in their pursuit of private involvement, the general standard of the NHS has fallen thanks the two-tier system the blair cabinet has nurtured.

[email protected]

3. I understood te distiction being made between Lenin and Stalin. My only comment was that in the real world, the Lenninists are going to have to deal with capitalist comminities, even if only for a short period. And if the short period of time becomes a long period f time (as it of course did) then it would seem to call into question the socialist analysis of capitalism as a whole. Which would further call into question the beliefs of the socialist for a worldwide socialist community.
The Leninists are seeking the removal of capitalist power through the replacement of the beourgiouse status quo. Why would they want to legitimise them by 'dealing' with them?
Secondly, you cant apply the current day scenario to the global theory, since the established economic masters are the ones actively preventing a global socialist economy becoming a reality.


ZX3

4. Saying that people's interests are based upon people's life experiences seems kind of meaningless. Having lived my life in urban areas, I suppose I will never be a wheat farmer. I fail to see how things would be different in that regard a socialist community.
No, youre twisting my words. I didnt say peoples interests were based on 'life experience' or anything like that. I said that people from 'urban areas' as you class them have severely restricted opportunities compared to the upper and middle classes because elite society are the ones who dominate the universities, colleges, workplaces etc.
I was arguing that they are actively albeit subtley defending this state of affairs in order to keep the working class a people of 'worker drones' in order to mantain a constant flow of cheap labour.

Dr Mindbender
9th June 2007, 18:20
Another example of how capitalism fucked up my day! :D

With it being saturday, I was enjoying my lie in however we were expecting a package from BT (uk telephone company) under my wife's name which i subsequently missed. I had to run up to her workplace in order to get a letter of permission (taking up the best part of an hour) to pick up the package, then run back to the post office with our passports as proof of ID. Now, since the packaging and postal system are divided into this country between 2 companies (Royal Mail and the Post Office) I was unable to pick our package up because I missed to closing time for Royal mail of 12 noon. All I got was an apathetic reception from the girl on the Post office counter, ''Im sorry we dont handle Royal Mail parcels, only the packages from parcel force. You'll have to come back on Monday morning'' Now I tell you, was this a communist country, with only one authority for all industries Id probably be sitting here with our new landline telephone and copy of Norton antivirus 2007. But thats the free market for you! :( :wacko:

luxemburg89
9th June 2007, 18:33
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 09, 2007 05:20 pm
Another example of how capitalism fucked up my day! :D

With it being saturday, I was enjoying my lie in however we were expecting a package from BT (uk telephone company) under my wife's name which i subsequently missed. I had to run up to her workplace in order to get a letter of permission (taking up the best part of an hour) to pick up the package, then run back to the post office with our passports as proof of ID. Now, since the packaging and postal system are divided into this country between 2 companies (Royal Mail and the Post Office) I was unable to pick our package up because I missed to closing time for Royal mail of 12 noon. All I got was an apathetic reception from the girl on the Post office counter, ''Im sorry we dont handle Royal Mail parcels, only the packages from parcel force. You'll have to come back on Monday morning'' Now I tell you, was this a communist country, with only one authority for all industries Id probably be sitting here with our new landline telephone and copy of Norton antivirus 2007. But thats the free market for you! :( :wacko:
Tell me about it! Another criticism - I had to pay 50p for an apple in Gregs in my highstreet - and sainsbury's sell it for 40p!! They grow on fucking trees!! It costs them very little to organise into the packets so why do I have to pay 50p!!? They'll start charging me for compost next...oh wait, they do!

Dr Mindbender
9th June 2007, 18:42
Originally posted by luxemburg89+June 09, 2007 05:33 pm--> (luxemburg89 @ June 09, 2007 05:33 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 09, 2007 05:20 pm
Another example of how capitalism fucked up my day! :D

With it being saturday, I was enjoying my lie in however we were expecting a package from BT (uk telephone company) under my wife's name which i subsequently missed. I had to run up to her workplace in order to get a letter of permission (taking up the best part of an hour) to pick up the package, then run back to the post office with our passports as proof of ID. Now, since the packaging and postal system are divided into this country between 2 companies (Royal Mail and the Post Office) I was unable to pick our package up because I missed to closing time for Royal mail of 12 noon. All I got was an apathetic reception from the girl on the Post office counter, ''Im sorry we dont handle Royal Mail parcels, only the packages from parcel force. You'll have to come back on Monday morning'' Now I tell you, was this a communist country, with only one authority for all industries Id probably be sitting here with our new landline telephone and copy of Norton antivirus 2007. But thats the free market for you! :( :wacko:
Tell me about it! Another criticism - I had to pay 50p for an apple in Gregs in my highstreet - and sainsbury's sell it for 40p!! They grow on fucking trees!! It costs them very little to organise into the packets so why do I have to pay 50p!!? They'll start charging me for compost next...oh wait, they do! [/b]
No, lol. Theyre charging you for the little sticky labels. :D

ZX3
11th June 2007, 12:11
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 09, 2007 12:20 pm
Another example of how capitalism fucked up my day! :D

With it being saturday, I was enjoying my lie in however we were expecting a package from BT (uk telephone company) under my wife's name which i subsequently missed. I had to run up to her workplace in order to get a letter of permission (taking up the best part of an hour) to pick up the package, then run back to the post office with our passports as proof of ID. Now, since the packaging and postal system are divided into this country between 2 companies (Royal Mail and the Post Office) I was unable to pick our package up because I missed to closing time for Royal mail of 12 noon. All I got was an apathetic reception from the girl on the Post office counter, ''Im sorry we dont handle Royal Mail parcels, only the packages from parcel force. You'll have to come back on Monday morning'' Now I tell you, was this a communist country, with only one authority for all industries Id probably be sitting here with our new landline telephone and copy of Norton antivirus 2007. But thats the free market for you! :( :wacko:
1 So, in a communist community, marriage will be treated in the old-fashioned, bourgeoise way: Mail addressed directly to a spouse, will be available to both husband and wife, no questions asked. What about co-habitation?

2, The mail offices will be open much longer hours on weekends. Okay.
But does not communism promise that workers lives will be easier with shorter hours overall? From where will those needed extra workers be found? What industries will take the "hit" of having fewer workers available to it?

ZX3
11th June 2007, 12:26
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 08, 2007 05:42 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 08, 2007 05:42 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. Your point about the food is a perversion of capitalism by introducing socialist elements into it. Its a way to try to solve the old saw socialist buzzsaw of capitalists driving down wages so as to accrue larger profits.
But you are right- it is absurd to pay people NOT to grow food.[/b]
How can I PERVERSE capitalism if two non-partisan sources have also confirmed that this is actually happening? If Im a large farmer then of course I'm going to destroy/dump my unsellable crops if no one will take them off me if even for a small amount since otherwise it creates a negative image to my more affluent customers.

Im not sure I fully appreciate your point about paying people NOT to grow food-can you elaborate?

Originally posted by ZX3

2. It is a federal law since 1988. The problems that the socialist healthcare system in the UK is in itts supplying healthcare. That is not the problem in the capitalist sytem. Heaslthcare is being provided the USA, the debate is whether it is being done in the best way possible. It seems this a is a far preferable "problem" to have, and indicates that that the origin of the problem for the socialist is not a socialist healthcare system running alongside an otherwise capitalist community, but the socialist healthcare system itself.
The cutbacks are from state, not federal money. It has nothing to do the war in Iraq.
I will have to concede to superior knowledge regarding the American system, however regarding the UK socialism has had nothing to do with the deterioration of the NHS. If you are familiar with the recent political history here you would know that as each private-finance friendly has become increasingly zestful in their pursuit of private involvement, the general standard of the NHS has fallen thanks the two-tier system the blair cabinet has nurtured.

[email protected]

3. I understood te distiction being made between Lenin and Stalin. My only comment was that in the real world, the Lenninists are going to have to deal with capitalist comminities, even if only for a short period. And if the short period of time becomes a long period f time (as it of course did) then it would seem to call into question the socialist analysis of capitalism as a whole. Which would further call into question the beliefs of the socialist for a worldwide socialist community.
The Leninists are seeking the removal of capitalist power through the replacement of the beourgiouse status quo. Why would they want to legitimise them by 'dealing' with them?
Secondly, you cant apply the current day scenario to the global theory, since the established economic masters are the ones actively preventing a global socialist economy becoming a reality.


ZX3

4. Saying that people's interests are based upon people's life experiences seems kind of meaningless. Having lived my life in urban areas, I suppose I will never be a wheat farmer. I fail to see how things would be different in that regard a socialist community.
No, youre twisting my words. I didnt say peoples interests were based on 'life experience' or anything like that. I said that people from 'urban areas' as you class them have severely restricted opportunities compared to the upper and middle classes because elite society are the ones who dominate the universities, colleges, workplaces etc.
I was arguing that they are actively albeit subtley defending this state of affairs in order to keep the working class a people of 'worker drones' in order to mantain a constant flow of cheap labour. [/b]
1. In the USA, and in othetr countries as well, government policy is to pay farmers not to grow food.

2. My coment is simply that unless there is a simutaneous world-wide socialist revolt, socialist communities will have to deal with capitalist ones. They can, of course, choose to completely ignore them. But there will still be a yardstick of measurement between the two. Basically, the argument being made is that socialism "works" better when there is nothing elsae to measure itself against. Nice, but a sheer fantasy to expect such a situation to exist. The socialists do not make a good argument when they seek to explain their failures on the superiority of capitalism.

3. If the grand capitalist startegy is to keep the workers as "worker-drones" it has been a stunning failure in the USA. There has been a tremendous amount of income mobility here (just about all of it going up). In the old "neigborhood" houses built at the turn of the century were largely inhabited by Germans, to replaced by Italians and Irish, to be replaced by Carribean folks, who are now being replaced by Indians and Pakistanis. The predecessors moved on to bigger and better things.

ZX3
11th June 2007, 12:33
Originally posted by luxemburg89+June 09, 2007 12:33 pm--> (luxemburg89 @ June 09, 2007 12:33 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 09, 2007 05:20 pm
Another example of how capitalism fucked up my day! :D

With it being saturday, I was enjoying my lie in however we were expecting a package from BT (uk telephone company) under my wife's name which i subsequently missed. I had to run up to her workplace in order to get a letter of permission (taking up the best part of an hour) to pick up the package, then run back to the post office with our passports as proof of ID. Now, since the packaging and postal system are divided into this country between 2 companies (Royal Mail and the Post Office) I was unable to pick our package up because I missed to closing time for Royal mail of 12 noon. All I got was an apathetic reception from the girl on the Post office counter, ''Im sorry we dont handle Royal Mail parcels, only the packages from parcel force. You'll have to come back on Monday morning'' Now I tell you, was this a communist country, with only one authority for all industries Id probably be sitting here with our new landline telephone and copy of Norton antivirus 2007. But thats the free market for you! :( :wacko:
Tell me about it! Another criticism - I had to pay 50p for an apple in Gregs in my highstreet - and sainsbury's sell it for 40p!! They grow on fucking trees!! It costs them very little to organise into the packets so why do I have to pay 50p!!? They'll start charging me for compost next...oh wait, they do! [/b]
Of course, you could always rely upon your local apple trees, and be able to consume apples for only a few weeks a year. It would seem 40p or 50p is a good deal in that regard.

This saintsbury place could have a better distribution system than griegs, or it could be selling an inferior grade of apple, one which used less resources in its harvesting and distribution than the Griegs one.

Or it could be that since you are willing to pay 50p for an apple, rather than using that 50p on another needed and wanted item, Griegs is more than willing to sell you an apple for 50p.

Dr Mindbender
11th June 2007, 18:05
Originally posted by ZX3+June 11, 2007 11:11 am--> (ZX3 @ June 11, 2007 11:11 am)
1 So, in a communist community, marriage will be treated in the old-fashioned, bourgeoise way: Mail addressed directly to a spouse, will be available to both husband and wife, no questions asked. What about co-habitation?[/b]

No, not necessarilly. My partner handles the financial side of things because its not my area of skill.Anyway, the personal set up i have with my wife has nothing to do with communism but more a personal dispute i had in the past with the telephone company but that is a different issue and frankly not for this forum.


Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
2, The mail offices will be open much longer hours on weekends. Okay.
But does not communism promise that workers lives will be easier with shorter hours overall? From where will those needed extra workers be found? What industries will take the "hit" of having fewer workers available to it?[/b]
capitalism fails to utilise the full labour at its potential. Rather than taking the unemployed off the benefit lines and put them into those post offices to fill the vacant lines they would rather mantain an illusion of supremacy within the worker over the recipients of benefit.
With more workers at its disposal then each person wouldnt necessarilly have to work longer.

Originally posted by ZX3

1. In the USA, and in othetr countries as well, government policy is to pay farmers not to grow food.
which says more about their attitude to the starving needy than anything else.

[email protected]

2. My coment is simply that unless there is a simutaneous world-wide socialist revolt, socialist communities will have to deal with capitalist ones. They can, of course, choose to completely ignore them. But there will still be a yardstick of measurement between the two. Basically, the argument being made is that socialism "works" better when there is nothing elsae to measure itself against. Nice, but a sheer fantasy to expect such a situation to exist. The socialists do not make a good argument when they seek to explain their failures on the superiority of capitalism.
History shows that whenever the 'red mole' of revolution has appeared it created a red wave accross many countries, as was the case across eastern europe following 1917. The reason the socialist economies were able to survive for so long was they could depend on each other rather than having to rely on the capitalists. More the better if they could have persuaded the American and western European working classes to join in. The reason this did not happen was the strength of their respective ruling classes.

ZX3

3. If the grand capitalist startegy is to keep the workers as "worker-drones" it has been a stunning failure in the USA. There has been a tremendous amount of income mobility here (just about all of it going up). In the old "neigborhood" houses built at the turn of the century were largely inhabited by Germans, to replaced by Italians and Irish, to be replaced by Carribean folks, who are now being replaced by Indians and Pakistanis. The predecessors moved on to bigger and better things.
...All the while it depends upon an undercurrent of suffering workers to survive. Despite all its 'good intentions' it is unable to create a state of affairs were everyone benefits as opposed to having a few living in excessive decadence while the majority have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. I find your classing of people by their nationalities as slightly worrying as it insinuates that all these people are living in excessive riches which i find slightly unlikely.

ZX3
11th June 2007, 21:05
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 11, 2007 12:05 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 11, 2007 12:05 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+June 11, 2007 11:11 am--> (ZX3 @ June 11, 2007 11:11 am)
1 So, in a communist community, marriage will be treated in the old-fashioned, bourgeoise way: Mail addressed directly to a spouse, will be available to both husband and wife, no questions asked. What about co-habitation?[/b]

No, not necessarilly. My partner handles the financial side of things because its not my area of skill.Anyway, the personal set up i have with my wife has nothing to do with communism but more a personal dispute i had in the past with the telephone company but that is a different issue and frankly not for this forum.


Originally posted by ZX3

2, The mail offices will be open much longer hours on weekends. Okay.
But does not communism promise that workers lives will be easier with shorter hours overall? From where will those needed extra workers be found? What industries will take the "hit" of having fewer workers available to it?
capitalism fails to utilise the full labour at its potential. Rather than taking the unemployed off the benefit lines and put them into those post offices to fill the vacant lines they would rather mantain an illusion of supremacy within the worker over the recipients of benefit.
With more workers at its disposal then each person wouldnt necessarilly have to work longer.

Originally posted by ZX3

1. In the USA, and in othetr countries as well, government policy is to pay farmers not to grow food.
which says more about their attitude to the starving needy than anything else.

[email protected]

2. My coment is simply that unless there is a simutaneous world-wide socialist revolt, socialist communities will have to deal with capitalist ones. They can, of course, choose to completely ignore them. But there will still be a yardstick of measurement between the two. Basically, the argument being made is that socialism "works" better when there is nothing elsae to measure itself against. Nice, but a sheer fantasy to expect such a situation to exist. The socialists do not make a good argument when they seek to explain their failures on the superiority of capitalism.
History shows that whenever the 'red mole' of revolution has appeared it created a red wave accross many countries, as was the case across eastern europe following 1917. The reason the socialist economies were able to survive for so long was they could depend on each other rather than having to rely on the capitalists. More the better if they could have persuaded the American and western European working classes to join in. The reason this did not happen was the strength of their respective ruling classes.

ZX3

3. If the grand capitalist startegy is to keep the workers as "worker-drones" it has been a stunning failure in the USA. There has been a tremendous amount of income mobility here (just about all of it going up). In the old "neigborhood" houses built at the turn of the century were largely inhabited by Germans, to replaced by Italians and Irish, to be replaced by Carribean folks, who are now being replaced by Indians and Pakistanis. The predecessors moved on to bigger and better things.
...All the while it depends upon an undercurrent of suffering workers to survive. Despite all its 'good intentions' it is unable to create a state of affairs were everyone benefits as opposed to having a few living in excessive decadence while the majority have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. I find your classing of people by their nationalities as slightly worrying as it insinuates that all these people are living in excessive riches which i find slightly unlikely. [/b]
1. I am not asking about your personal issues. You wrote a note describing your problem with a capitalist mail system, one of which was having to provide proof that you were authorised to accept your spuse's mail. I simply wondered why one would think that situation would be any different in a communist community.

2. Very good. they will put unemployed people working in the post office. Meanwhile, there are other industries and businesses out there as well whose workers presumably would enjoy working fewer hours. Why does the post office reap that benefit over some other industry? And since unemployement is supposed to be non-existent in a socialist community, are you not really describing what could only be considered a one time only event? Then what happens?

3. I think what the history of the "red revolution" shows is that the revolutionaries have no real idea what they are doing, what they want to do, and how to get there. It splits and collapses according to its own problems, not from the opposition of the "ruling classes."

4. There is no reason to worry about nationality classifications. Immigrants to a new country tend to want to live around people from the old country. And yes, they did better. they came in, and bought houses cheap, and sold them 20+ years later for a lot more money.

Dr Mindbender
12th June 2007, 01:15
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. I am not asking about your personal issues. You wrote a note describing your problem with a capitalist mail system, one of which was having to provide proof that you were authorised to accept your spuse's mail. I simply wondered why one would think that situation would be any different in a communist community.
[/b]
No, you misunderstood my original post. Because the Royal Mail section where our parcel was being held closed at 12 noon, It didnt afford me enough time to get the id and come back for the item in question. In short, the difference under communism would be had it been under the jurisdication of the same entity, and like the post office had been open till 5.30pm I would have had plenty of time to redeem both the id and parcel.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
2. Very good. they will put unemployed people working in the post office. Meanwhile, there are other industries and businesses out there as well whose workers presumably would enjoy working fewer hours. Why does the post office reap that benefit over some other industry? [/b]
No thats just you being pedantic. Of course there are plenty of other industries that would benefit, I was merely using the PO as an example.

Originally posted by ZX3
And since unemployement is supposed to be non-existent in a socialist community, are you not really describing what could only be considered a one time only event? Then what happens
Of course not. Unlike capitalism, socialism would afford workers and the general populace the opportunity to better themselves through free and equal means to the education and training system. Workers and students would be treated with equal regard, of course.


[email protected]
3. I think what the history of the "red revolution" shows is that the revolutionaries have no real idea what they are doing, what they want to do, and how to get there. It splits and collapses according to its own problems, not from the opposition of the "ruling classes."
So, for example the USA sanctions had no part to play in the collapse of Socialist Cuba's economy? Of course this is nonsense. As I said before, the DPRK was also arguably undermined in precisely the same way.

ZX3

4. There is no reason to worry about nationality classifications. Immigrants to a new country tend to want to live around people from the old country. And yes, they did better. they came in, and bought houses cheap, and sold them 20+ years later for a lot more money.
Youre most likely only referring to a few number of success stories which I dare say are few and far between. For every story where the are able to sell 20+ years later,(many of whom possible came from compartitively affluent backgrounds back in their 'old countries' anyway') Id like to know what number of ones who arent so fortunate. In any case, it still doesnt excuse or challenge the fact that the decadent ways of the few are fuelled and dependent on the suffering of the many.

ZX3
14th June 2007, 02:15
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 11, 2007 07:15 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 11, 2007 07:15 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. I am not asking about your personal issues. You wrote a note describing your problem with a capitalist mail system, one of which was having to provide proof that you were authorised to accept your spuse's mail. I simply wondered why one would think that situation would be any different in a communist community.
[/b]
No, you misunderstood my original post. Because the Royal Mail section where our parcel was being held closed at 12 noon, It didnt afford me enough time to get the id and come back for the item in question. In short, the difference under communism would be had it been under the jurisdication of the same entity, and like the post office had been open till 5.30pm I would have had plenty of time to redeem both the id and parcel.

Originally posted by ZX3

2. Very good. they will put unemployed people working in the post office. Meanwhile, there are other industries and businesses out there as well whose workers presumably would enjoy working fewer hours. Why does the post office reap that benefit over some other industry?
No thats just you being pedantic. Of course there are plenty of other industries that would benefit, I was merely using the PO as an example.

Originally posted by ZX3
And since unemployement is supposed to be non-existent in a socialist community, are you not really describing what could only be considered a one time only event? Then what happens
Of course not. Unlike capitalism, socialism would afford workers and the general populace the opportunity to better themselves through free and equal means to the education and training system. Workers and students would be treated with equal regard, of course.


[email protected]
3. I think what the history of the "red revolution" shows is that the revolutionaries have no real idea what they are doing, what they want to do, and how to get there. It splits and collapses according to its own problems, not from the opposition of the "ruling classes."
So, for example the USA sanctions had no part to play in the collapse of Socialist Cuba's economy? Of course this is nonsense. As I said before, the DPRK was also arguably undermined in precisely the same way.

ZX3

4. There is no reason to worry about nationality classifications. Immigrants to a new country tend to want to live around people from the old country. And yes, they did better. they came in, and bought houses cheap, and sold them 20+ years later for a lot more money.
Youre most likely only referring to a few number of success stories which I dare say are few and far between. For every story where the are able to sell 20+ years later,(many of whom possible came from compartitively affluent backgrounds back in their 'old countries' anyway') Id like to know what number of ones who arent so fortunate. In any case, it still doesnt excuse or challenge the fact that the decadent ways of the few are fuelled and dependent on the suffering of the many. [/b]
I understood what you were saying. You are claiming that in a communist community the post office would have been open later because the communist community would put the unempl;opyed, or some portion of them, to work there, thereby increasing the number of workers, and its ability to have more convenient hours. Fine.

But this is sort of what the OIers (or at least this one) has been asking about for months. Resources are limited in the world, and a communist, a socialsit, an anarchist community, will have to deal with this fact. And it is a fact.

Resources include labor. Labor is not of an inexhaustable supply. Nor can labor do more than one thing at once. So when labor is deployed to the post office, it can't be sweeping the streets, working inthe supermarkets, working in a health clinic, attending school ect ect ect. Its a cost. Its an obvious statement, but it always seems that socialists overlook this in there calculations.

Now maybe the cost of having fewer grocery workers is worth the benefit of having more postal workers. That's fine. But there needs to be a system to determine these costs and benefits as to whether that is true. Now, its nice to say that socialism will allow people to freely better themselves through schoo, or training programs than could capitalism. But again, there are costs involved in sending a person to air conditioner repair school (such as, the student is not producing in the community, only consuming during the schooling). Maybe the community will benefit from burdening that cost of the student. But obviously not everyone can be air conditioner repairman. So one needs that system to allocate the value of cost to its benefit to determine whether the community is doing so.

The bottom line remains what i have said for many months now: Socialists talk about all the wonderful things that will happen as a result of socialism. But they rarely attempt to prove any of it.

Dr Mindbender
15th June 2007, 04:43
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)I understood what you were saying. You are claiming that in a communist community the post office would have been open later because the communist community would put the unempl;opyed, or some portion of them, to work there, thereby increasing the number of workers, and its ability to have more convenient hours. Fine.

But this is sort of what the OIers (or at least this one) has been asking about for months. Resources are limited in the world, and a communist, a socialsit, an anarchist community, will have to deal with this fact. And it is a fact.

Resources include labor. Labor is not of an inexhaustable supply. Nor can labor do more than one thing at once. So when labor is deployed to the post office, it can't be sweeping the streets, working inthe supermarkets, working in a health clinic, attending school ect ect ect. Its a cost. Its an obvious statement, but it always seems that socialists overlook this in there calculations. [/b]
The point is capitalism wastes not only human but also its financial resources. Rather than leaving people in the benefit qeues, absolutely put them behind till numbers 2,3 and 4 so I dont have to wait so long to get served.
You mentioned socialists dont do their calculations, well perhaps if the cappie governments were less zestful when it came to attributing funds to areas without any discernable or immediate benefit to people at large, esp the military then perhaps there would be a damn site more funds to go around. That said though, the absolute and long term objective of socialism is to take capital and currency right out of the equation so we dont need to be having this debate.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Now maybe the cost of having fewer grocery workers is worth the benefit of having more postal workers. That's fine. But there needs to be a system to determine these costs and benefits as to whether that is true. Now, its nice to say that socialism will allow people to freely better themselves through schoo, or training programs than could capitalism. But again, there are costs involved in sending a person to air conditioner repair school (such as, the student is not producing in the community, only consuming during the schooling). [/b]
If the student increases his/her skill and productivity by a factor of x, then the cost and time involved in training them should be regarded as an investment not a burden. Besides, with greater opportunities to enter skilled employment, it stands to reason we will have many more teachers. These teachers will be redundant without enough students.

[email protected]

Maybe the community will benefit from burdening that cost of the student. But obviously not everyone can be air conditioner repairman. So one needs that system to allocate the value of cost to its benefit to determine whether the community is doing so.
No, see above. Capitalists themselves argue that human nature dictates everyone is individual. So by that logic it would appear a workforce equilibrium will be met.


ZX3

The bottom line remains what i have said for many months now: Socialists talk about all the wonderful things that will happen as a result of socialism. But they rarely attempt to prove any of it.

Possibly because the ones with any meaningful power are doing all they can to prevent any opportunity to prove that it can be done.

ZX3
18th June 2007, 00:38
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 14, 2007 10:43 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 14, 2007 10:43 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)I understood what you were saying. You are claiming that in a communist community the post office would have been open later because the communist community would put the unempl;opyed, or some portion of them, to work there, thereby increasing the number of workers, and its ability to have more convenient hours. Fine.

But this is sort of what the OIers (or at least this one) has been asking about for months. Resources are limited in the world, and a communist, a socialsit, an anarchist community, will have to deal with this fact. And it is a fact.

Resources include labor. Labor is not of an inexhaustable supply. Nor can labor do more than one thing at once. So when labor is deployed to the post office, it can't be sweeping the streets, working inthe supermarkets, working in a health clinic, attending school ect ect ect. Its a cost. Its an obvious statement, but it always seems that socialists overlook this in there calculations. [/b]
The point is capitalism wastes not only human but also its financial resources. Rather than leaving people in the benefit qeues, absolutely put them behind till numbers 2,3 and 4 so I dont have to wait so long to get served.
You mentioned socialists dont do their calculations, well perhaps if the cappie governments were less zestful when it came to attributing funds to areas without any discernable or immediate benefit to people at large, esp the military then perhaps there would be a damn site more funds to go around. That said though, the absolute and long term objective of socialism is to take capital and currency right out of the equation so we dont need to be having this debate.

Originally posted by ZX3

Now maybe the cost of having fewer grocery workers is worth the benefit of having more postal workers. That's fine. But there needs to be a system to determine these costs and benefits as to whether that is true. Now, its nice to say that socialism will allow people to freely better themselves through schoo, or training programs than could capitalism. But again, there are costs involved in sending a person to air conditioner repair school (such as, the student is not producing in the community, only consuming during the schooling).
If the student increases his/her skill and productivity by a factor of x, then the cost and time involved in training them should be regarded as an investment not a burden. Besides, with greater opportunities to enter skilled employment, it stands to reason we will have many more teachers. These teachers will be redundant without enough students.

[email protected]

Maybe the community will benefit from burdening that cost of the student. But obviously not everyone can be air conditioner repairman. So one needs that system to allocate the value of cost to its benefit to determine whether the community is doing so.
No, see above. Capitalists themselves argue that human nature dictates everyone is individual. So by that logic it would appear a workforce equilibrium will be met.


ZX3

The bottom line remains what i have said for many months now: Socialists talk about all the wonderful things that will happen as a result of socialism. But they rarely attempt to prove any of it.

Possibly because the ones with any meaningful power are doing all they can to prevent any opportunity to prove that it can be done. [/b]
The problem for the socialist here is that "money" and "capital" are a solution to the problem; it is not its cause. Absent them, the socialist will still need a system to efficiently allocate resources.
So it is NOT absolutely true that simply because a student spends time learning a skill, the community is benefitted. There was an old joke in the USA to the effect that at the rate law schools were churning out J.D.'s, by 2040 every American would be a lawyer. Obviously, everyone cannot be a lawyer, anymore so than everyone can be a air conditioner repairman. However capitalism has mechanisms to either encourage/discourage labor from gravitating to fields which the community does not need. Socialism has a much more difficult problem in this allocation, since it is an AIM of socialism for workers to work less. If air conditioner repairman only need to work 3 hours per day to satisfy the needs of the community, that would be considered a benefit for the socialist community. It is something that can be seen. What is not seen is the cost of having fewer truck drivers, since obviously labor cannot be repairing air conditioners and driving trucks at the same time. Economic calculation is not just about what is seen and immediate; it is also about what is unseen and long-term.

Dr Mindbender
19th June 2007, 00:40
Originally posted by ZX3
The problem for the socialist here is that "money" and "capital" are a solution to the problem; it is not its cause. Absent them, the socialist will still need a system to efficiently allocate resources.
So it is NOT absolutely true that simply because a student spends time learning a skill, the community is benefitted. There was an old joke in the USA to the effect that at the rate law schools were churning out J.D.'s, by 2040 every American would be a lawyer. Obviously, everyone cannot be a lawyer, anymore so than everyone can be a air conditioner repairman. However capitalism has mechanisms to either encourage/discourage labor from gravitating to fields which the community does not need. Socialism has a much more difficult problem in this allocation, since it is an AIM of socialism for workers to work less. If air conditioner repairman only need to work 3 hours per day to satisfy the needs of the community, that would be considered a benefit for the socialist community. It is something that can be seen. What is not seen is the cost of having fewer truck drivers, since obviously labor cannot be repairing air conditioners and driving trucks at the same time. Economic calculation is not just about what is seen and immediate; it is also about what is unseen and long-term.
Money and 'currency' is an arbritary concept, because the reactionary is unable to fathom the concept of running the planet without national states he is unable to see past the elite league of nations, ie how we could use an alternative means of fair distribution without the threat of sanctions or military action whenever a particular group threatens the interests of the elite nation leaders. This is precisely why Lenin and Trotsky argued in favour of a united international proletarian, which is precisely the system which stalin, and later on the international beourgiouse did their utmost to thwart. It is in the interests of the reactionary hegemony for us to beleive that we cannot function without currency, for it gives them the means to value our labour, so they can tax us and exploit our production. It also enables them to install the bogus technocratic one-upmanship of the skilled petit beourgiouse intelligentsia. The idea of collective learning, the antithesis to the competiton currently revelled is a threat to the existing status quo, so rather than not being in the collective interests of society it is merely a threat to the interests of the current establishment. Therein lies the difference.In your regards to American students wanting to become lawyers, it is capitalism and its financial lure which provides the side motivations. In a society where people study purely to obtain a job which appeals to their individual interests, there is no extra incentive to pursue a populist career path.

ZX3
22nd June 2007, 19:02
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 06:40 pm
Money and 'currency' is an arbritary concept, because the reactionary is unable to fathom the concept of running the planet without national states he is unable to see past the elite league of nations, ie how we could use an alternative means of fair distribution without the threat of sanctions or military action whenever a particular group threatens the interests of the elite nation leaders. This is precisely why Lenin and Trotsky argued in favour of a united international proletarian, which is precisely the system which stalin, and later on the international beourgiouse did their utmost to thwart. It is in the interests of the reactionary hegemony for us to beleive that we cannot function without currency, for it gives them the means to value our labour, so they can tax us and exploit our production. It also enables them to install the bogus technocratic one-upmanship of the skilled petit beourgiouse intelligentsia. The idea of collective learning, the antithesis to the competiton currently revelled is a threat to the existing status quo, so rather than not being in the collective interests of society it is merely a threat to the interests of the current establishment. Therein lies the difference.In your regards to American students wanting to become lawyers, it is capitalism and its financial lure which provides the side motivations. In a society where people study purely to obtain a job which appeals to their individual interests, there is no extra incentive to pursue a populist career path.
So often the socialist view of things is simply a reacdtion to the present world- "The present capitalios structure of te world is bad, this is why it is so, THEREFORE socialism is better" runs the argument. Case closed.

Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. There are economic issues and concerns which the socialist community will have to face and to solve. You can slam "money" or "currency" all you want, but your socialist community is going to need something to help it determine the value of production, and to help chart a future course of action (and even if you wish to make the absurd argument about people voting in councils of some sort, those people themseleves need a source of knowledge when voting). It doesn't do simply pine about a need for a more "fair" system of distribution: An argument needs to be presented about what that distribution should, in general, be. Lenin and Trotsky may have wanted such a more fair system, but they were obvious failures in doing so, to sucha degree that they were forced to resume capitalism to solve the problems of socialism. The problem of the USSR was not Stalin. The problem was that it thought socialism viable.
So when it is said that in a socialist community, people will be able to pursue jobs which appeal to their individual interests (mony concerns not a factor) it is apparent the future failure of the socialist community. Not because there is nothing particulary objectionable to such a state of affairs, but because the socialist fails to understand the purpose of a "job." It is not a vehicle to satify the needs and wants of the job holder (though it can certainly do that). It is to satisfy the needs and wants of the people who want that service completed. That is how the job is judged. A bunch of happy, self-fulfilled workers is nice, but if their product is of garbage quality, nobody cares.

I could end this by asking of the Revlefters: Make an argument in favor of socialism. But I have been asking that for months now, and no arguments are made (a critique of capitalism is a critique of capitalism. It says nothing about socialism).

Herman
22nd June 2007, 21:17
You can slam "money" or "currency" all you want, but your socialist community is going to need something to help it determine the value of production,

We're not against 'currency' or money per se. A socialist society would certainly have money.


It doesn't do simply pine about a need for a more "fair" system of distribution: An argument needs to be presented about what that distribution should, in general, be

Consumer needs will dictate what is made. That's what a planned economy is for.


Lenin and Trotsky may have wanted such a more fair system, but they were obvious failures in doing so, to sucha degree that they were forced to resume capitalism to solve the problems of socialism. The problem of the USSR was not Stalin. The problem was that it thought socialism viable.

Nope, the problem wasn't socialism. The problem was that they had gone through a civil war and the economy had been seriously affected.


but because the socialist fails to understand the purpose of a "job." It is not a vehicle to satify the needs and wants of the job holder (though it can certainly do that). It is to satisfy the needs and wants of the people who want that service completed. That is how the job is judged. A bunch of happy, self-fulfilled workers is nice, but if their product is of garbage quality, nobody cares.

And who says that the products will be crappy? Happier workers means that they will put more effort into what they are doing, which leads to top quality products. It's a win-win!

ZX3
22nd June 2007, 22:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:17 pm

You can slam "money" or "currency" all you want, but your socialist community is going to need something to help it determine the value of production,

We're not against 'currency' or money per se. A socialist society would certainly have money.


It doesn't do simply pine about a need for a more "fair" system of distribution: An argument needs to be presented about what that distribution should, in general, be

Consumer needs will dictate what is made. That's what a planned economy is for.


Lenin and Trotsky may have wanted such a more fair system, but they were obvious failures in doing so, to sucha degree that they were forced to resume capitalism to solve the problems of socialism. The problem of the USSR was not Stalin. The problem was that it thought socialism viable.

Nope, the problem wasn't socialism. The problem was that they had gone through a civil war and the economy had been seriously affected.


but because the socialist fails to understand the purpose of a "job." It is not a vehicle to satify the needs and wants of the job holder (though it can certainly do that). It is to satisfy the needs and wants of the people who want that service completed. That is how the job is judged. A bunch of happy, self-fulfilled workers is nice, but if their product is of garbage quality, nobody cares.

And who says that the products will be crappy? Happier workers means that they will put more effort into what they are doing, which leads to top quality products. It's a win-win!
1. In a capitalist community, the consumer is in command and dictates what is, and what is not produced. Which is why the claim that a socialist community will allow everyone to work and produce what they want is ridiculous. What if no consumers wish to consume what a worker wishes to produce? At that point it does not matter whether what the workers produce is top notch or garbage- even if they are happy.

2. What role does money serve in a socialist community?

Dr Mindbender
23rd June 2007, 18:57
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
So often the socialist view of things is simply a reacdtion to the present world- "The present capitalios structure of te world is bad, this is why it is so, THEREFORE socialism is better" runs the argument. Case closed.[/b]
How so? Ive always seen the socialist view as how would society be any worse off without a ruling class? Bearing in mind the ruling class who do the least work get the majority of produce,(despite the reactionary argument that there is no class divide) how on earth could their absence or end of role be of detrimental effect to society at large?


Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. There are economic issues and concerns which the socialist community will have to face and to solve. You can slam "money" or "currency" all you want, but your socialist community is going to need something to help it determine the value of production, and to help chart a future course of action (and even if you wish to make the absurd argument about people voting in councils of some sort, those people themseleves need a source of knowledge when voting).[/b] Each person will have equal entitlement to final production, each person will have equal logistical means. How could that be any simpler?

Originally posted by ZX3

It doesn't do simply pine about a need for a more "fair" system of distribution: An argument needs to be presented about what that distribution should, in general, be.
See above]

Originally posted by ZX3

Lenin and Trotsky may have wanted such a more fair system, but they were obvious failures in doing so, to sucha degree that they were forced to resume capitalism to solve the problems of socialism. The problem of the USSR was not Stalin. Yes it was. Stalin opposed international socialism, executed those who still supported it (including Trotsky) and so went the train to failure. Its also worth pointing out that in the 1928 Weimar German elections the left wing and communist parties could have formed a coalition which would have comfortably beaten the nazis democratically. Unfortunately in those days the global communist movement needed permission from Moscow which Stalin refused to give.

Originally posted by ZX3

The problem was that it thought socialism viable.
Cappie rhetoric.

Originally posted by ZX3

So when it is said that in a socialist community, people will be able to pursue jobs which appeal to their individual interests (mony concerns not a factor) it is apparent the future failure of the socialist community. Not because there is nothing particulary objectionable to such a state of affairs, but because the socialist fails to understand the purpose of a "job." Liberating people from alienating menial work will give them the opportunity to develop their faculties. Expanding the collective intelligence of society will open new doors, and our perspective on what the ''purposes'' of those jobs are will change. For example, rather than having a factory consisting of one manager and 100 human workers, We could have a factory with 50 automated machines working x times more efficiently, while the 100 workers are now training to become or are qualified technicians; always working on the next big technological breakthrough with the obvious benefits this will have for science at large.

Originally posted by ZX3

It is not a vehicle to satify the needs and wants of the job holder (though it can certainly do that). It is to satisfy the needs and wants of the people who want that service completed. That is how the job is judged. A bunch of happy, self-fulfilled workers is nice, but if their product is of garbage quality, nobody cares.
It could be argued that capitalism produces bad quality produce since the onus is to maximise profit margins, they will cut corners when it comes to expenses. In markets where their is notorious competiton, Ive also found this to be the case. For the relationship between markets and product quality you should read Naomi Klein's 'No logo'.

[email protected]

I could end this by asking of the Revlefters: Make an argument in favor of socialism. But I have been asking that for months now, and no arguments are made (a critique of capitalism is a critique of capitalism. It says nothing about socialism).
I hope ive done that sufficiently in this post. If you're still dissatisfied, ask for your money back. ;)


Red Herman

We're not against 'currency' or money per se. A socialist society would certainly have money.
Since money, or currency has little purpose other than giving the capitalist class a means to quantify and therefore exploit labour, a socialist society should also be mindful that its ultimate objective is to take currency and capital out of the equation. Although there may be a temporary 'transition' period where using money will be necessary, it should never lose track of the ultimate goal. After then goods can be exchanged purely on a 'for labour' basis.

ZX3
24th June 2007, 17:15
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 23, 2007 12:57 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 23, 2007 12:57 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
So often the socialist view of things is simply a reacdtion to the present world- "The present capitalios structure of te world is bad, this is why it is so, THEREFORE socialism is better" runs the argument. Case closed.[/b]
How so? Ive always seen the socialist view as how would society be any worse off without a ruling class? Bearing in mind the ruling class who do the least work get the majority of produce,(despite the reactionary argument that there is no class divide) how on earth could their absence or end of role be of detrimental effect to society at large?


Originally posted by ZX3

Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. There are economic issues and concerns which the socialist community will have to face and to solve. You can slam "money" or "currency" all you want, but your socialist community is going to need something to help it determine the value of production, and to help chart a future course of action (and even if you wish to make the absurd argument about people voting in councils of some sort, those people themseleves need a source of knowledge when voting). Each person will have equal entitlement to final production, each person will have equal logistical means. How could that be any simpler?

Originally posted by ZX3

It doesn't do simply pine about a need for a more "fair" system of distribution: An argument needs to be presented about what that distribution should, in general, be.
See above]

Originally posted by ZX3

Lenin and Trotsky may have wanted such a more fair system, but they were obvious failures in doing so, to sucha degree that they were forced to resume capitalism to solve the problems of socialism. The problem of the USSR was not Stalin. Yes it was. Stalin opposed international socialism, executed those who still supported it (including Trotsky) and so went the train to failure. Its also worth pointing out that in the 1928 Weimar German elections the left wing and communist parties could have formed a coalition which would have comfortably beaten the nazis democratically. Unfortunately in those days the global communist movement needed permission from Moscow which Stalin refused to give.

Originally posted by ZX3

The problem was that it thought socialism viable.
Cappie rhetoric.

Originally posted by ZX3

So when it is said that in a socialist community, people will be able to pursue jobs which appeal to their individual interests (mony concerns not a factor) it is apparent the future failure of the socialist community. Not because there is nothing particulary objectionable to such a state of affairs, but because the socialist fails to understand the purpose of a "job." Liberating people from alienating menial work will give them the opportunity to develop their faculties. Expanding the collective intelligence of society will open new doors, and our perspective on what the ''purposes'' of those jobs are will change. For example, rather than having a factory consisting of one manager and 100 human workers, We could have a factory with 50 automated machines working x times more efficiently, while the 100 workers are now training to become or are qualified technicians; always working on the next big technological breakthrough with the obvious benefits this will have for science at large.

Originally posted by ZX3

It is not a vehicle to satify the needs and wants of the job holder (though it can certainly do that). It is to satisfy the needs and wants of the people who want that service completed. That is how the job is judged. A bunch of happy, self-fulfilled workers is nice, but if their product is of garbage quality, nobody cares.
It could be argued that capitalism produces bad quality produce since the onus is to maximise profit margins, they will cut corners when it comes to expenses. In markets where their is notorious competiton, Ive also found this to be the case. For the relationship between markets and product quality you should read Naomi Klein's 'No logo'.

[email protected]

I could end this by asking of the Revlefters: Make an argument in favor of socialism. But I have been asking that for months now, and no arguments are made (a critique of capitalism is a critique of capitalism. It says nothing about socialism).
I hope ive done that sufficiently in this post. If you're still dissatisfied, ask for your money back. ;)


Red Herman

We're not against 'currency' or money per se. A socialist society would certainly have money.
Since money, or currency has little purpose other than giving the capitalist class a means to quantify and therefore exploit labour, a socialist society should also be mindful that its ultimate objective is to take currency and capital out of the equation. Although there may be a temporary 'transition' period where using money will be necessary, it should never lose track of the ultimate goal. After then goods can be exchanged purely on a 'for labour' basis. [/b]
1. The value of work to the community is never equal. Some professions may be more valuable than othrs. Even within a particular line of work, the value of work by the workers will vary (does the community value a ten year veteran of the company the same as it does a rookie?) This includes the "logistical means" which after all, will ned to be produced by somebody else.

2. There can be little doubt that 50 machines can complete more work than 50 humans in the same period of time. Thus their use will be of a greater value to the community. This realization is something capitalism has understood for a couple of centuries now, and has been acting upon this understanding for that period of time.
However, when the capitalist acts upon that understanding, the socialist usually gripes and complains about the injustice to the workers. And the capitalist is able to act and advance technological levels does this because it has a system to measure the costs of using machinery versus better machinery versus the costs of using human labor. The socialist??? Nobody seems to know (and it needs sucha system).

3. Obviously, the objective of the capitalist is to produce as much a possible, using the fewest resources (and having the fewest expenses). So what? Sir or ma'am,, that will need to be an objective of the socialist community as well! Why else build those machines to replace those workers? What is the purpose in that? Simple- so that fewer people can produce more goods of a partcular kind, so that other workers can produce goods of a different kind.

Using the fewest possible resources to produce the greatest amount possible is the only rational way to order an economy. Why use more resources than neccessary to produce goods? The best way to make such measurements, to determine whether goods being produced are being produced in the best possible way, is through "currency." If the socialist community wishes to drop it, they still need to replace it with something else.

Dr Mindbender
24th June 2007, 23:16
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. The value of work to the community is never equal. Some professions may be more valuable than othrs. Even within a particular line of work, the value of work by the workers will vary (does the community value a ten year veteran of the company the same as it does a rookie?) This includes the "logistical means" which after all, will ned to be produced by somebody else.[/b]
Its unfair to say that. For example In a previous post, I used an analogy of the binman vs the doctor. The doctor can only cure so many people however the binman's role prevents many more people becoming sick therefore without his role the doctor is next to useless. You may want to argue that the doctor is more 'valuable' however without the roles that you may deem more trivial then society is inoperable and the whole system falls apart. This is why its innacurate and downright snobbish to deem people 'less' and 'more' valuable. It never ceases to amaze me the way people are surprised at the amount of chaos that is caused whenever a given group of manual workers go on strike.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
2. There can be little doubt that 50 machines can complete more work than 50 humans in the same period of time. Thus their use will be of a greater value to the community. This realization is something capitalism has understood for a couple of centuries now, and has been acting upon this understanding for that period of time.
However, when the capitalist acts upon that understanding, the socialist usually gripes and complains about the injustice to the workers. And the capitalist is able to act and advance technological levels does this because it has a system to measure the costs of using machinery versus better machinery versus the costs of using human labor. The socialist??? Nobody seems to know (and it needs sucha system).[/b]
Yet again more spin. The capitalist may put onus on creating a situation where this is a likliehood, but the technocratic socialist disagrees with the best means of acheiving that, they arent opposed to it per se. The difference is the socialist wants to incorporate the proletarian into the progressive workforce of academics. The capitalist wishes to exclude them because such a move would be a death blow to the class based status quo. This is why it is in theirbest interests to mantain a workforce of complicit manual labourers contrary to your original argument.


[email protected]

3. Obviously, the objective of the capitalist is to produce as much a possible, using the fewest resources (and having the fewest expenses). So what? Sir or ma'am,, that will need to be an objective of the socialist community as well! Why else build those machines to replace those workers? What is the purpose in that? Simple- so that fewer people can produce more goods of a partcular kind, so that other workers can produce goods of a different kind.
Agreed with the first part, strongly disagree with the second part. If we're going to have machines producing in one area then why not across the board? The purpose of depending on automation is not simply efficiency, but to allow as many people as possible to explore their training potential that they would not have had under capitalism because of lack of funds and40hour a week commitments. This will benefit society as a whole through collective intelligence, and the pursuit of even more methods that will increase efficiency and scientific progress exponentially.

ZX3

Using the fewest possible resources to produce the greatest amount possible is the only rational way to order an economy. Why use more resources than neccessary to produce goods? The best way to make such measurements, to determine whether goods being produced are being produced in the best possible way, is through "currency." If the socialist community wishes to drop it, they still need to replace it with something else.
Its not always that simple, often its a philosphical question. If the final result is objectional, then do the ends always justify the means? This is the question I put to all cappies, if capitalism produces more misery than it does joy then what is its philosphical defence? If goods are being produced 'well' then what does it matter if only a small clique of people have access to them particulary if their production depends by in large by the majority? In answer to your point about currency, you still havent explained to me why society cant be run on a 'goods for labour' basis, bearing in mind what i've already said.

ZX3
24th June 2007, 23:55
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 24, 2007 05:16 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 24, 2007 05:16 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. The value of work to the community is never equal. Some professions may be more valuable than othrs. Even within a particular line of work, the value of work by the workers will vary (does the community value a ten year veteran of the company the same as it does a rookie?) This includes the "logistical means" which after all, will ned to be produced by somebody else.[/b]
Its unfair to say that. For example In a previous post, I used an analogy of the binman vs the doctor. The doctor can only cure so many people however the binman's role prevents many more people becoming sick therefore without his role the doctor is next to useless. You may want to argue that the doctor is more 'valuable' however without the roles that you may deem more trivial then society is inoperable and the whole system falls apart. This is why its innacurate and downright snobbish to deem people 'less' and 'more' valuable. It never ceases to amaze me the way people are surprised at the amount of chaos that is caused whenever a given group of manual workers go on strike.

Originally posted by ZX3

2. There can be little doubt that 50 machines can complete more work than 50 humans in the same period of time. Thus their use will be of a greater value to the community. This realization is something capitalism has understood for a couple of centuries now, and has been acting upon this understanding for that period of time.
However, when the capitalist acts upon that understanding, the socialist usually gripes and complains about the injustice to the workers. And the capitalist is able to act and advance technological levels does this because it has a system to measure the costs of using machinery versus better machinery versus the costs of using human labor. The socialist??? Nobody seems to know (and it needs sucha system).
Yet again more spin. The capitalist may put onus on creating a situation where this is a likliehood, but the technocratic socialist disagrees with the best means of acheiving that, they arent opposed to it per se. The difference is the socialist wants to incorporate the proletarian into the progressive workforce of academics. The capitalist wishes to exclude them because such a move would be a death blow to the class based status quo. This is why it is in theirbest interests to mantain a workforce of complicit manual labourers contrary to your original argument.


[email protected]

3. Obviously, the objective of the capitalist is to produce as much a possible, using the fewest resources (and having the fewest expenses). So what? Sir or ma'am,, that will need to be an objective of the socialist community as well! Why else build those machines to replace those workers? What is the purpose in that? Simple- so that fewer people can produce more goods of a partcular kind, so that other workers can produce goods of a different kind.
Agreed with the first part, strongly disagree with the second part. If we're going to have machines producing in one area then why not across the board? The purpose of depending on automation is not simply efficiency, but to allow as many people as possible to explore their training potential that they would not have had under capitalism because of lack of funds and40hour a week commitments. This will benefit society as a whole through collective intelligence, and the pursuit of even more methods that will increase efficiency and scientific progress exponentially.

ZX3

Using the fewest possible resources to produce the greatest amount possible is the only rational way to order an economy. Why use more resources than neccessary to produce goods? The best way to make such measurements, to determine whether goods being produced are being produced in the best possible way, is through "currency." If the socialist community wishes to drop it, they still need to replace it with something else.
Its not always that simple, often its a philosphical question. If the final result is objectional, then do the ends always justify the means? This is the question I put to all cappies, if capitalism produces more misery than it does joy then what is its philosphical defence? If goods are being produced 'well' then what does it matter if only a small clique of people have access to them particulary if their production depends by in large by the majority? In answer to your point about currency, you still havent explained to me why society cant be run on a 'goods for labour' basis, bearing in mind what i've already said. [/b]
1. The comparison between the doctor and physician assumes a perpetually static economy, where nothing much changes over the years. This is false state of affairs. It has never existed. In the USA, manufacturing output is greater today than it was in 1950, even though there are far fewer numbers of workers working on the line. This is a result of the type of technological progress which you seem to be under the impression doe not occur under capitalism (and since socialists tended to slam such developments, it does call into question its desire for technological development). As a result, the value to the community of the worker in the such a field is less today than in 1950. But if the value is to be considered the same as other workers, then the community can have no means of determining whether workers are being properly deployed. How can it possibly determine whether work done does in fact benefit the community? Sure, the garbagemen job is vital. But how many garbagemen are needed in the community? How does the community make those determinations without a way to measure the value of someone's work? Otherwise, the fellow working in the factory is as valuable to the community as the fellow figuring out how to destroy his job.

The value is being measured as to the work performed, not the individuals themselves.

2. Describe "goods for labor."

Dr Mindbender
25th June 2007, 00:29
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. The comparison between the doctor and physician assumes a perpetually static economy, where nothing much changes over the years. This is false state of affairs. It has never existed. In the USA, manufacturing output is greater today than it was in 1950, even though there are far fewer numbers of workers working on the line. This is a result of the type of technological progress which you seem to be under the impression doe not occur under capitalism [/b]Again Ive been misquoted, I never said that capitalism prevents all technological industrialisation per se, I merely said that it puts the brakes on it within reason in order to mantain an 'undercurrent' of manual workers. Since highly efficient machines would be cost consuming through mantainance and other overheads, employing desperate humans is sometimes a good way of cutting cost related corners. The difference withthe brand of technological socialism that i subscribe to is that it would implement technological advances across the board, since without the brand of competition rampant under capitalism, cost is no longer an issue.

Originally posted by [email protected]

question its desire for technological development). As a result, the value to the community of the worker in the such a field is less today than in 1950. But if the value is to be considered the same as other workers, then the community can have no means of determining whether workers are being properly deployed. How can it possibly determine whether work done does in fact benefit the community? Sure, the garbagemen job is vital. But how many garbagemen are needed in the community? How does the community make those determinations without a way to measure the value of someone's work? Otherwise, the fellow working in the factory is as valuable to the community as the fellow figuring out how to destroy his job.
Most of your assumptions are based in the present day scenario, where private ownership of factories, competition etc are all rampant therefore most of these are non applicable to the socialist model where these factors have been removed. With a society of more and more emerging academics, our needs will change. More teachers will be needed for example, giving a multitude of teaching opportunities where before there were none. People will travel more thanks to more free time, therefore we will need more and more engineers, technicians etc to work upon new technologies which promote and utilise greener methods. Capitalism is unable/not required to cater for these needs two-fold - it sustains itself by denying people the afforementioned opportunities, by railroading them into badly paid alienating jobs and secondly, purely because of the 'cost factor' none of these are endeavours it wishes to engage in.

ZX3

2. Describe "goods for labor."
You do a days work, then you go to a outlet and take your amenities and goods. The goods will be made freely available without the wastage of the beourgiouse class and big retailers, prevailent under capitalism.
I honestly don't know how to make that one any simpler.

Red Tung
25th June 2007, 10:57
1. In a capitalist community, the consumer is in command and dictates what is, and what is not produced. Which is why the claim that a socialist community will allow everyone to work and produce what they want is ridiculous. What if no consumers wish to consume what a worker wishes to produce? At that point it does not matter whether what the workers produce is top notch or garbage- even if they are happy.

The most real demand is those that satisfy physical necessities. Refer to Maslow's pyramid of needs for an objective scale of demand free from psychological persuasion. Anything else is really a matter of culture and marketing. For example, what's the demand for sandals and togas now as compared to 2000 years ago? As for marketing and culture this can be fixed with any ruling class willing to manipulate it to serve their needs. What exactly then is the need of the working class in relation to culture and marketing. The cultures and set of values for different classes in a class stratified society like Capitalism is very much different from each other. For people who value the functionality of a commodity for some useful purpose it serves in improving their lives, they value a more utilitarian culture than a class where money is no object. If you were a member of a class where money is no object because all wage earners need to "buy back" the things that they produced from your arbitrary claims of ownership over them, functionality would not be your primary focus when looking for goods or services since there is a limit to which things could be anymore functional due to present technological limits, but yet this may exceed the limit on how much more pricey an item is compared to any other item which is simply utilitarian. In other words, you want that label, you want that fancy car with leather seats that is heavier, speedier and have more bling, bling than the average commoner model that is "simply" utilitarian because you desire that feeling of being "better" or richer than the other fellow who is not able to attain the heights of your luxury. But, in a much more class equal society what need is there for such grand displays of pomposity and pretentiousness?


2. What role does money serve in a socialist community?

I don't know about Socialist society as this is simply another code word for state inc. instead of plutocrat inc. where you exchange bosses so instead of bowing to the CEO you bow to the party commissar.

But, in Communist society money serves no other purpose than wallpaper or furnace fuel.


1. The value of work to the community is never equal. Some professions may be more valuable than othrs. Even within a particular line of work, the value of work by the workers will vary (does the community value a ten year veteran of the company the same as it does a rookie?) This includes the "logistical means" which after all, will ned to be produced by somebody else.

How did the 10 year veteran become a 10 year veteran and how does that relate to how valuable a worker is when viewed from a particular social system?

Why is a rookie viewed as less valuable when the mere existence of veteran workers necessarily implies a training time to acquire the level of experience most expect in veteran workers in the first place? Is it because that in a Capitalist mode of production less emphasis is placed on a culture of cooperation and gradual achievement of competency through learning and practice than on arbitrary competitive games to cut "costs" needing to go into training which is then saved and diverted to those who really deserve it? Who then really deserves it in Capitalist society? The answer is obvious.

The workplace, hiring practices, organizational structure and social institutions all bear the marks of a class stratified society where competition is prized not because of any inherent advantage in making society better or encouraging individuals to "better" themselves, but because of efficiency in reducing cost involved in mentoring, tutoring or otherwise encouraging people to fulfill their potential so that the reduction in money involved in such constructive humanistic endeavors can go instead to making the already insanely wealthy even more wealthy.


2. There can be little doubt that 50 machines can complete more work than 50 humans in the same period of time. Thus their use will be of a greater value to the community. This realization is something capitalism has understood for a couple of centuries now, and has been acting upon this understanding for that period of time.
However, when the capitalist acts upon that understanding, the socialist usually gripes and complains about the injustice to the workers. And the capitalist is able to act and advance technological levels does this because it has a system to measure the costs of using machinery versus better machinery versus the costs of using human labor. The socialist??? Nobody seems to know (and it needs sucha system).

But, the important question is for what primary purpose was automation of work implemented for? Quality of life improvement of the workers so they can engage in other activities such as education which should also logically be cheaper since more physical resources are available so other activities which does not include production to fulfill physical needs like teaching are much more feasable since more people are needed to be involved in these activities? Well, as everybody can see this is not the case and never was the case since tuition costs are increasing and a lot more people cannot afford to pay for further education. So the question that should be asked is what was the purpose of automation if not for the freeing up of labour or allowing for more leisure or personal development for the workers? Again, the answer is obvious by the number of billionaires in existence in the world today.


3. Obviously, the objective of the capitalist is to produce as much a possible, using the fewest resources (and having the fewest expenses). So what? Sir or ma'am,, that will need to be an objective of the socialist community as well! Why else build those machines to replace those workers? What is the purpose in that? Simple- so that fewer people can produce more goods of a partcular kind, so that other workers can produce goods of a different kind.

Using the fewest possible resources to produce the greatest amount possible is the only rational way to order an economy. Why use more resources than neccessary to produce goods? The best way to make such measurements, to determine whether goods being produced are being produced in the best possible way, is through "currency." If the socialist community wishes to drop it, they still need to replace it with something else.

The best possible way to measure demand and physical efficiency in production is quantity demanded and total energy involved in production and scarcity is simply the ratio between the number of consumers being able to purchase versus those who are not able to purchase a particular commodity produced in x quantities. If you have 1 product and 2 consumers you have 50 percent scarcity if you have 2 products and 2 consumers you have 0 percent scarcity. If scarcity is a problem, but fuel is not then you can simply ramp up production to reduce scarcity by increasing the quantities produced versus consumers demanding it. Simple isn't it?

ZX3
25th June 2007, 11:24
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 24, 2007 06:29 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 24, 2007 06:29 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. The comparison between the doctor and physician assumes a perpetually static economy, where nothing much changes over the years. This is false state of affairs. It has never existed. In the USA, manufacturing output is greater today than it was in 1950, even though there are far fewer numbers of workers working on the line. This is a result of the type of technological progress which you seem to be under the impression doe not occur under capitalism [/b]Again Ive been misquoted, I never said that capitalism prevents all technological industrialisation per se, I merely said that it puts the brakes on it within reason in order to mantain an 'undercurrent' of manual workers. Since highly efficient machines would be cost consuming through mantainance and other overheads, employing desperate humans is sometimes a good way of cutting cost related corners. The difference withthe brand of technological socialism that i subscribe to is that it would implement technological advances across the board, since without the brand of competition rampant under capitalism, cost is no longer an issue.

[email protected]

question its desire for technological development). As a result, the value to the community of the worker in the such a field is less today than in 1950. But if the value is to be considered the same as other workers, then the community can have no means of determining whether workers are being properly deployed. How can it possibly determine whether work done does in fact benefit the community? Sure, the garbagemen job is vital. But how many garbagemen are needed in the community? How does the community make those determinations without a way to measure the value of someone's work? Otherwise, the fellow working in the factory is as valuable to the community as the fellow figuring out how to destroy his job.
Most of your assumptions are based in the present day scenario, where private ownership of factories, competition etc are all rampant therefore most of these are non applicable to the socialist model where these factors have been removed. With a society of more and more emerging academics, our needs will change. More teachers will be needed for example, giving a multitude of teaching opportunities where before there were none. People will travel more thanks to more free time, therefore we will need more and more engineers, technicians etc to work upon new technologies which promote and utilise greener methods. Capitalism is unable/not required to cater for these needs two-fold - it sustains itself by denying people the afforementioned opportunities, by railroading them into badly paid alienating jobs and secondly, purely because of the 'cost factor' none of these are endeavours it wishes to engage in.

ZX3

2. Describe "goods for labor."
You do a days work, then you go to a outlet and take your amenities and goods. The goods will be made freely available without the wastage of the beourgiouse class and big retailers, prevailent under capitalism.
I honestly don't know how to make that one any simpler. [/b]
There are ALWAYS costs in production, whether in capitalist or socialist communities. A doctor examining a patient cannot be hauling trash at the same time; metal being used to construct forks and knives cannot be used at the same time to make railway ties; a teacher explaining math to grade schoolers cannot be teaching adults about machines at the same time. This reality won't change under socialism. The question is whether the costs involved in production are worth the benefits accrued. And "money" serves as the best way to measure the value of whether production is beneficial or not to the community.

So socilaism needs to determine ways to weigh the value of work to the community. So that "labor for work" sketch makes no sense since it does not account for whether the work put in benefits the community. And since the products to be taken out are the results of someone else's labor, this means any production is considered valuable, regardless of whether people actually want the product. In such circumstances, it is doubtful that the allotment available at the end of the day will be of items which you want and need, since the community does not consider that an aim of production (of course, the socialist will say socialism does care about what people want and need. If so, then it will have to recognise work in areas more needed and wanted by the community has to be considered more valuable than work performed in areas not as needed or wanted. But if it agrees to this, but still insists upon considering all work equally valuable, then it opens itself up to charges it is engaging in exploitation of workers, since it seeks to deny fair value for work performed).

Needs may change in a socialist community. But it always will have to deal with "costs."

pusher robot
25th June 2007, 15:49
If scarcity is a problem, but fuel is not then you can simply ramp up production to reduce scarcity by increasing the quantities produced versus consumers demanding it. Simple isn't it?

Hmmm. And what if, as in reality, both goods and fuel are scarce?

Dr Mindbender
25th June 2007, 18:30
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
There are ALWAYS costs in production,[/b]
By 'cost' Im assuming you mean the economic context, which again is arbitrary and non applicable in the socialist scenario.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
whether in capitalist or socialist communities. A doctor examining a patient cannot be hauling trash at the same time;[/b]
No need for anyone to 'haul trash'; again this is one of the ways in which socialism will apply automation.

Originally posted by ZX3

metal being used to construct forks and knives cannot be used at the same time to make railway ties; a teacher explaining math to grade schoolers cannot be teaching adults about machines at the same time. This reality won't change under socialism. The question is whether the costs involved in production are worth the benefits accrued. And "money" serves as the best way to measure the value of whether production is beneficial or not to the community.
If by benefits you mean is each individual member of society on average living more happily than pre-revolution, then philosphically it's difficult to criticise. There will be no need for professionals to be squandered in irrelevant roles as you mentioned above. Since more and more potential academics will emerge, there will be sufficient numbers therefore no need to railroad people into alienating wage slavery. In that context, I think you'll find the reality will change.

Originally posted by ZX3

So socilaism needs to determine ways to weigh the value of work to the community. So that "labor for work" sketch makes no sense since it does not account for whether the work put in benefits the community.
I'm failing to grasp what you mean by that. Could you kindly provide an example (obviously excluding illegal or illicit activities) of work that does'nt benefit the community?
As I mentioned before, regardless of how trivial you may deem a job in some way it is preventing disaster, as I illustrated with the example of the binman.

Originally posted by ZX3

And since the products to be taken out are the results of someone else's labor, this means any production is considered valuable, regardless of whether people actually want the product.
If you subscribe to the idea that human indivuality is as varied as it is numerous then it stands to reason that all niche tastes will be catered for, in a society where every member as a meaningful input rather than a few fatcats at the top creating the material conditions, telling us what we want to consume.

Originally posted by ZX3

In such circumstances, it is doubtful that the allotment available at the end of the day will be of items which you want and need, The school of capitalism tells us that 'demand' and 'value' are co-dependent. How can an item be valuable if no-one wants its? Reading it, you appear to contradict yourself.

Originally posted by ZX3

since the community does not consider that an aim of production (of course, the socialist will say socialism does care about what people want and need. If so, then it will have to recognise work in areas more needed and wanted by the community has to be considered more valuable than work performed in areas not as needed or wanted. But if it agrees to this, but still insists upon considering all work equally valuable, then it opens itself up to charges it is engaging in exploitation of workers, since it seeks to deny fair value for work performed).
You are basing most of this on the idea that human nature and social groups are equally balanced in their ideas, wants and aspirations which i thought was anti-conservative and anti-liberal. If people by definition differ, then it strikes me that if a certain number of group want to become involved in a certain given genre of the arts, industries or sciences for example, that group will mantain its own equilibrium therefore there will be none of the mass wastage of resources that you are referring to.

[email protected]

Needs may change in a socialist community. But it always will have to deal with "costs."
Theres that C word again, all I can say is 'non-applicable'.

pusher robot

Hmmm. And what if, as in reality, both goods and fuel are scarce?
The reason they are scare today is twofold- The beourgiouse class keep all the goods to themselves, and what they cannot sell they dispose of or destroy.
- They would rather keep potential workers on the welfare line rather than in work producing because it reinforces the status quo, giving existing workers a false sense of power and superiority. It is a classic divide and conquer tactic.

pusher robot
25th June 2007, 19:34
By 'cost' Im assuming you mean the economic context, which again is arbitrary and non applicable in the socialist scenario.

Huh what? Do socialists now propose to produce things from thin air? Via what means? Magic?


No need for anyone to 'haul trash'; again this is one of the ways in which socialism will apply automation.

Brilliant! Take a simple task that can be performed by almost any person and invent a fuel-consuming, complex, and high-maintenance machine to do the same job, but with less intelligence!

Why not just propose to magically eliminate garbage - that would be more realistic.


In that context, I think you'll find the reality will change.

Emprical evidence for this? None. This is a faith-based vision of humanity, as much a religion as any other.



I'm failing to grasp what you mean by that. Could you kindly provide an example (obviously excluding illegal or illicit activities) of work that does'nt benefit the community?
Producing a product that nobody wants is the archetypical example. But it's not so much about that as balancing what it is that the community wants more. Which to produce? So many loaves of bread or so many barrels of beer? I only have so many grains, and only so much land to grow them on. Capitalists have simple, effective ways of answering these questions. It does not appear that communists do.


If you subscribe to the idea that human indivuality is as varied as it is numerous then it stands to reason that all niche tastes will be catered for

And if they aren't? What then?


The school of capitalism tells us that 'demand' and 'value' are co-dependent. How can an item be valuable if no-one wants its? Reading it, you appear to contradict yourself.

No, he's pointing out the the communist's definition of "value" doesn't actually relate directly to "what consumers want" to the extent that it includes "what producers want."


Theres that C word again, all I can say is 'non-applicable'.

There is no free lunch under any reality-based system. The physical laws of the universe prevent it.


The reason they are scare today is twofold- The beourgiouse class keep all the goods to themselves, and what they cannot sell they dispose of or destroy.
Then surely you have the solution to provide us with the unlimited free energy currently being hoarded or destroyed. Please elucidate, some of us would be fascinated to hear the details.
"Scarcity" does not mean "rarity." It only means that there is only so much of something, and members of a society have to decide somehow how to best utilize that thing.

ZX3
25th June 2007, 19:36
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 25, 2007 12:30 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 25, 2007 12:30 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
There are ALWAYS costs in production,[/b]
By 'cost' Im assuming you mean the economic context, which again is arbitrary and non applicable in the socialist scenario.

Originally posted by ZX3

whether in capitalist or socialist communities. A doctor examining a patient cannot be hauling trash at the same time;
No need for anyone to 'haul trash'; again this is one of the ways in which socialism will apply automation.

Originally posted by ZX3

metal being used to construct forks and knives cannot be used at the same time to make railway ties; a teacher explaining math to grade schoolers cannot be teaching adults about machines at the same time. This reality won't change under socialism. The question is whether the costs involved in production are worth the benefits accrued. And "money" serves as the best way to measure the value of whether production is beneficial or not to the community.
If by benefits you mean is each individual member of society on average living more happily than pre-revolution, then philosphically it's difficult to criticise. There will be no need for professionals to be squandered in irrelevant roles as you mentioned above. Since more and more potential academics will emerge, there will be sufficient numbers therefore no need to railroad people into alienating wage slavery. In that context, I think you'll find the reality will change.

Originally posted by ZX3

So socilaism needs to determine ways to weigh the value of work to the community. So that "labor for work" sketch makes no sense since it does not account for whether the work put in benefits the community.
I'm failing to grasp what you mean by that. Could you kindly provide an example (obviously excluding illegal or illicit activities) of work that does'nt benefit the community?
As I mentioned before, regardless of how trivial you may deem a job in some way it is preventing disaster, as I illustrated with the example of the binman.

Originally posted by ZX3

And since the products to be taken out are the results of someone else's labor, this means any production is considered valuable, regardless of whether people actually want the product.
If you subscribe to the idea that human indivuality is as varied as it is numerous then it stands to reason that all niche tastes will be catered for, in a society where every member as a meaningful input rather than a few fatcats at the top creating the material conditions, telling us what we want to consume.

Originally posted by ZX3

In such circumstances, it is doubtful that the allotment available at the end of the day will be of items which you want and need, The school of capitalism tells us that 'demand' and 'value' are co-dependent. How can an item be valuable if no-one wants its? Reading it, you appear to contradict yourself.

Originally posted by ZX3

since the community does not consider that an aim of production (of course, the socialist will say socialism does care about what people want and need. If so, then it will have to recognise work in areas more needed and wanted by the community has to be considered more valuable than work performed in areas not as needed or wanted. But if it agrees to this, but still insists upon considering all work equally valuable, then it opens itself up to charges it is engaging in exploitation of workers, since it seeks to deny fair value for work performed).
You are basing most of this on the idea that human nature and social groups are equally balanced in their ideas, wants and aspirations which i thought was anti-conservative and anti-liberal. If people by definition differ, then it strikes me that if a certain number of group want to become involved in a certain given genre of the arts, industries or sciences for example, that group will mantain its own equilibrium therefore there will be none of the mass wastage of resources that you are referring to.

[email protected]

Needs may change in a socialist community. But it always will have to deal with "costs."
Theres that C word again, all I can say is 'non-applicable'.

pusher robot

Hmmm. And what if, as in reality, both goods and fuel are scarce?
The reason they are scare today is twofold- The beourgiouse class keep all the goods to themselves, and what they cannot sell they dispose of or destroy.
- They would rather keep potential workers on the welfare line rather than in work producing because it reinforces the status quo, giving existing workers a false sense of power and superiority. It is a classic divide and conquer tactic. [/b]
1. "Cost" is most certainly applicable in the socialist scenario. Even your "academics" cannot do all things at once, and when they do one thing, it is at the "cost" of them not doing something else.
Look at it this way, in one section of "cost.": There is 24 hours in a day. Let's say a worker spends 8 hours manufacturing 10 TV's. That means during those 8 hours he cannot be manufacturing radios. So at the end of those 8 hours he has produced 10 TV's at a cost of producing no radios. Now the idea is that there are ten people who value the TV's over the radio's, so the "cost" of having produced 10 TV's over 0 radios is worth it, those people who want the TV have benefitted.
One can also narrow the "cost" aspect by looking at how the TV's themselves are being manufactured (could that worker have produced 15 TV's in the same period of time), or expand it out further (do people want to watch TV or listen to radios anymore).
The socialist community will have to wrestle with the same issues and problems, even if everything is automated.

2. When is production of items not beneficial to the community? Easy. I would think a company which manufactured typewriters is not benefitting the community. Also, increasingly so but not quite there yet, 35 mm film manufacturers.
This despite the fact that the workers in a typewriter or 35 mm film factory may like what they do.

Remember: The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers of those goods, not the workers who produce them. Socialists get tripped up I think by so often insisting the opposite, or at least insisting the two interetsts are one and the same.

pusher robot
25th June 2007, 19:47
Easy. I would think a company which manufactured typewriters is not benefitting the community. Also, increasingly so but not quite there yet, 35 mm film manufacturers.


Yes. The classic example is the buggy whip maker.

Suppose Ivan lives in a communist community and makes buggy whips; he is a master of his craft and has great job satisfaction from his work. But now automobiles are produced in another factory and nobody uses buggies any more. If communism permits him to do whatever he likes, he continues to manufacture buggy whips that nobody needs or wants. Worse, he consumes valuable leather that could be used for any other leather product that people actually do want.

Is this a problem? Is there a solution?

NOTE: Sorry about the frequent edits - I had to discover through trial and error that using the word "S H O E S" (without spaces) results in a "forbidden message" error.

Dr Mindbender
25th June 2007, 20:22
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. "Cost" is most certainly applicable in the socialist scenario. Even your "academics" cannot do all things at once, and when they do one thing, it is at the "cost" of them not doing something else.
Look at it this way, in one section of "cost.": There is 24 hours in a day. Let's say a worker spends 8 hours manufacturing 10 TV's. That means during those 8 hours he cannot be manufacturing radios. So at the end of those 8 hours he has produced 10 TV's at a cost of producing no radios. Now the idea is that there are ten people who value the TV's over the radio's, so the "cost" of having produced 10 TV's over 0 radios is worth it, those people who want the TV have benefitted.
[/b]
Another though provoking analogy I was told, take for example a carpenter. He may spend his working day assembling 8 shelves for profit, but when he returns home is is more than willing to repeat the task for himself without any hope of profit? Why? Because there is no distinction between what he would would class as labour and lesuirable pursuits. This is precisely the point I am driving at, to create a situation where individuals talents and interests are no longer divorced from the place of work. Once this is the case, people will have no reason to work grudgingly nor will there be any necessary extenuating motives to do so.

Originally posted by [email protected]

2. When is production of items not beneficial to the community? Easy. I would think a company which manufactured typewriters is not benefitting the community. Also, increasingly so but not quite there yet, 35 mm film manufacturers.
This despite the fact that the workers in a typewriter or 35 mm film factory may like what they do.
In all honesty, can you even think of anyone who still manufactures them? I dont know where they are still commercially available, let alone anyone who still builds them. I think this is a silly example. Of course in a socialist society where learning and research is the onus, not only will it utilise pre-socialist technologies it will continually strive to improve them.

ZX3

Remember: The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers of those goods, not the workers who produce them. Socialists get tripped up I think by so often insisting the opposite, or at least insisting the two interetsts are one and the same.
Absolutely, and there is no reason why both groups cannot be accomodated. Automated factories working more efficiently will liberate human beings from the alienating drudgery of slave labour, while the teachers, scientists, engineers and artists will provide our medicines, scientific research, learning and entertainment.

Dr Mindbender
25th June 2007, 20:28
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 25, 2007 06:34 pm
Then surely you have the solution to provide us with the unlimited free energy currently being hoarded or destroyed. Please elucidate, some of us would be fascinated to hear the details.
"Scarcity" does not mean "rarity." It only means that there is only so much of something, and members of a society have to decide somehow how to best utilize that thing.
There is no need for flippancy, I was referring specifically to the consumable goods hoarded and subsequently detroyed by the wealthy nations, and thier co-operating corporate entities (the proof of which i linked in a previous debate of the same subject)
However if you want to extend the argument to the energy industry then I'm happy to oblige. Need I remind you of the dwindling supply of oil, fossil fuels etc exacerbated by the United states with it's '3 monkeys' attitude towards Kyoto and other green initiatives?

ZX3
25th June 2007, 21:04
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 25, 2007 02:22 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 25, 2007 02:22 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
1. "Cost" is most certainly applicable in the socialist scenario. Even your "academics" cannot do all things at once, and when they do one thing, it is at the "cost" of them not doing something else.
Look at it this way, in one section of "cost.": There is 24 hours in a day. Let's say a worker spends 8 hours manufacturing 10 TV's. That means during those 8 hours he cannot be manufacturing radios. So at the end of those 8 hours he has produced 10 TV's at a cost of producing no radios. Now the idea is that there are ten people who value the TV's over the radio's, so the "cost" of having produced 10 TV's over 0 radios is worth it, those people who want the TV have benefitted.
[/b]
Another though provoking analogy I was told, take for example a carpenter. He may spend his working day assembling 8 shelves for profit, but when he returns home is is more than willing to repeat the task for himself without any hope of profit? Why? Because there is no distinction between what he would would class as labour and lesuirable pursuits. This is precisely the point I am driving at, to create a situation where individuals talents and interests are no longer divorced from the place of work. Once this is the case, people will have no reason to work grudgingly nor will there be any necessary extenuating motives to do so.

[email protected]

2. When is production of items not beneficial to the community? Easy. I would think a company which manufactured typewriters is not benefitting the community. Also, increasingly so but not quite there yet, 35 mm film manufacturers.
This despite the fact that the workers in a typewriter or 35 mm film factory may like what they do.
In all honesty, can you even think of anyone who still manufactures them? I dont know where they are still commercially available, let alone anyone who still builds them. I think this is a silly example. Of course in a socialist society where learning and research is the onus, not only will it utilise pre-socialist technologies it will continually strive to improve them.

ZX3

Remember: The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers of those goods, not the workers who produce them. Socialists get tripped up I think by so often insisting the opposite, or at least insisting the two interetsts are one and the same.
Absolutely, and there is no reason why both groups cannot be accomodated. Automated factories working more efficiently will liberate human beings from the alienating drudgery of slave labour, while the teachers, scientists, engineers and artists will provide our medicines, scientific research, learning and entertainment. [/b]
1. In the carpenter example, you have only dealt with part of the problem. Sure, the carpenter may enjoy the labor of building the shelves at home (he may enjoy doing so in some other person's home, even in a capitalist community). But there are only "X" number of carpenters in the community. In the capitalist community, his labor is allocated based upon how much money the other person wishes to spend. In the socialist community, it is apparently allocated... how? The carpenter's love of his craft? And he needs to rely upon the love of the sawmill workers of their jobs to give him wood (as opposed to their giving wood to the furniture makers), and the tool people giving him hammers and nails based upon their love of carpenters (as opposed to their love of the fence makers). And all those other workers have just as much claim on the raw material, and love of their work, as does the carpenter. Why is one chosen over the other? the allocation issue has not been solved.

2. Nobody manufactres typewriters because nobody wants them. Their is no value. But what you are doing, like all socialists seem to do, is to conceive of socialism not only as a static situation, but when wherer it just sort of happnes. In a capitaist community, typewriters are no longer produced because there is no value in them because nobody wants them. In a socialist community, the value of the typewriters exists because somebody makes them.
What is happening is this: You are taking the results of capitalist economic and technical advances, saying it would have happened anyway in a socialist community. Then you change the capitalist criteria of determining value, which caused the change to begin with, and confidently predict things will continue to progress at an even greater rate under socialism. than under capitalism. No. If a typewriter has value because it is produced, then why would a socialist community seek to end such production of a valuable item?

3. In a capitalist community, both worker and consumer are accomodated. the worker gets paid for his labor, the consumer gets the product he or she wants. In a socialist community, the worker determines what he or she will produce, and by that fact alone, determines the value of it. The consumer may, or may not be, satisfied with the result of the decision of the worker. But their is no "penalty" or negative consequence for the worker being wrong, since he has made something of value, even if unwanted by the consumer.

4. Automated factories do not change this paradigm. Because those machines will still need to produce something, at the cost of not producing something else at the same time, and the people who are guiding such machines will do so at the cost of not guiding other machines producing something else, at the same time. So the problem for the socialist remains and has yet been solved.

Dr Mindbender
25th June 2007, 21:34
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. In the carpenter example, you have only dealt with part of the problem. Sure, the carpenter may enjoy the labor of building the shelves at home (he may enjoy doing so in some other person's home, even in a capitalist community). But there are only "X" number of carpenters in the community. In the capitalist community, his labor is allocated based upon how much money the other person wishes to spend. [/b]
Even after the revolution, people will still need chairs to sit on and shelves to put their books on. The demand or allocation will still be dependent on that basis. I fail to understand why thats so wildly differing. If the carpenter wants his stake of society's production, then he does his job otherwise he goes hungry (so that addresses the issue of freeloading). But since we've already established he likes his job so we know thats not going to be an issue.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
In the socialist community, it is apparently allocated... how? The carpenter's love of his craft? And he needs to rely upon the love of the sawmill workers of their jobs to give him wood (as opposed to their giving wood to the furniture makers), and the tool people giving him hammers and nails based upon their love of carpenters (as opposed to their love of the fence makers).[/b] same basis as above. Collective interest.

Originally posted by ZX3

And all those other workers have just as much claim on the raw material, and love of their work, as does the carpenter. Why is one chosen over the other? the allocation issue has not been solved.
Although it would be an untrue statement, I could claim I have a love of my job which extends to my produce yet under capitalism I am alienated and seperated from it. Why is that any more justifiable than what I am proposing?

Originally posted by ZX3

2. Nobody manufactres typewriters because nobody wants them. Their is no value.Yes. Why would socialists want to build something whenever we already have something that does the job better. This is stupidity

Originally posted by ZX3
But what you are doing, like all socialists seem to do, is to conceive of socialism not only as a static situation, but when wherer it just sort of happnes.
Socialism would not be static it would be constantly changing with a vision of scientific and cultural progress.

Originally posted by ZX3

In a capitaist community, typewriters are no longer produced because there is no value in them because nobody wants them. In a socialist community, the value of the typewriters exists because somebody makes them.
What is happening is this: You are taking the results of capitalist economic and technical advances, saying it would have happened anyway in a socialist community. Then you change the capitalist criteria of determining value, which caused the change to begin with, and confidently predict things will continue to progress at an even greater rate under socialism. than under capitalism. No. If a typewriter has value because it is produced, then why would a socialist community seek to end such production of a valuable item?
Again, the sin of spin rears its ugly head. Other than owning the means of production, and atributing the (arbitrary cash) what practical contribution has the capitalist class made? They havent personally devoted the manhours, the attention to detail or even the brains when it comes to technological development needed for scientific progress in any field. All of these have come from the proletarian sector, all of whom would live more comfortably post capitalism.

[email protected]

3. In a capitalist community, both worker and consumer are accomodated. the worker gets paid for his labor, the consumer gets the product he or she wants.

Utter BS in the extreme. This isnt the win win situation you are disregarding it as. The employer, competing with other employers seeks to make an aesthetically pleasing (yet not necessarilly practically as effective product as possible) for as little cost as possible in order to sell it for as much as possible to the customer (often using sweatshop labour in many cases). Meanwhile, the worker producing this item is given a fixed wage (regardless of the fact that he is probably making the capitalist many times what the capitalist pays him) So in this sense he is alienated from his own production worth which is taken from him by his boss. This is what us revlefters refer to as wage slavery. Socialism proproses reversing this by reuniting the worker his/her production value.

ZX3

In a socialist community, the worker determines what he or she will produce, and by that fact alone, determines the value of it. The consumer may, or may not be, satisfied with the result of the decision of the worker. But their is no "penalty" or negative consequence for the worker being wrong, since he has made something of value, even if unwanted by the consumer.
Not entirely true. As I said before (i seem to be repeating myself here) trade unions and workers councils would have a greater say in what is produced. This will give ordinary people on the ground a say in what they want, which is more likely to produce relevant items than a few suits in a boardroom dictating to us what the 'next big thing' will be.

ZX3
25th June 2007, 22:10
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 25, 2007 03:34 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 25, 2007 03:34 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. In the carpenter example, you have only dealt with part of the problem. Sure, the carpenter may enjoy the labor of building the shelves at home (he may enjoy doing so in some other person's home, even in a capitalist community). But there are only "X" number of carpenters in the community. In the capitalist community, his labor is allocated based upon how much money the other person wishes to spend. [/b]
Even after the revolution, people will still need chairs to sit on and shelves to put their books on. The demand or allocation will still be dependent on that basis. I fail to understand why thats so wildly differing. If the carpenter wants his stake of society's production, then he does his job otherwise he goes hungry (so that addresses the issue of freeloading). But since we've already established he likes his job so we know thats not going to be an issue.

Originally posted by ZX3

In the socialist community, it is apparently allocated... how? The carpenter's love of his craft? And he needs to rely upon the love of the sawmill workers of their jobs to give him wood (as opposed to their giving wood to the furniture makers), and the tool people giving him hammers and nails based upon their love of carpenters (as opposed to their love of the fence makers). same basis as above. Collective interest.

Originally posted by ZX3

And all those other workers have just as much claim on the raw material, and love of their work, as does the carpenter. Why is one chosen over the other? the allocation issue has not been solved.
Although it would be an untrue statement, I could claim I have a love of my job which extends to my produce yet under capitalism I am alienated and seperated from it. Why is that any more justifiable than what I am proposing?

Originally posted by ZX3

2. Nobody manufactres typewriters because nobody wants them. Their is no value.Yes. Why would socialists want to build something whenever we already have something that does the job better. This is stupidity

Originally posted by ZX3
But what you are doing, like all socialists seem to do, is to conceive of socialism not only as a static situation, but when wherer it just sort of happnes.
Socialism would not be static it would be constantly changing with a vision of scientific and cultural progress.

Originally posted by ZX3

In a capitaist community, typewriters are no longer produced because there is no value in them because nobody wants them. In a socialist community, the value of the typewriters exists because somebody makes them.
What is happening is this: You are taking the results of capitalist economic and technical advances, saying it would have happened anyway in a socialist community. Then you change the capitalist criteria of determining value, which caused the change to begin with, and confidently predict things will continue to progress at an even greater rate under socialism. than under capitalism. No. If a typewriter has value because it is produced, then why would a socialist community seek to end such production of a valuable item?
Again, the sin of spin rears its ugly head. Other than owning the means of production, and atributing the (arbitrary cash) what practical contribution has the capitalist class made? They havent personally devoted the manhours, the attention to detail or even the brains when it comes to technological development needed for scientific progress in any field. All of these have come from the proletarian sector, all of whom would live more comfortably post capitalism.

[email protected]

3. In a capitalist community, both worker and consumer are accomodated. the worker gets paid for his labor, the consumer gets the product he or she wants.

Utter BS in the extreme. This isnt the win win situation you are disregarding it as. The employer, competing with other employers seeks to make an aesthetically pleasing (yet not necessarilly practically as effective product as possible) for as little cost as possible in order to sell it for as much as possible to the customer (often using sweatshop labour in many cases). Meanwhile, the worker producing this item is given a fixed wage (regardless of the fact that he is probably making the capitalist many times what the capitalist pays him) So in this sense he is alienated from his own production worth which is taken from him by his boss. This is what us revlefters refer to as wage slavery. Socialism proproses reversing this by reuniting the worker his/her production value.

ZX3

In a socialist community, the worker determines what he or she will produce, and by that fact alone, determines the value of it. The consumer may, or may not be, satisfied with the result of the decision of the worker. But their is no "penalty" or negative consequence for the worker being wrong, since he has made something of value, even if unwanted by the consumer.
Not entirely true. As I said before (i seem to be repeating myself here) trade unions and workers councils would have a greater say in what is produced. This will give ordinary people on the ground a say in what they want, which is more likely to produce relevant items than a few suits in a boardroom dictating to us what the 'next big thing' will be. [/b]
1. Sure people will need to sit down after the revolution, and thus continue to need chairs. They also will continue to need cabinets, tables and baseball bats.
Earlier in this thread you insisted all work is equal, that all work is valuable and an equal contribution to the community. But the demand for items is not equal, so you need a way to place a differing scale of value on different items produced. Thus, a differing scale on the value of work performed. Otherwise, what will be the result? Simple. the community won't know what to produce, because whatever they produce will be determined to be "of value." These worker commitees are not a solution; they presumably need a source of knowledge in guiding their decision making. Since everything they decide to make is "valuable" its decisions should be pretty simple to make (and as an aside, a "worker council" implies that the worker will be deciding what to produce, which makes no sense. This error probably has to do with the socialist incorrect analysis of capitalism as producer driven (thus the socialist proposes to continue the same) when the reality is that capitalism is consumer driven). That is why there is no reason for the socialist community to cease production of typewriters. However, if they choose to respond to the demands of the consumer, they will have to figure out how to arrange their productive processes, having to determine value of differing items and production processes, based upon what is the best way to deliver to the consumer what he or she wants.
2. You can call progress occurring under capitalism as simply being driven by the proleteriat. Fine. But however you wish to describe it, the reality is that it was done under the capitalist paradigm of seeking out new mmarkets and new ways of turning profits. When you propose to end that way of progress, it is incumbent upon you to say how progress will occur under socialism (it won't make a difference IF the proleteriat run their industries along the lines as the capitalists ran theirs. But this is not what socialists generally have proposed).

Dr Mindbender
26th June 2007, 00:16
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. Sure people will need to sit down after the revolution, and thus continue to need chairs. They also will continue to need cabinets, tables and baseball bats.
Earlier in this thread you insisted all work is equal, that all work is valuable and an equal contribution to the community. But the demand for items is not equal, so you need a way to place a differing scale of value on different items produced.
[/b]
This scale will be self managed through the number of people choosing to go into particular work fields. Human nature dictates this.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Thus, a differing scale on the value of work performed. Otherwise, what will be the result? Simple. the community won't know what to produce, because whatever they produce will be determined to be "of value." These worker commitees are not a solution; they presumably need a source of knowledge in guiding their decision making. Since everything they decide to make is "valuable" its decisions should be pretty simple to make (and as an aside, a "worker council" implies that the worker will be deciding what to produce, which makes no sense. [/b]
Im talking in class context, however, you are applying the opposing context to the word worker. When I say 'worker' or 'proletarian' im referring to any person whose interests are hurt or living standards lowered because of the present day status quo. In a post revolutionary situation, everyone will be members of (or will have the opportunity to join) 'worker's councils' wether or not they fit into the traditional stereotype of the word.

[email protected]

This error probably has to do with the socialist incorrect analysis of capitalism as producer driven (thus the socialist proposes to continue the same) when the reality is that capitalism is consumer driven). That is why there is no reason for the socialist community to cease production of typewriters. However, if they choose to respond to the demands of the consumer, they will have to figure out how to arrange their productive processes, having to determine value of differing items and production processes, based upon what is the best way to deliver to the consumer what he or she wants. That is merely theory games and inconsistent with the real world. Of course it is human nature to want 'better'.

ZX3

2. You can call progress occurring under capitalism as simply being driven by the proleteriat. Fine. But however you wish to describe it, the reality is that it was done under the capitalist paradigm of seeking out new mmarkets and new ways of turning profits. When you propose to end that way of progress, it is incumbent upon you to say how progress will occur under socialism (it won't make a difference IF the proleteriat run their industries along the lines as the capitalists ran theirs. But this is not what socialists generally have proposed).
I want science to take the lead in trailblazing the way forward for the human race, not the economists. Throughout history and to this day, pre and modern capitalists alongside the church among other reactionary organisations have been the main cheerleaders for regressive and backward thought. Therefore it is definitley misleading to say that we owe our position today thanks to capitalism, I see it more as how much further would be as a species if we had listened to progressive artists, scientists and philosophers rather than the bankers, businessmen and the stubborn ignorance of the industrialist profiteers?

ZX3
27th June 2007, 11:31
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 25, 2007 06:16 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 25, 2007 06:16 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. Sure people will need to sit down after the revolution, and thus continue to need chairs. They also will continue to need cabinets, tables and baseball bats.
Earlier in this thread you insisted all work is equal, that all work is valuable and an equal contribution to the community. But the demand for items is not equal, so you need a way to place a differing scale of value on different items produced.
[/b]
This scale will be self managed through the number of people choosing to go into particular work fields. Human nature dictates this.

Originally posted by ZX3

Thus, a differing scale on the value of work performed. Otherwise, what will be the result? Simple. the community won't know what to produce, because whatever they produce will be determined to be "of value." These worker commitees are not a solution; they presumably need a source of knowledge in guiding their decision making. Since everything they decide to make is "valuable" its decisions should be pretty simple to make (and as an aside, a "worker council" implies that the worker will be deciding what to produce, which makes no sense.
Im talking in class context, however, you are applying the opposing context to the word worker. When I say 'worker' or 'proletarian' im referring to any person whose interests are hurt or living standards lowered because of the present day status quo. In a post revolutionary situation, everyone will be members of (or will have the opportunity to join) 'worker's councils' wether or not they fit into the traditional stereotype of the word.

[email protected]

This error probably has to do with the socialist incorrect analysis of capitalism as producer driven (thus the socialist proposes to continue the same) when the reality is that capitalism is consumer driven). That is why there is no reason for the socialist community to cease production of typewriters. However, if they choose to respond to the demands of the consumer, they will have to figure out how to arrange their productive processes, having to determine value of differing items and production processes, based upon what is the best way to deliver to the consumer what he or she wants. That is merely theory games and inconsistent with the real world. Of course it is human nature to want 'better'.

ZX3

2. You can call progress occurring under capitalism as simply being driven by the proleteriat. Fine. But however you wish to describe it, the reality is that it was done under the capitalist paradigm of seeking out new mmarkets and new ways of turning profits. When you propose to end that way of progress, it is incumbent upon you to say how progress will occur under socialism (it won't make a difference IF the proleteriat run their industries along the lines as the capitalists ran theirs. But this is not what socialists generally have proposed).
I want science to take the lead in trailblazing the way forward for the human race, not the economists. Throughout history and to this day, pre and modern capitalists alongside the church among other reactionary organisations have been the main cheerleaders for regressive and backward thought. Therefore it is definitley misleading to say that we owe our position today thanks to capitalism, I see it more as how much further would be as a species if we had listened to progressive artists, scientists and philosophers rather than the bankers, businessmen and the stubborn ignorance of the industrialist profiteers? [/b]
You keep looking at thye issue as producer vs. producer (ie worker v worker), when it isn't. The equillibrium does not exist between the number of people who wish to be carpenters or engineers, and the point at which the community runs out of such people, because not everyone wishes to be a carpenter or engineer. The equilibrium is between the CONSUMER of the product of the labor of the carpenter or engineer, and the carpenter and engineer itself.

I've said this before: the purpose of work is to produce things which OTHER people value. It is NOT to produce things which the worker values. Yet every step along the way, you (and all socialists it seems) insist the latter is the correct way, and the way which will bring wonderment and merriment to the world. But it doesn't matter how many people in the community want to be carpenters. What matters is how many people in the community need the work done by carpenters.

Its not an issue of whether economists or philosphers or "progressive artists" rule the world. Its an issue of how the community is going to be organised to get its material needs in the most efficient manner possible. Socialists seem to think that it be done best when the producers (ie the workers) dictate to the consumers what they (should) want, and how valuable things should be. Capitalists (and those who support capitalism) think the consumer should be dictating what the capitalist produce, with value assigned based upon that demand.

Dr Mindbender
27th June 2007, 20:18
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)You keep looking at thye issue as producer vs. producer (ie worker v worker), when it isn't. The equillibrium does not exist between the number of people who wish to be carpenters or engineers, and the point at which the community runs out of such people, [/b] The elephant in the corner of the room that you are ignoring is that this is more likely to occur under capitalism, because capitalism is the system putting the obstacles in the way of people acheiving certain careers (tuition fees, market dynamics and so forth) Of course there will always be people wanted to take part in a diverse range of areas, because as I'm sure you'll agree, human nature, and humans being unique and diverse creatures dictates this.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
I've said this before: the purpose of work is to produce things which OTHER people value. It is NOT to produce things which the worker values. [/b] Under socialism there is no distinction between 'other people' and workers. In a classless society, without beourgiouse disparity or unemployment everyone is a worker so by definition it is the workers who decide what to produce.

[email protected]

Yet every step along the way, you (and all socialists it seems) insist the latter is the correct way, and the way which will bring wonderment and merriment to the world. But it doesn't matter how many people in the community want to be carpenters. What matters is how many people in the community need the work done by carpenters.
With fewer obstacles in the way of people acheiving their desired career, I shouldnt have to look too far afield to find someone offering the sort of service i need. As for manual mass production, this will be the role soley of automation.

ZX3

Its not an issue of whether economists or philosphers or "progressive artists" rule the world. Its an issue of how the community is going to be organised to get its material needs in the most efficient manner possible. Socialists seem to think that it be done best when the producers (ie the workers) dictate to the consumers what they (should) want, and how valuable things should be. Capitalists (and those who support capitalism) think the consumer should be dictating what the capitalist produce, with value assigned based upon that demand.
'Material needs' as many comrades have correctly pointed out seemingly are dictated by the capitalist class behind closed doors. Being the only group who provide no discernable labour, scientific savvy, practical talent, artistic charisma (or human soul for that matter) the private businessmen, bankers, bosses , economists and their apologist politicians are the only ones who will be useless under a socialist status quo, which is why they react against it with such gusto despite it being against the interests of those they claim to serve.

red team
28th June 2007, 11:17
The sales of shock pants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlADYlX_M8) are soaring thanks to corporate dress codes that make them mandatory (for Capitalists that is... buhahaha!!!). You might say Capitalists are dressed for shockcess. :lol:

You know, I really do hope they make shock pants mandatory dress code for cappies after the revolution.

cappie: "you must maintain equilibrium between suppliers and consumers by..." Zaaaap!

cappie: "higher profits will increase the incentive for investment and therefore increase sales by..." Zaaaap!

cappie: "efficiency in production can be optimized by lower wages while increasing output per worker..." Zaaaap! :lol:

Worker: "People are tired, weary, bored and depressed after a hard day's work. Day in, day out, year after year in endless dead-end jobs after endless dead-end jobs with no future and no hope. That's natural. It's completely appropriate to feel that way. How else should you feel? If you felt good after that soul-crunching experience, that would be sick! Chronic cubicle syndrome is just life! (for workers under Capitalism)

Worker: "In the event that any profits is realized by said invention, the independent contractor is defined as the sucker. In the event that anything goes wrong with said invention, the independent contractor is defined as the scapegoat."

Management: "Is there anything else you like to say before we hang you out to dry?"

ZX3
29th June 2007, 11:38
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 27, 2007 02:18 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 27, 2007 02:18 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)You keep looking at thye issue as producer vs. producer (ie worker v worker), when it isn't. The equillibrium does not exist between the number of people who wish to be carpenters or engineers, and the point at which the community runs out of such people, [/b] The elephant in the corner of the room that you are ignoring is that this is more likely to occur under capitalism, because capitalism is the system putting the obstacles in the way of people acheiving certain careers (tuition fees, market dynamics and so forth) Of course there will always be people wanted to take part in a diverse range of areas, because as I'm sure you'll agree, human nature, and humans being unique and diverse creatures dictates this.

Originally posted by ZX3

I've said this before: the purpose of work is to produce things which OTHER people value. It is NOT to produce things which the worker values. Under socialism there is no distinction between 'other people' and workers. In a classless society, without beourgiouse disparity or unemployment everyone is a worker so by definition it is the workers who decide what to produce.

[email protected]

Yet every step along the way, you (and all socialists it seems) insist the latter is the correct way, and the way which will bring wonderment and merriment to the world. But it doesn't matter how many people in the community want to be carpenters. What matters is how many people in the community need the work done by carpenters.
With fewer obstacles in the way of people acheiving their desired career, I shouldnt have to look too far afield to find someone offering the sort of service i need. As for manual mass production, this will be the role soley of automation.

ZX3

Its not an issue of whether economists or philosphers or "progressive artists" rule the world. Its an issue of how the community is going to be organised to get its material needs in the most efficient manner possible. Socialists seem to think that it be done best when the producers (ie the workers) dictate to the consumers what they (should) want, and how valuable things should be. Capitalists (and those who support capitalism) think the consumer should be dictating what the capitalist produce, with value assigned based upon that demand.
'Material needs' as many comrades have correctly pointed out seemingly are dictated by the capitalist class behind closed doors. Being the only group who provide no discernable labour, scientific savvy, practical talent, artistic charisma (or human soul for that matter) the private businessmen, bankers, bosses , economists and their apologist politicians are the only ones who will be useless under a socialist status quo, which is why they react against it with such gusto despite it being against the interests of those they claim to serve. [/b]
Socialists are certainly free to believe what they want to believe. But it doesn't neccessarilly make them right. Workers in a factory consume statistically about 0% of what they produce. Their production is for other people, and in a socialist community, other workers.
So the interests of workers, as workers, are different from their interests as consumers. The insistence otherwise is an error on the socialists' part.

Relying upon other workers to supply yur needs because they have an interest in a particular jobo, sounds like a bad bargain. What the result will be is too many workers in one areas, and not enough in another. And this is because this socilaist community is disregarding the needs of consumers in its calculations. It is HOPING, it is placing FAITH, that sufficient workers will be provide sufficient goods for consumers. But there is no other reason to expect it tio happen, since its concept of value is based upon any sort of production, regardless of actual need or desirability by consumers, and it seeks to make workers, at their work, happy and satisfied, as opposed to making them happy and satisfied as consumers of goods.

The artificial restrictions supposedly imposed by capitalism is not imposed by capitalism, but the waqy which capitalism deals with issues which exist across all economies, across all time, and socilaism will need to deal with as well. Scarcity exists, there is only so much time in a day, people in community, workers in a job, resources available to be used, and that is a reality which will not change under socialism, and claims to the contrary are simply and undeniably wrong It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that engineers who are busily designing robots to build houses, cannot at the same time be studying rocketry. And the resources being used to build and design that house building robot, cannot be used anywhere else. This is true in all aspects of an economy. That is a simple reality of life, a "restriction" of which there is absolutely no way of ignoring it. It has to be dealt with, and solved to the best of one's ability. Capitalism does this; socilaism does not even seem to recognise that the problem absolutely and undeniably, exists.

Dr Mindbender
30th June 2007, 00:19
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)Socialists are certainly free to believe what they want to believe. But it doesn't neccessarilly make them right. Workers in a factory consume statistically about 0% of what they produce.[/b] So for example, Workers in a sausage factory NEVER eat sausages? That sounds like a flawed conclusion. Across the board though, workers need to consume in order to meet their base needs, all of which need to be produced by the working class in a factory. Distinctions between individual workers are irrelevant, for this point im referring to the collective entity. Saying that they never consume production sounds ludicrous. Under capitalism, the reason they are unable to consume as much as they would like is probably because their surplus wages are so far removed from the price set on the goods by the capitalist.

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Their production is for other people, and in a socialist community, other workers.
So the interests of workers, as workers, are different from their interests as consumers. The insistence otherwise is an error on the socialists' part.[/b] All people will labour (with the exception of those who are mentally or physically unable to do so) and all will consume. I stand by my original point. Regardless of work type, everyone will have legitimate claim over their consumption needs.

Originally posted by ZX3

Relying upon other workers to supply yur needs because they have an interest in a particular jobo, sounds like a bad bargain.
Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests. Going back to my original point about education and training, removing the economic and class barriers means there will be a greater multitude of various professionals.

Originally posted by ZX3

What the result will be is too many workers in one areas, and not enough in another. Youre basing that on the conclusion that peoples interest genres are more likely to be accumulative in a given physical location. What evidence is there for this? The individualistic nature of the human species means that they will be widely distributed. 'Faith' or 'miscalculations' doesnt come into it.

Originally posted by ZX3

it seeks to make workers, at their work, happy and satisfied, as opposed to making them happy and satisfied as consumers of goods.
Under socialism, the distinction between 'worker' and 'consumer' is arbitrary. Since the onus is removing the decadent and idle culture of class disparity and welfare dependency, A socialist society would be largely workplace orientated. It would be therefore essential to the survival of the revolution to ensure that the happiness of the worker is given a higher priority than it is now.

Originally posted by ZX3

The artificial restrictions supposedly imposed by capitalism is not imposed by capitalism, but the waqy which capitalism deals with issues which exist across all economies,
If you have read Lenin's work, then you would know this is essentially because capitalism has always been the dominant economy. Never has there been a dominant socialist economy. When a economy is prominant, it is the standards of that particular idealogy that are set internationally.

Originally posted by ZX3

across all time, and socilaism will need to deal with as well. Scarcity exists, there is only so much time in a day, people in community, workers in a job, resources available to be used, As I discussed in a previous post, many of the surplus resources that are unsellable under capitalism are disposed of because it would be damaging to the status quo to give them away freely. This does nothing to help any 'scarcity issue'. Going back to my point of training/education, the reason we have any lack of skilled workers is because of the class and financial barriers put in the way of prospective employess and students from different walks of life.

Originally posted by ZX3

and that is a reality which will not change under socialism, and claims to the contrary are simply and undeniably wrong
Prove it.

Originally posted by ZX3

It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that engineers who are busily designing robots to build houses, cannot at the same time be studying rocketry. And the resources being used to build and design that house building robot, cannot be used anywhere else.
that wouldnt be an issue anyway, because in a ideaology where we have more skilled workers as opposed to fewer, Each individual worker would have the freedom to concentrate on and develop his or her own area of expertise.

[email protected]

This is true in all aspects of an economy. That is a simple reality of life,
Yes, life under capitalism.

ZX3

a "restriction" of which there is absolutely no way of ignoring it. It has to be dealt with, and solved to the best of one's ability. Capitalism does this; socilaism does not even seem to recognise that the problem absolutely and undeniably, exists.
I dont believe youve managed to convince me, or most people reading this thread for that matter. Do you wish to make another attempt?

wtfm8lol
3rd July 2007, 18:46
Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

if you don't see the problem with this type of barter system, you're beyond the point where anyone can save you.

Dr Mindbender
3rd July 2007, 18:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:46 pm

Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

if you don't see the problem with this type of barter system, you're beyond the point where anyone can save you.
Rather than using your usual flippancy and naysaying, why dont you add a constructive counter-argument. Any problems which arise are part of the exisiting status quo and the material conditioning it produces, it is not of any radical social overhaul which the majority of members here would support.

wtfm8lol
3rd July 2007, 19:57
the problem with that barter system isn't caused by the material conditions, it's caused by a major flaw in the system which is that you need to find someone who has something you want and who wants something you have. it's possibly the most inefficient form of trade that has ever been used. i don't even know what you would bring it up, considering that in your utopia there shouldn't be any trading whatsoever.

Dr Mindbender
3rd July 2007, 23:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 pm
the problem with that barter system isn't caused by the material conditions, it's caused by a major flaw in the system which is that you need to find someone who has something you want and who wants something you have. it's possibly the most inefficient form of trade that has ever been used. i don't even know what you would bring it up, considering that in your utopia there shouldn't be any trading whatsoever.
If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread (which clearly you havent) I discussed how post-socialism would resolve issues relating to scarcity, and lack of professional talent. The reason that we dont have it at the moment being that the vast proportion of potential professional hands are squandered by the existing establishments. In regards to trade, it isnt that there wouldnt be any trade per se, simply that it wouldnt be carried out via a form as arbitrary as currency.

ZX3
4th July 2007, 23:41
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 03, 2007 05:03 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 03, 2007 05:03 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 pm
the problem with that barter system isn't caused by the material conditions, it's caused by a major flaw in the system which is that you need to find someone who has something you want and who wants something you have. it's possibly the most inefficient form of trade that has ever been used. i don't even know what you would bring it up, considering that in your utopia there shouldn't be any trading whatsoever.
If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread (which clearly you havent) I discussed how post-socialism would resolve issues relating to scarcity, and lack of professional talent. The reason that we dont have it at the moment being that the vast proportion of potential professional hands are squandered by the existing establishments. In regards to trade, it isnt that there wouldnt be any trade per se, simply that it wouldnt be carried out via a form as arbitrary as currency. [/b]
You have not solved the problem. You have compunded it.
While your plumber is running aound for an electrician with a leaky faucet, it means the baker is not getting the new sinks he needs installed (our plumber is on the Atkins diet and has little use for carbohydrates). So you have a skilled plumber who is contributing zero to the community, a baker who is not getting his needs met (and who knows what impact that has for the mason and telephone linesman), and an electrician whose talents are going unrealised. Not a bad day for a barter economy...

ZX3
4th July 2007, 23:43
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 03, 2007 12:54 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 03, 2007 12:54 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 05:46 pm

Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

if you don't see the problem with this type of barter system, you're beyond the point where anyone can save you.
Rather than using your usual flippancy and naysaying, why dont you add a constructive counter-argument. Any problems which arise are part of the exisiting status quo and the material conditioning it produces, it is not of any radical social overhaul which the majority of members here would support. [/b]
False. That is the fiction which socialists like to say. The problems exist REGARDLESS of the economic system. The question remains in dealing with it...

Dr Mindbender
4th July 2007, 23:55
Originally posted by ZX3+July 04, 2007 10:41 pm--> (ZX3 @ July 04, 2007 10:41 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 05:03 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 pm
the problem with that barter system isn't caused by the material conditions, it's caused by a major flaw in the system which is that you need to find someone who has something you want and who wants something you have. it's possibly the most inefficient form of trade that has ever been used. i don't even know what you would bring it up, considering that in your utopia there shouldn't be any trading whatsoever.
If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread (which clearly you havent) I discussed how post-socialism would resolve issues relating to scarcity, and lack of professional talent. The reason that we dont have it at the moment being that the vast proportion of potential professional hands are squandered by the existing establishments. In regards to trade, it isnt that there wouldnt be any trade per se, simply that it wouldnt be carried out via a form as arbitrary as currency.
You have not solved the problem. You have compunded it.
While your plumber is running aound for an electrician with a leaky faucet, it means the baker is not getting the new sinks he needs installed (our plumber is on the Atkins diet and has little use for carbohydrates). So you have a skilled plumber who is contributing zero to the community, a baker who is not getting his needs met (and who knows what impact that has for the mason and telephone linesman), and an electrician whose talents are going unrealised. Not a bad day for a barter economy... [/b]
More people in training equals more people entering each specific profession ie more plumbers to go around. Problem solved.

Dr Mindbender
4th July 2007, 23:58
Originally posted by ZX3+July 04, 2007 10:43 pm--> (ZX3 @ July 04, 2007 10:43 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 12:54 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 05:46 pm

Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

if you don't see the problem with this type of barter system, you're beyond the point where anyone can save you.
Rather than using your usual flippancy and naysaying, why dont you add a constructive counter-argument. Any problems which arise are part of the exisiting status quo and the material conditioning it produces, it is not of any radical social overhaul which the majority of members here would support.
False. That is the fiction which socialists like to say. The problems exist REGARDLESS of the economic system. The question remains in dealing with it... [/b]
If its 'dealing with it' was an onus, then capitalism has failed dismally. What sort of ideaology allows people to waste away in unstimulating labour, to stew on benefit lines and to freeze to death on city pavements? The labour (and brain) power is THERE the reason it isnt utilised is that to do so would be a threat to the interests of tiered society.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:00
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 29, 2007 06:19 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 29, 2007 06:19 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)Socialists are certainly free to believe what they want to believe. But it doesn't neccessarilly make them right. Workers in a factory consume statistically about 0% of what they produce.[/b] So for example, Workers in a sausage factory NEVER eat sausages? That sounds like a flawed conclusion. Across the board though, workers need to consume in order to meet their base needs, all of which need to be produced by the working class in a factory. Distinctions between individual workers are irrelevant, for this point im referring to the collective entity. Saying that they never consume production sounds ludicrous. Under capitalism, the reason they are unable to consume as much as they would like is probably because their surplus wages are so far removed from the price set on the goods by the capitalist.

Originally posted by ZX3

Their production is for other people, and in a socialist community, other workers.
So the interests of workers, as workers, are different from their interests as consumers. The insistence otherwise is an error on the socialists' part. All people will labour (with the exception of those who are mentally or physically unable to do so) and all will consume. I stand by my original point. Regardless of work type, everyone will have legitimate claim over their consumption needs.

Originally posted by ZX3

Relying upon other workers to supply yur needs because they have an interest in a particular jobo, sounds like a bad bargain.
Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests. Going back to my original point about education and training, removing the economic and class barriers means there will be a greater multitude of various professionals.

Originally posted by ZX3

What the result will be is too many workers in one areas, and not enough in another. Youre basing that on the conclusion that peoples interest genres are more likely to be accumulative in a given physical location. What evidence is there for this? The individualistic nature of the human species means that they will be widely distributed. 'Faith' or 'miscalculations' doesnt come into it.

Originally posted by ZX3

it seeks to make workers, at their work, happy and satisfied, as opposed to making them happy and satisfied as consumers of goods.
Under socialism, the distinction between 'worker' and 'consumer' is arbitrary. Since the onus is removing the decadent and idle culture of class disparity and welfare dependency, A socialist society would be largely workplace orientated. It would be therefore essential to the survival of the revolution to ensure that the happiness of the worker is given a higher priority than it is now.

Originally posted by ZX3

The artificial restrictions supposedly imposed by capitalism is not imposed by capitalism, but the waqy which capitalism deals with issues which exist across all economies,
If you have read Lenin's work, then you would know this is essentially because capitalism has always been the dominant economy. Never has there been a dominant socialist economy. When a economy is prominant, it is the standards of that particular idealogy that are set internationally.

Originally posted by ZX3

across all time, and socilaism will need to deal with as well. Scarcity exists, there is only so much time in a day, people in community, workers in a job, resources available to be used, As I discussed in a previous post, many of the surplus resources that are unsellable under capitalism are disposed of because it would be damaging to the status quo to give them away freely. This does nothing to help any 'scarcity issue'. Going back to my point of training/education, the reason we have any lack of skilled workers is because of the class and financial barriers put in the way of prospective employess and students from different walks of life.

Originally posted by ZX3

and that is a reality which will not change under socialism, and claims to the contrary are simply and undeniably wrong
Prove it.

Originally posted by ZX3

It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that engineers who are busily designing robots to build houses, cannot at the same time be studying rocketry. And the resources being used to build and design that house building robot, cannot be used anywhere else.
that wouldnt be an issue anyway, because in a ideaology where we have more skilled workers as opposed to fewer, Each individual worker would have the freedom to concentrate on and develop his or her own area of expertise.

[email protected]

This is true in all aspects of an economy. That is a simple reality of life,
Yes, life under capitalism.

ZX3

a "restriction" of which there is absolutely no way of ignoring it. It has to be dealt with, and solved to the best of one's ability. Capitalism does this; socilaism does not even seem to recognise that the problem absolutely and undeniably, exists.
I dont believe youve managed to convince me, or most people reading this thread for that matter. Do you wish to make another attempt? [/b]
scarcity is not the result of some conspiracy. It exists even in the socialist community. Why is this concept of scarcity so difficult to grasp? It is quite simple. There are only "X" number of units available an any given time. These units can be time (24 hours per day), natural resources (oil, tin ect ect), people (population limits are not infinite) ect ect. I am sure you can think of some as well.

So what does that mean? It means that choices need to be made. It also means that in order rational and intelligent choices, there needs to be a rational and intelligent source of knowledge which helps the choices being made.

So let's look: Steel- it can be used in cars, trains, buildings, ect. But there can only be a certain amount of steel available ata given time (and since time is a scarce resource). Steel used to buld cars CANNOT be used to build planes. Correct? It is already used. The TIME it takes to fashion steel into cars cannot be used to fgashion steel into planes. Correct? It has already been used. The LABOR that turns that steel into cars cannot be used at the same time to turn it into planes.

So choices are made. The result being that the community produces cars rather than planes. Even if you wish to say they can produce both, they cannot produce the same amount as if they focused on just one.

This is a simple, basic reality which even socialist communities have to deal.

Look at labor- again there is not an infinite supply. So when you say that socialist commubnity will allow for more workers in a given field, it MUST mean there are fewer elsewhere in other fields. There is no way around it (unless you propose to give workers more work than under capitalism, but no socialist makes those claims (but it does become the reality)). Now maybe it is good to have more workers in one area, and fewer in another. But then one needs a source of information, a source of knowledge to determine whether this is an intelligent, rational decsison (but since the socialist community judges all work as being equal in value, how can it possibly make an informed, educated decision? In reality, it can't).

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:01
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 05:55 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 05:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:41 pm

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

[email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 pm
the problem with that barter system isn't caused by the material conditions, it's caused by a major flaw in the system which is that you need to find someone who has something you want and who wants something you have. it's possibly the most inefficient form of trade that has ever been used. i don't even know what you would bring it up, considering that in your utopia there shouldn't be any trading whatsoever.
If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread (which clearly you havent) I discussed how post-socialism would resolve issues relating to scarcity, and lack of professional talent. The reason that we dont have it at the moment being that the vast proportion of potential professional hands are squandered by the existing establishments. In regards to trade, it isnt that there wouldnt be any trade per se, simply that it wouldnt be carried out via a form as arbitrary as currency.
You have not solved the problem. You have compunded it.
While your plumber is running aound for an electrician with a leaky faucet, it means the baker is not getting the new sinks he needs installed (our plumber is on the Atkins diet and has little use for carbohydrates). So you have a skilled plumber who is contributing zero to the community, a baker who is not getting his needs met (and who knows what impact that has for the mason and telephone linesman), and an electrician whose talents are going unrealised. Not a bad day for a barter economy...
More people in training equals more people entering each specific profession ie more plumbers to go around. Problem solved. [/b]
Wrong. It simply means you have fewer workers doing somethine else which also may be needed.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:02
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 05:58 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 05:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:43 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 12:54 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 05:46 pm

Not necessarily. This is another example of how socialism could render currency irrelevant, things could in some circumstances be run on an 'errand for errand' basis. Say for example, I am a plumber but I don't know squat about electrics and my house has a short circuit or something. I could find an electrician who needs his toilet fixed and the issue can be resolved as a matter of mutual interests.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

if you don't see the problem with this type of barter system, you're beyond the point where anyone can save you.
Rather than using your usual flippancy and naysaying, why dont you add a constructive counter-argument. Any problems which arise are part of the exisiting status quo and the material conditioning it produces, it is not of any radical social overhaul which the majority of members here would support.
False. That is the fiction which socialists like to say. The problems exist REGARDLESS of the economic system. The question remains in dealing with it...
If its 'dealing with it' was an onus, then capitalism has failed dismally. What sort of ideaology allows people to waste away in unstimulating labour, to stew on benefit lines and to freeze to death on city pavements? The labour (and brain) power is THERE the reason it isnt utilised is that to do so would be a threat to the interests of tiered society. [/b]
A criticism of capitalism is not a defense of socialism.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:06
It may very well be true that "under socialism" there is no distinction between worker and consumer. But if no distinction is to be made, it is yet another error of socialism.

Prsumably there is only so much sausage a person is willing and able to eat. The reason why the worker in the sausage factory consumes statistically 0% of what he produces is do that limitation. The same limitation would be found ina bicycle factory, the airplane factory, the copper pipe factory ect ect. It will exist ina socialist community as well. It has nothing to do with wages.

Dr Mindbender
5th July 2007, 00:10
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)scarcity is not the result of some conspiracy. It exists even in the socialist community. Why is this concept of scarcity so difficult to grasp? It is quite simple. There are only "X" number of units available an any given time. These units can be time (24 hours per day), natural resources (oil, tin ect ect), people (population limits are not infinite) ect ect. I am sure you can think of some as well.
[/b]
It isnt so much my inabilty to grasp the concept of scarcity, Ive come to the conclusion that its more your ignorance to acknowledge that capitalism has a knack of utilising the most grotesquely inefficient methods available. Example, relying on fatigueable human labour as opposed to automation.

ZX3

Look at labor- again there is not an infinite supply. So when you say that socialist commubnity will allow for more workers in a given field, it MUST mean there are fewer elsewhere in other fields. There is no way around it (unless you propose to give workers more work than under capitalism, but no socialist makes those claims (but it does become the reality)). Now maybe it is good to have more workers in one area, and fewer in another. But then one needs a source of information, a source of knowledge to determine whether this is an intelligent, rational decsison (but since the socialist community judges all work as being equal in value, how can it possibly make an informed, educated decision? In reality, it can't).
No there isnt an infinite labour supply but there isnt an infinite demand either.
Also no, there wouldnt be any need to pull existing workers out of their role and into irrelevant ones. It would be a case of utilising those people who arent already working under capitalism and affording those who want to better themselves the opportunity to do so. I have come to the conclusion that you're either not reading my posts or you are completely ignorant to how bad the situation regarding unemployment in the western world is.
To be honest ive read this post and it seems to be regurgitation of the same old pseudo-economics.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:17
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 04, 2007 06:10 pm
It isnt so much my inabilty to grasp the concept of scarcity, Ive come to the conclusion that its more your ignorance to acknowledge that capitalism has a knack of utilising the most grotesquely inefficient methods available. Example, relying on fatigueable human labour as opposed to automation.
No there isnt an infinite labour supply but there isnt an infinite demand either.

Also no, there wouldnt be any need to pull existing workers out of their role and into irrelevant ones. It would be a case of utilising those people who arent already working under capitalism and affording those who want to better themselves the opportunity to do so. I have come to the conclusion that you're either not reading my posts or you are completely ignorant to how bad the situation regarding unemployment in the western world is.
To be honest ive read this post and it seems to be regurgitation of the same old pseudo-economics.
Capitalism is against automation?? Holy smoke!!! In the USA there are fewer workers in manufacturing than fifty years ago. Yet they produce more than fifty years ago. The same with farming, and just about every other industry.

The issue always remains on questions of scarcity and value. Sure, the community can devote time, effort, labor, resources to build a robot which will clean bathrooms. But in doing so, it CANNOT be using that time, effort, labor, resources to build machines to utilise energy more efficiently. Its called making choices. You do not wish to do that. Unfortunately, the problem of making choices will exist even in a socialist community.

Dr Mindbender
5th July 2007, 00:25
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Capitalism is against automation?? Holy smoke!!! In the USA there are fewer workers in manufacturing than fifty years ago. Yet they produce more than fifty years ago. The same with farming, and just about every other industry. [/b]
If capitalism is so for automation, then perhaps youd like to explain why all production per se isnt carried out via this method? It isnt the only example where capitalism has stood in the way of scientific progress. We have dwindling oil supplies yet the ESSO hacks have dug in their heels in regarding a renewable alternative to petrol. Aids antiviral drugs are pharmaceutically available yet we allow millions to die for the cause of profit.

ZX3

The issue always remains on questions of scarcity and value. Sure, the community can devote time, effort, labor, resources to build a robot which will clean bathrooms. But in doing so, it CANNOT be using that time, effort, labor, resources to build machines to utilise energy more efficiently. Its called making choices. You do not wish to do that. Unfortunately, the problem of making choices will exist even in a socialist community.
Again youre assuming that post revolution that we'll have the same resources pre which wont be the case. More hands on deck mean that more tasks can be carried out simultaneously.

CornetJoyce
5th July 2007, 00:40
If the "problem" is currency, one must remember that the distinction between currency as a medium of exchange and currency as a medium of acquiring control of the means of production goes back at least to Aristotle, who regarded the latter as a deformation of currency.
Money as medium of exchange is a practical, nonideological matter. The colony of Maryland, bereft of specie as the colonies frequently were, printed up money and summoned all adult freemen to pick up a batch and spend it. A socialist society could surely be as practical as a proprietary colony.
Currency could be limited to exchange with the obvious means of an expiration date. Nobody seems to hoard milk. For good measure, it could be made to disintegrate after a certain time: capitalism has perfected that technique for us.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:45
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 06:25 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 06:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]

Capitalism is against automation?? Holy smoke!!! In the USA there are fewer workers in manufacturing than fifty years ago. Yet they produce more than fifty years ago. The same with farming, and just about every other industry.
If capitalism is so for automation, then perhaps youd like to explain why all production per se isnt carried out via this method? It isnt the only example where capitalism has stood in the way of scientific progress. We have dwindling oil supplies yet the ESSO hacks have dug in their heels in regarding a renewable alternative to petrol. Aids antiviral drugs are pharmaceutically available yet we allow millions to die for the cause of profit.

ZX3

The issue always remains on questions of scarcity and value. Sure, the community can devote time, effort, labor, resources to build a robot which will clean bathrooms. But in doing so, it CANNOT be using that time, effort, labor, resources to build machines to utilise energy more efficiently. Its called making choices. You do not wish to do that. Unfortunately, the problem of making choices will exist even in a socialist community.
Again youre assuming that post revolution that we'll have the same resources pre which wont be the case. More hands on deck mean that more tasks can be carried out simultaneously. [/b]
Known oil supplies are increasing not decreasing.

In any event, it has nothing to do with whether there are "more" resources after a revolution. Its how they are used which matters. And since the post revolutionary community will judge all resources and all work as being equal in value, it can be assured that it will squander those resources.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 00:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:40 pm
If the "problem" is currency, one must remember that the distinction between currency as a medium of exchange and currency as a medium of acquiring control of the means of production goes back at least to Aristotle, who regarded the latter as a deformation of currency.
Money as medium of exchange is a practical, nonideological matter. The colony of Maryland, bereft of specie as the colonies frequently were, printed up money and summoned all adult freemen to pick up a batch and spend it. A socialist society could surely be as practical as a proprietary colony.
Currency could be limited to exchange with the obvious means of an expiration date. Nobody seems to hoard milk. For good measure, it could be made to disintegrate after a certain time: capitalism has perfected that technique for us.
Money is a measurement of value. The solution (another socialist solution of looking to the past as opposed to the future??) can only work if there is value behind it. The problem remains.

CornetJoyce
5th July 2007, 01:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:49 pm

Money is a measurement of value. The solution (another socialist solution of looking to the past as opposed to the future??) can only work if there is value behind it. The problem remains.
Money is a measurement of money. It's value varies, as with other commodities, according to the confidence the client has in the proferrer, the quanity of the stuff proferred, and competing goods. In the case of legal tender, the latter variable is not present. Rightists have been shrieking against "fiat money" for generations but it's readily accepted, not least by themselves. The problem was never there.

Dr Mindbender
5th July 2007, 01:08
Originally posted by ZX3

Known oil supplies are increasing not decreasing.

In any event, it has nothing to do with whether there are "more" resources after a revolution. Its how they are used which matters. And since the post revolutionary community will judge all resources and all work as being equal in value, it can be assured that it will squander those resources.

Our sphere of knowledge of its prescence may be increasing, but the point is we're burning the damn stuff quicker than we can find it. Also because its synthesised over millions of years, at some stage there will be literally none left. It will eventually get the stage where fuel has to be rationed out or simply wont be available because there isnt enough to distribute. How much chaos would that cause?
Socialism would prevent this chaos by removing the motivation of profit and actually applying our scientific knowledge into developing renewable forms of car fuel.

Dr Mindbender
5th July 2007, 01:10
Originally posted by CornetJoyce+July 05, 2007 12:03 am--> (CornetJoyce @ July 05, 2007 12:03 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 11:49 pm

Money is a measurement of value. The solution (another socialist solution of looking to the past as opposed to the future??) can only work if there is value behind it. The problem remains.
Money is a measurement of money. It's value varies, as with other commodities, according to the confidence the client has in the proferrer, the quanity of the stuff proferred, and competing goods. In the case of legal tender, the latter variable is not present. Rightists have been shrieking against "fiat money" for generations but it's readily accepted, not least by themselves. The problem was never there. [/b]
Money is means used by the capitalist class to value labour so they can partition wages from profit. It is completely arbitrary and is not needed in a society where goods can be exchanged for labour, or where labour can be exchanged for labour.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 01:24
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 07:08 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 07:08 pm)
ZX3

Known oil supplies are increasing not decreasing.

In any event, it has nothing to do with whether there are "more" resources after a revolution. Its how they are used which matters. And since the post revolutionary community will judge all resources and all work as being equal in value, it can be assured that it will squander those resources.

Our sphere of knowledge of its prescence may be increasing, but the point is we're burning the damn stuff quicker than we can find it. Also because its synthesised over millions of years, at some stage there will be literally none left. It will eventually get the stage where fuel has to be rationed out or simply wont be available because there isnt enough to distribute. How much chaos would that cause?
Socialism would prevent this chaos by removing the motivation of profit and actually applying our scientific knowledge into developing renewable forms of car fuel. [/b]
Known reserves are increasing. Whether it will be usedor not will be determined by whether there is profit in it.

I am quite certain a socilast community would seek out other forms of energy. Indeed. capitalists are doing the same- in pursuit of profit.

But if the socialist community uses more resources in its production of alternate forms of energy, than in the production of oil, then this is a cost which will be reflected elsewhere in the community. Perhaps the cost is worth the benefit. But the socialist community will never be able to tell.

BTW, is the work of oil workers equal to the work of say, solar workers, in the socialist community? Your note here would indicate "no" but all other posts thus far would suggest "yes."

Dr Mindbender
5th July 2007, 01:33
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Known reserves are increasing. Whether it will be usedor not will be determined by whether there is profit in it.

.[/b]
Im not referring to known supplies. I was reffering to all supplies. They ARE limited.

Originally posted by [email protected]


But if the socialist community uses more resources in its production of alternate forms of energy, than in the production of oil, then this is a cost which will be reflected elsewhere in the community. Perhaps the cost is worth the benefit. But the socialist community will never be able to tell.
It stands to reason that the advancement of science will herald more and efficient ways of manufacturing and mantaining the afforementioned renewable resources.

ZX3


BTW, is the work of oil workers equal to the work of say, solar workers, in the socialist community? Your note here would indicate "no" but all other posts thus far would suggest "yes
Bearing in mind the role of oil workers has a 'shelf life' in that there is only so much left, the onus would be on finding them alternative roles anyway. Who knows, possibly as wind, solar or hydro workers? Personally im in favour of persuing nuclear fusion.

ZX3
5th July 2007, 02:02
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 04, 2007 07:33 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 04, 2007 07:33 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
Known reserves are increasing. Whether it will be usedor not will be determined by whether there is profit in it.

.[/b]
Im not referring to known supplies. I was reffering to all supplies. They ARE limited.

[email protected]


But if the socialist community uses more resources in its production of alternate forms of energy, than in the production of oil, then this is a cost which will be reflected elsewhere in the community. Perhaps the cost is worth the benefit. But the socialist community will never be able to tell.
It stands to reason that the advancement of science will herald more and efficient ways of manufacturing and mantaining the afforementioned renewable resources.

ZX3


BTW, is the work of oil workers equal to the work of say, solar workers, in the socialist community? Your note here would indicate "no" but all other posts thus far would suggest "yes
Bearing in mind the role of oil workers has a 'shelf life' in that there is only so much left, the onus would be on finding them alternative roles anyway. Who knows, possibly as wind, solar or hydro workers? Personally im in favour of persuing nuclear fusion. [/b]
There is 400 years of proven reserves. It is not an issue which the present oil worker need concern himself with.

But you still have not answered the question: Does your socialist community value the labor more of a nuclear fusionist over that of an oil worker? If so, why can't similiar differentiations of value be applied in other aspects of the community? If not, then why bother worrying about shifting to nuclear fusion, since its labor to the community is of no greater value than the oil worker?

CornetJoyce
5th July 2007, 02:06
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 05, 2007 12:10 am


Money is means used by the capitalist class to value labour so they can partition wages from profit. It is completely arbitrary and is not needed in a society where goods can be exchanged for labour, or where labour can be exchanged for labour.
Currency far predates capitalism and societies that do without it also do without plumbing. Barter suffices for a very low level of production.

Qwerty Dvorak
5th July 2007, 10:41
But you still have not answered the question: Does your socialist community value the labor more of a nuclear fusionist over that of an oil worker? If so, why can't similiar differentiations of value be applied in other aspects of the community? If not, then why bother worrying about shifting to nuclear fusion, since its labor to the community is of no greater value than the oil worker?
The answer to your question is no. However, Nuclear fusion would still be a favourable alternative to oil in that it is more efficient in terms of resources, and poses less of a threat to the environment.

Dr Mindbender
5th July 2007, 22:02
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
There is 400 years of proven reserves. It is not an issue which the present oil worker need concern himself with.[/b]
Links please?
Is that assuming the rate of consumption lowers, raises or remains static? The USA certainly is demonstrating no willingness to slow down, while the Chinese and Indian financial behemoths are ever more increasing their consumption in order to acheive development. If that trend continues, there will be much less than a 400 year supply.

Originally posted by [email protected]

But you still have not answered the question: Does your socialist community value the labor more of a nuclear fusionist over that of an oil worker?
The short answer is no. In any case, the role of an oil worker is just as noble, demanding and meritable as any other working in an equivalent industry. Research into nuclear fusion would not be possible without the consumable resources produced by existing technologies, so there is no moral justification for 'greater value'. The only effect would be greater onus into training and bringing workers up to speed on new techologies.
There is no political incentive to 'value' any worker over another, because it is precisely that snobbery that would destroy the revolution. Motivation to work will be achieved by removing the alienating aspects of labour that are preserved under capitalism.

ZX3

If so, why can't similiar differentiations of value be applied in other aspects of the community? If not, then why bother worrying about shifting to nuclear fusion, since its labor to the community is of no greater value than the oil worker?
Because nuclear fusion doesnt present the environmental catastrophe waiting to happen that other technologies do.

wtfm8lol
6th July 2007, 17:28
Because nuclear fusion doesnt present the environmental catastrophe waiting to happen that other technologies do.

:lol: that's assuming it's contained well :P

Dr Mindbender
6th July 2007, 23:34
Originally posted by wtfm8lol

:lol: that's assuming it's contained well :P

No fusion doesnt create any harmful waste at all. The reason being it is fusing subatomic particles together rather than seperating them. The reason fission is polluting, is because it involves shattering atoms which produces alpha and beta radiation particles (as well as gamma waves)

wtfm8lol
7th July 2007, 00:03
<_< i was referring to the fusion itself being contained, as it not blowing the shit out of the city it&#39;s powering. i know how fusion and fission work; i study physics.

Dr Mindbender
7th July 2007, 00:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:03 pm
<_< i was referring to the fusion itself being contained, as it not blowing the shit out of the city it&#39;s powering. i know how fusion and fission work; i study physics.
..well thats precisely the scientific breakthroughs we need that could be speeded up in a society where scientists arent shackled with the ball and chain of economics and market competition.

ZX3
7th July 2007, 11:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:41 am


But you still have not answered the question: Does your socialist community value the labor more of a nuclear fusionist over that of an oil worker? If so, why can&#39;t similiar differentiations of value be applied in other aspects of the community? If not, then why bother worrying about shifting to nuclear fusion, since its labor to the community is of no greater value than the oil worker?
The answer to your question is no. However, Nuclear fusion would still be a favourable alternative to oil in that it is more efficient in terms of resources, and poses less of a threat to the environment.
Ok. So nuclear fusion uses less resources (benefits the community) and is not as polluting (benefits the community) as oil based energy. It would seem the community is better off using nuclear fusion based energy than oil (or I guess more accurately, in the USA anyhow, coal based energy)

But you are not going to say the work done by the nuclear fusionist workers have a greater value to the community than the work done by the oil or coal workers.

The result of this is obvious: your community is telling a lie to itself. Moreover, since this principle of refusing to distinguish between the value of work completed cannot just be limited to energy, it means your community is not able to determine the value of work and its benefits to the community on less obvious, more mundane things.

ZX3
7th July 2007, 11:55
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 05, 2007 04:02 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 05, 2007 04:02 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)
There is 400 years of proven reserves. It is not an issue which the present oil worker need concern himself with.[/b]
Links please?
Is that assuming the rate of consumption lowers, raises or remains static? The USA certainly is demonstrating no willingness to slow down, while the Chinese and Indian financial behemoths are ever more increasing their consumption in order to acheive development. If that trend continues, there will be much less than a 400 year supply.

[email protected]

But you still have not answered the question: Does your socialist community value the labor more of a nuclear fusionist over that of an oil worker?
The short answer is no. In any case, the role of an oil worker is just as noble, demanding and meritable as any other working in an equivalent industry. Research into nuclear fusion would not be possible without the consumable resources produced by existing technologies, so there is no moral justification for &#39;greater value&#39;. The only effect would be greater onus into training and bringing workers up to speed on new techologies.
There is no political incentive to &#39;value&#39; any worker over another, because it is precisely that snobbery that would destroy the revolution. Motivation to work will be achieved by removing the alienating aspects of labour that are preserved under capitalism.

ZX3

If so, why can&#39;t similiar differentiations of value be applied in other aspects of the community? If not, then why bother worrying about shifting to nuclear fusion, since its labor to the community is of no greater value than the oil worker?
Because nuclear fusion doesnt present the environmental catastrophe waiting to happen that other technologies do. [/b]
1. TIME or ECONOMIST, I am not sure which. The 400 year statistic assumes current rates of consumption.

2. I have no quarrel with the work of oil workers. All I am suggesting is that if your community is not willing, or not able, to determine the value of the work to the community, it can&#39;t make valid determinations as to whether work being done is needed or neccessary. You are more than willing to do so on a fiat basis (you can&#39;t with a straight face tell the oil workers their labor conretibutes to the destruction of humanity, the nuclear fusion folks will save it, but your work is just as valuable to humanity as the nuclear fusionist folks. You will be laughed at out of council) for the obvious suspects, but most of economic activity cannot be rationally handled that way.

Dr Mindbender
8th July 2007, 00:29
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. TIME or ECONOMIST, I am not sure which. The 400 year statistic assumes current rates of consumption. [/b]
Bearing in mind then that our rate of consumption is increasing, not static it would mean the 400 year figure is incorrect.


Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)2. I have no quarrel with the work of oil workers. All I am suggesting is that if your community is not willing, or not able, to determine the value of the work to the community, [/b]
Doing so provides no constructive purpose in class-free society.

[email protected]

it can&#39;t make valid determinations as to whether work being done is needed or neccessary.

The definition of &#39;necessary&#39; will change with the revolution. Under capitalism, &#39;necessary=makes money&#39;, post socialism it will put the onus on the happiness and quality of life of those concerned.

ZX3

You are more than willing to do so on a fiat basis (you can&#39;t with a straight face tell the oil workers their labor conretibutes to the destruction of humanity, the nuclear fusion folks will save it, but your work is just as valuable to humanity as the nuclear fusionist folks. You will be laughed at out of council) for the obvious suspects, but most of economic activity cannot be rationally handled that way.
Its not so much telling the workers that their jobs are less valuable, its more a case of installing new technologies for the collective benefit of everyone. If a method of prodution comes along that is cleaner, more reliable and efficient then what is the purpose of sticking with older technologies?

ZX3
8th July 2007, 16:16
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 07, 2007 06:29 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 07, 2007 06:29 pm)
Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)1. TIME or ECONOMIST, I am not sure which. The 400 year statistic assumes current rates of consumption. [/b]
Bearing in mind then that our rate of consumption is increasing, not static it would mean the 400 year figure is incorrect.


Originally posted by ZX3
2. I have no quarrel with the work of oil workers. All I am suggesting is that if your community is not willing, or not able, to determine the value of the work to the community,
Doing so provides no constructive purpose in class-free society.

[email protected]

it can&#39;t make valid determinations as to whether work being done is needed or neccessary.

The definition of &#39;necessary&#39; will change with the revolution. Under capitalism, &#39;necessary=makes money&#39;, post socialism it will put the onus on the happiness and quality of life of those concerned.

ZX3

You are more than willing to do so on a fiat basis (you can&#39;t with a straight face tell the oil workers their labor conretibutes to the destruction of humanity, the nuclear fusion folks will save it, but your work is just as valuable to humanity as the nuclear fusionist folks. You will be laughed at out of council) for the obvious suspects, but most of economic activity cannot be rationally handled that way.
Its not so much telling the workers that their jobs are less valuable, its more a case of installing new technologies for the collective benefit of everyone. If a method of prodution comes along that is cleaner, more reliable and efficient then what is the purpose of sticking with older technologies? [/b]
You keep analysing socialism in terms of capitalism. You need to analyse socialism in terms of socialism. So when you say things like "when a method of production comes along..." which is better than its predecessor, there is no reason to keep it, you are analysing and draweing conclusions based upon capitalist ideals. In a capitalist community, such reasoning is valid since most likely the newer methods will most likely allow for greater profit. But what about the socialist community?

Profit will not be a factor (at least socialism likes to think so. They are wrong, but that is a separate issue) in the decision. So what will be the factors? Socialists would like to think it will be what is better for the majority of people. But problems are immediately confronted. Economically, the community has stated that all work is equal to all other work. So the work performed (or to be exact, WOULD be performed since at its beginning would be small in number of machines and people trained in its use) by the new technology is no more valuable than the old technology. So the VALUE of that new technology is not measured in the same way as it would be for a capitalist community (which would say the value of the work performed by the new technology is greater than the old). Since the POTENTIAL VALUE of the new work is no greater than the VALUE of the old, why should the community change? There is no benefit to the community from doing so. The community has not benefitted, and there can only be pitfalls what with upheavals caused by changing around people&#39;s routrines and such.

POlitically, socialism is supposed to be a democracy. So the workers doing things the old way are going to be far more numerous than workers for the new. The decision to adopt the new ways would need to be done democratically, meaning that those old style workers would have to agree (or at least a majority of them) to the changes. The argument that could be made to them, that the community would be better off, cannot be made because the community already states their work, done the old ways, is as valuable to the community as work to be done new ways. After all, the old style workers may be perfectly content with things as they are, and do not see it "neccessary" to change a thing.

The response might be that no rational person could deny that, say, a fusion energy source would trump oil. And that would be true IF one measured value rationally. Socialism does not do this. Furthermore, the energy argument argues something obvious and can be easily seen. But what of those smaller changes which occur of which nobody much takes notice, yet also contributes? There is even less reason to change. Why should the community move from typewriters to PC&#39;s? The socialist community can give no rational answer, nor make any rational argument.

MarcX
10th July 2007, 06:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:12 am
Insults are always the lowest thing you can result to while arguing. The person who throws the most mud usually manages to distort the debate so much that whatever you were currently discussing becomes lost. This is because the person really has the options of (1) replying to the insult, or (2) ignoring the argument all together, as its fallacious. The worst kinds of insults are where you say things like "That&#39;s the way it works, if you disagree, you&#39;re a fucking idiot" because not only is it an ad-hominem attack, but you&#39;re attaching prejudicial language to it that makes it seem as if anyone who disagrees is a moron.

The last forum I was on that was nearly all insults was Protest-Warrior. But even there I don&#39;t think ever saw people actually quote someone just to encourage them to insult with lines equivalent to "yeah, call him a stupid head again." That is really stupid, even below PW.

Politics is very complex and very entangled, you have to deal with so many situations and possible outcomes it&#39;s hard to know where to even begin, but since it affects so many people, it should thus should be taken very seriously. What&#39;s interesting is when people debate Astronomy or whatever you don&#39;t have them going, "Nu uh, there are 100 billion billion stars, you fucking idiot," but instead an explanation of why that&#39;s the current prediction.

On the privatization of public utilities, it&#39;s a very hot topic, very debatable. Even the UPS versus USPS scenario. Even one man&#39;s action can help prevent the privatization of things. Anyway, while it is true that UPS is more reliable, has better contractual options and insurance, and so on, USPS is by far the cheaper service (what the market is supposed to be doing anyway, make things really cheap) and often even speedier I&#39;ve found, but definitely not more reliable. Well, who benefits the most from cheap service for letters and small packages? The poor, of course. Many people can&#39;t afford the rates of UPS to send their things.

The same is true with like private rail lines versus public, as mentioned. In public transportation, you often have buses or light rail systems that have more desolated and unpopular routes and lines. For example, you might have a route that provides access to only a few people late at night, whereas if it&#39;s privatized, since they&#39;re not making a profit from that particular route they&#39;ll just shut it down. That leaves the poor people without transportation and with the options of taking a taxi-cab limousine, or something.

Well, that may make economic sense, but it doesn&#39;t really make human sense. That person might end up on welfare or without a job, unable to provide their services to anybody. In the end, then, it may not even make economic sense in regard to state spending.

That&#39;s why in political science privatization is usually called "regressive politics" and public control is called progressive, because of the private business factor.

So again, we see another issue with no easy answers and both "human yardsticks" and "economic yardsticks" can be used as measurements justifiably.
I like the way you are reasonable in your thoughts its a relief to see that here.

but to the section debating privatizations on utilities and services if the government is not for filling its job in some peoples eyes do you think it might not be necessary for a entrepreneur to fill the need if he feels he can do it better and more efficiently.

pusher robot
10th July 2007, 15:57
if the government is not for filling its job in some peoples eyes do you think it might not be necessary for a entrepreneur to fill the need if he feels he can do it better and more efficiently.

Of course, but typically that option is foreclosed for one of two reasons: either the government simply forbids competition categorically, or they subsidize the government enterprise with coercively collected tax dollars. How is an entrepreneur, even with a far better and more efficient business plan, supposed to compete with an enterprise that his customers are obliged to pay for whether they want to or not? In fact it has happened, but usually only when the government&#39;s offerings are such ridiculously poor value that people are willing to pay the government price plus the private price just for the private product.

friendofwisdom
19th July 2007, 21:37
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 04:06 am

Jazzratt your fucking insults are da bomb&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Jazzrat&#39;s insults are cowardly. I&#39;ve bent over backwards to be civil and show respect even to people I strongly disagree with. If he wants to poison the well of civil discourse, I can handle it, I&#39;m a big boy. But it&#39;s not cool, it&#39;s sad.

EDIT: I know I&#39;m setting myself up for him to respond with some blistering insult. But it would only prove my point.
"salutes"

rebel_lord
20th July 2007, 05:34
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 07:53 pm
I get quite annoyed when I read arguments from pedantic right wingers, so I&#39;ll do my best to cover everything now. Here&#39;s my &#036;0.02


Reactionaries are quick to sing the praises of those who do the least work, eg. Large business people, politicians, church leaders, Royalty etc. The reality is the USA state that calls itself the worlds seat of &#39;democracy&#39; has little to offer the world in the way of example. Unelected privatised companies with power over essential services (transport health etc) have taken accountability away so that the vote has but no true meaning. This is why the remedy is blanket nationalistion, to ensure these essential services are brought back into accountable government hands. Already the US companies are becoming so huge they have leverage in affecting the democratic processes of other nations, particularly in the 3rd world.
In the UK we are sleepwalking towards a non pluralised plutocratic dictatorship as all 3 major parties sing from precisely the same right-of-centre hymn book.
Communism/Socialism (in my view at least) does not take away the apparatus of plural democracy, on the contary it was this mistake that led to the downfall of revolutions of yore. There is no reason to deny the reactionaries equal forum, the idea is their arguments will be irrelevant in the face of proletarian prosperity which is precisely why they so fear a shift in the status quo.
Capitalism is also guilty of wasting resources, not just mineral (which is an important point I&#39;ll come back to) but also human- Vast numbers within the workforce, many of whom are ex-graduates are syphoned off into forms of employment which have little or no relevance to their education or talents, and are there purely because of the demands of the &#39;market&#39;. Clearly the focus should be on guiding them into areas where they will be of maximum benefit to society, the arts, and the sciences. This brings me onto my final point, science. Reactionaries accuse communists and other progressives of being backward, regressive etc. Clearly the opposite is the case whenever you consider we live in an age where various forms of renewable energies are available yet our primary source of transport is still dependent of the 4-stroke cycle. Rather than upset the apple cart, government leckies shuffle their feet when it comes to approve new technolgies which can run independent of the multi-billion dollar black juice and the obvious environmental catastrophe involved.


Hey my friend here is a great article about the Medicine to cure USA-capitalist hell: US Revolution # 2:


http://americanterrorism.tk/

or

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/


Solutions:
American Revolution 2
and a Humane Future of
International Socialist Democracy


“We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.”
— Louis Brandeis
Supreme Court Justice from 1916-1939


“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
— Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address

March 4, 1861
What America needs, above all else, is a second Revolution to finish the work of the first one. American Revolution Two must be spiritual as well as political, and it must retain the full Bill of Rights of the current U.S. Constitution.
There is no solution to this country’s problems without the total overthrow of the U.S. military/government and the parasitical plutocracy which pulls its strings. The defeat of these genocidal state terrorists is also an essential step toward solving the entire world’s problems.
The fascist corporate plutocracy and its military/government puppets will never be reformed. Those who think the rotten system can be reformed from within are fooling themselves. The corporate/banking plutocracy has spent well over a century painstakingly creating a system which is absolutely impervious to any fundamental reform. Bourgeois reformers are toyed with and sneered at by the criminals in power. Would-be reformers merely serve to perpetuate the mass-illusion that we have a “democratic” system. People who seriously and fundamentally challenge the evil system are murdered, harassed or financially destroyed — if they can’t be blackmailed or bribed. Your vote counts for nothing and elections are a total fraud.
Therefore, the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government must be completely overthrown by the American people, and this will be done best through a spiritual and political Revolution using the basic strategy of massive, nonviolent non-cooperation.
The problem is that nonviolence requires a profound and very difficult discipline. And nonviolence can seem futile and cowardly in the face of the U.S. military/government murder of innocent children around the world. Retaliatory violence against the satanic U.S. government and its bestial military agents would be pure justice, and it is a great temptation. So the only question is: would it be more effective in the present circumstances? At this point, it clearly would not be. The U.S. military/government has the overwhelming advantage in firepower, so violence is exactly what they want.
Uncle Sham is a corporate mafia thug with a gun pointed to the world’s head. His itchy finger is on the trigger — and he really enjoys murdering people. He exults in it. One move from anyone to physically challenge his imperial dominance, or even merely to be independent, and he blows their heads off with a satisfied smile. And their children’s heads too.
Then while he struts around the bloody world stage beating his chest in self-congratulation, his corporate media whores all scream their approval and sing his praises for “fighting terrorism” and “liberating” the victims. And legions of bully-worshiping, flag-waving, fist-shaking, mental-puppet patriots join the chorus, whipped into a bloodlusting frenzy by the media whores, all eager to do further violence to anyone who dares to speak out with a genuine moral conscience.
Even without fighting a second Revolutionary War to protect the world’s children from Uncle Sham, if people of conscience in America use violence merely to defend themselves from the U.S. government, then their own innocent children suffer too. Innocent children and adults have been horribly murdered by U.S. government thugs in Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Philadelphia MOVE house, Pine Ridge Reservation and many other places. Uncle Sham and his thugs have no hesitation about murdering anyone’s children.
Basically then, we’re all hostages to U.S. government violence, for the time being, no matter what we do. Therefore we need to use nonviolent methods of opposition until it becomes possible to physically overpower the devils while protecting all innocent children and their families at the same time.
That will become possible only when tens of millions of people in America join the fight to take the satanic U.S. military/government down once and for all. And tens of millions of people will join the fight for two basic reasons:
When they become aware of the horrific realities of this world and are driven to do something to relieve the suffering of innocent victims.
When they realize it is in their self-interest to overthrow the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government.
Most people will be motivated by both reasons, to varying proportional degrees, but those who honestly care about others as much as themselves have always been a minority of people in America. Those who care primarily about their self-interests have always been a majority. That’s why we have the evil government we have.
Various fascistic elements within the American plutocracy have long had plans to use covertly-sponsored “false flag” terrorism to coerce the American people into silence and obedience if necessary, and to imprison and mass-murder all people of conscience who resist. Such plans have been in existence at least since the 1930s, during the Roosevelt Administration. In 1962 the CIA had a plan called “Operation Northwoods” which called for terrorist attacks to be committed against Americans in Miami and Washington D.C. while blaming it on Fidel Castro and Cuba. This would have created the pretext for the kind of full-scale invasion and occupation that has been inflicted on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The 9-11 attacks were merely a modern-day “Operation Northwoods”.
So far, the 9-11 deception is serving their purposes very well. But whenever the plutocracy fears their power is slipping they’ll simply order another terrorist attack and have their pet media scream about it night and day, and again millions of brainwashed morons will wave their flags and call for “revenge” and “justice”. Again the brain-dead idiots will violently attack whatever political or ethnic group is presented in the corporate media as the latest scapegoat, including all honest and decent people who dare to speak out.
Every possible form of nonviolent civil disobedience must be used to fight the satanic rulers of this country. Massive peaceful protest is a helpful and essential tactic, one which is very important both for psychological morale and for bypassing and overwhelming the censored corporate media. The protests have informed all America that a massive, unstoppable nationwide rebellion is steadily growing. It has very deep roots, and now people know how big it is too.
At some point the rebellion will become so pervasive that another essential tactic will become possible — the nonviolent physical takeovers of all local media outlets, especially T.V. stations, by masses of local anti-government people. This will mean the majority of people in most locations. When the majority of local people control the local media they will liberate the mass-mind of their own society. Every local society will then be able to express itself freely and honestly and publicize issues with which it is actually concerned, and the coming Revolution will gain overwhelming momentum. The revolutionary momentum is already irreversible, but at that point it will pick up so much speed that the corporate/banking parasites and military/government war criminals will be running for their bunkers.
The “Civil Disobedience and Tax Resistance” page continues these simple but essential ideas on revolutionary tactics and strategy. “Taking Action Against American State Terrorism” describes the massive protests that have taken place so far, and links to some important organizing coalitions.
Until nonviolent local media takeovers become possible on a nationwide scale, one of the most essential forms of nonviolent non-cooperation is to stop paying taxes to the Federal government. The U.S. military/government bloodsucks the American people for hundreds of billions of dollars every year to hold the entire world hostage to the Pentagon mass-murder-machine. By not paying taxes we are withdrawing our support from this monumental evil. If we pay taxes we have the blood of innocent people on our hands. We are paying for mass-murder. There is no denying it.
The great irony is that paying income taxes is not even legally required&#33; Most Americans have been kept ignorant of this fact, but it is actually unconstitutional for the Federal government to force people to pay income tax. Federal income tax is technically voluntary. It is not legally mandatory. The criminal U.S. government doesn’t want you to know this, of course, and like the mafia it is, it certainly does harass tax resisters and attempt to punish them. You can legally protect yourself, however. See A Few Facts About Tax Resistance for more information.


“The federal income tax and social security tax are unconstitutional and illegal; the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the income tax amendment) never even came close to being ratified in 1913; federal income taxes are voluntary, not compulsory, and there is no law that requires citizens to file and pay federal income taxes...”
We The People Organization
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/showdown.htm





The Need for Spiritual Revolution
The root causes of the problems which bedevil all nations and individuals are always spiritual/moral in nature. Economic, social, psychological and political problems are merely symptoms of a deeper malaise. There can be no real and lasting solution to the world’s problems, therefore, without a spiritual/moral awakening and healing of large numbers of people.
Fortunately this is happening. A steadily growing spiritual awakening really is happening to millions of people in this country and around the world. To a large degree it is manifesting itself on the surface as a growing political and social awakening, facilitated largely by the Internet. But the underlying motivation of this awakening is the deep moral revulsion which hundreds of millions of people increasingly feel toward the bestial, satanic ruling order.
Nobody needs any particular religion or political party to tell them that the current status quo is thoroughly evil. People can feel it in their souls. Moral awareness is built-in to humanity, no matter what belief system people may have. That is why the predatory, parasitical rulers of America use their degraded corporate mass-media to drag large numbers of people down to a subhuman level. Ignorant, immoral subhumans are easy for evil rulers to control and exploit. Moral human beings cannot be controlled by evil rulers.
Whether people realize it or not, we are all engaged in a fight to the death. We are fighting for our very souls, as well as for the innocent children of the world who are butchered by American war criminals. If we fail to care about these children, about their families and all our victimized fellow human beings, we will lose our souls. It’s as simple as that. Those who don’t care will become cowardly, craven slaves to the satanic freaks that are desperately scrambling to conquer the world right now. That is a fate infinitely worse than mere death of the physical body.
* * *
The Candles in the darkness page has links to a small selection of spiritual wisdom teachings.
There are as many ways of knowing God as there are people. Respect for the world’s rich variety of spiritual paths is essential. Appreciation of variety counters the egoic tendency we all have to fall into the trap of cultism. Cultism may be defined as “group egocentricity”, and it can be political as well as religious. Politics and religion are cultic when they claim to have exclusive possession of truth. Cultic exclusivity is always very divisive, and thus it is inevitably destructive. In contrast, true spirituality is always unifying, healing and nourishing in its effect.


Structure of the Political Revolution
Once the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government is relegated to its proper place in the toxic waste dump of history, the question becomes one of what to replace it with. In a successful American Revolution Two, the American people will create some form of Constitutional democracy. The all-important Bill of Rights absolutely must be retained in its entirety, and even strengthened. The first and second amendments in particular are absolutely essential, since they make it possible for all other rights to be maintained by the people. But basic changes must be made to the structure of government to avoid the mistakes of the past. Everything must be eliminated which allows the subversion of the Bill of Rights.
Two New Amendments
To accomplish this, at least two utterly essential new amendments must be added to the Constitution, and vigorously enforced by the people:
The first and most important amendment will forbid both centralized and private ownership of the mass-media.
All the mass-media must be publicly owned and totally decentralized. As long as the mass-media is owned by a few corporations, or any other centralized power, it will always lie about what is happening in this country and in the world. Those people who are foolish enough to trust the corporate mass-media will therefore remain ignorant and grossly misinformed. A real democracy is totally impossible without a well-informed electorate. Corporate control of the mass-media guarantees a thoroughly misinformed and uninformed electorate.
The second new amendment must take all political power away from the corporations and make them fully liable for their criminal actions. As long as huge, ultra-wealthy corporations are effectively above the law they form a modern-day aristocracy, and democracy remains a total charade.



“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”
— Benito Mussolini
1883-1945
Fascist dictator of Italy


Democratizing the Supreme Court
These Constitutional changes will also make it politically possible to reform the crooked Supreme Court. All Supreme Court judges should be directly elected by the American people. It must also be made possible for the American people to quickly and easily impeach these judges when they inevitably make an unconstitutional decision. It was a crooked Supreme Court decision in 1886 that gave corporations so much power in the first place, effectively ending what little was left of democracy at the national level. Because it’s so very easy for people with money and power to corrupt and control judges, the Supreme Court will always tend to undermine democracy unless it is tightly controlled by the American people.
Parliamentary U.S. government
It would also help a great deal if the American political system joined the modern world and became a parliamentary democracy. America’s present system is intentionally kept backward by the corporate/banking plutocracy because such a draconian system suits their anti-democratic purposes very well. In a parliamentary democracy there will be real power sharing by many political parties. In America today all power resides in one corporate party which pretends to be two — the Democrapublicans.
The system should also be designed so that the American people can quickly and easily oust the President and members of Congress whenever they break the law or do anything against the will of the people.
Democratizing the mass-media and taking power away from corporations is the essential foundation that will make this possible. The American people must create a political system which is actually in their own self-interest, rather than the present-day system of deceit and exploitation which serves the interests of the corporate/banking plutocracy.
Having learned the bitter lessons of corporate mafia capitalism, the majority of people are definitely going to want to try some form of honest, moral democracy for a change. But in order to create an honest democracy people need to know the difference between venal capitalism and true socialism. When the majority of people know the difference, the new political system they create will be a Constitutional socialist democracy.


What is Democratic Socialism?
Democratic socialism is a moral, humane, political system which creates economic well-being and political freedom for the majority of people. In contrast, corporate capitalism creates fascist tyranny and economic exploitation of the majority of people.
Democratic socialism is therefore in the political and economic self-interest of the majority of people. And yet most Americans have a problem understanding this very simple fact — thanks to over a century of very effective political brainwashing by the corporate-controlled mass-media and the government-controlled school system. (See An Appeal to All Working People for a full description of the ideals and principles of democratic socialism.)
The very word “socialism” triggers a negative response in most Americans. Like Pavlov’s dogs, Americans have been trained to mindlessly react, both positively and negatively, to all kinds of things.
After generations of government/corporate mind-control, many Americans are deeply confused about even the most obvious economic realities. Distracting them from the realization that socialism is in their own economic self-interest, capitalist propaganda has fooled a great many Americans into rejecting it on religious grounds. Politicians and the corporate media tell people the lie that all socialism is Marxism and “godless Communism”, and therefore anti-religious. But many socialists are not Marxists. Socialism is not necessarily anti-religious at all.


True Christianity is Socialist
In fact there have been Christian-socialist political parties and utopian communities in both Europe and America since the 19th century. That should come as no surprise to those who actually understand Christianity. Like true Buddhism and true Islam, true Christianity is inherently socialistic. If we define Christianity as the religion of Jesus, rather than the religion of churches and worldly authorities, then we can see why true Christianity and socialism go very naturally together. When Jesus fed the multitudes, that was a socialist act. When Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple, that was a condemnation of godless capitalism.
If Jesus he were to incarnate in America today, and as many people listened to him as listened to Martin Luther King Jr., he’d meet the same fate. As the song lyrics say: “If Jesus Christ were alive today, he’d be gunned down cold by the CIA.” And he’d be denounced from the poisoned pulpits of many a “Christian” church. America is a satanic nation.
Those so-called “Christians” who advocate war and intolerance and capitalist exploitation are satanic people masquerading as Christians. Evil people have always hidden behind religious facades. These deceivers are involved in Churchianity, not true Christianity.
The Christian tradition of charity and being “our brother’s keeper” is a socialist tradition. Compassion for our fellow human beings is the soul of socialism.


What is Marxism?
Marxism is the marriage of socialism with scientific materialism. The Marxist philosophy was created in the mid-nineteenth century when the dogma of scientific materialism began to dominate Western thinking. Socialists like Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were good and compassionate men, well ahead of their times, morally, yet also a product of their times, intellectually.
Marxism’s greatest strength is its compassion for suffering humanity. Its second greatest strength is its scientific analysis of capitalism. That’s why Marxism is also called “scientific socialism”. But, as with conventional science, Marxism’s greatest weakness is its materialist worldview.
Because Marxism is socialistic, however, it is a very unusual thing — a moral materialism. Generally speaking, the term “moral materialism” is an oxymoron. But Marxism manages to be a moral materialism because all socialism is motivated by compassion for the downtrodden and exploited masses of people in every country.
Marxism’s specifically anti-religious stance is a both a political weakness and a moral strength. It’s a political weakness because so many people are religious, and American capitalists have very successfully exploited that fact in their anti-socialist propaganda. On the other hand, Marxism’s anti-religious stance is a moral strength because religion is very often profoundly corrupt, and it needs to be purified.
Marx was quite right when he said “religion is the opiate of the masses”. A great many people have always used religion as a drug, as something which keeps them from thinking clearly, logically and honestly.
Just as with drugs, religion is used to intoxicate people and influence them in evil ways. U.S. Army soldiers and U.S. Air Force pilots take government-supplied amphetamines before they slaughter women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam and Yugoslavia. Like those U.S. military amphetamines, religions have always been used for grossly evil purposes. The horrifying Catholic Inquisition is a prime example. Bigoted Protestant fundamentalism is another. Racist Talmudic Judaism is another. All the bloody religious wars all over the world throughout history are testimony to the monstrous evil that hides behind religious facades. The revolting Zionist Christians and Zionist Talmudic Jews of today are examples of how violently evil religions threaten the survival of the entire human race. These psychopaths make Karl Marx look like a prophet.
So it’s true that religion is used as an opiate of the masses. But it’s not the whole truth. In spite of the fact that evil people use religion for evil purposes, there are kernels of spiritual truth in every religion. And spiritual truth is independent of all religions.


Socialist Humanity is the Future
Regardless of whether it is Marxist or religious, however, socialism in itself is inherently moral, charitable and unifying. Socialism is human. Capitalism is inherently selfish, competitive and divisive. Capitalism is subhuman. This will be perfectly obvious to anyone who can think clearly and rationally. Unfortunately, that’s asking too much of conventional Americans. Reality is turned on its head in American political culture.
Capitalism, by its very nature, is always tending toward corporate fascism. Under capitalism the majority of people must endlessly battle the anti-democratic, subversive influence of a corporate/banking plutocracy which effectively owns the government. In a system of socialism the greatest danger is the tyranny of an anti-democratic government bureaucracy, a tyranny which is every bit as evil as a corporate plutocracy.
In both cases there is only one way to achieve and maintain democracy, and that is the vigilant, well-informed determination of the majority of people. This is why the mass-media is the single most important factor. Democracy is impossible without an informed electorate, and there is no way for the electorate to be informed as long as the mass-media is controlled by private owners. Those private owners will look out for private interests, which very often are not the same as the public interest. If people want freedom and democracy, there must be genuine, public ownership of all the mass-media, and it must be a decentralized ownership.
When the majority of people are determined to be free and are well-informed about political and social reality, they will know that democratic socialism is the only system which actually looks out for their own interests. Liberated from corporate-media mind-control, they will have no problem seeing the obvious reality that genuinely democratic socialism is profoundly civilized, moral and humane. They will reject with total contempt the evil and animalistic “Rule of the Jungle” exemplified by corporate capitalism.
The social and political facts of life are exactly the opposite of the smooth-talking capitalist propaganda that is incessantly beamed at you through the mind-controlling mass-media. The televised, corporate, Disneyland version of reality is always trying to sell you the fantasy that America is basically a righteous “democracy” run by honest, God-fearin’ “elected representatives” who have “only your best interests at heart”. Meanwhile, in the hard, cold, real world, America is being run into the ground by a criminal plutocracy which ruthlessly exploits everybody for as much as it can get away with. The plutocracy which invariably rules every capitalist society is a greedy parasite of the working classes — who are the vast majority of people.
International socialist democracy is the natural next step in the world’s political evolution. Corporate capitalism is a morally degraded political dinosaur that is retarding the social and political evolution of the entire human race.



See also on this page:
The political differences between Stalinism, communism, anarchy and democratic socialism




Related pages


Civil Disobedience and Tax Resistance


Thomas Jefferson Calling: The Time for Revolution is NOW
by John Kaminski


A Note to the Reader in America
Only massive, nonviolent civil disobedience and tax resistance have the power to bring down the most violent, predatory empire in the world today.



Socialism, real and fake
by Noam Chomsky


An Appeal to All Working People
This is the September 1996 election statement of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), and it’s every bit as relevant today as it was then. Although the SEP is a Marxist party, and thus hampered by the conceptual limitations of scientific materialism, this election statement is nevertheless the best primer I’ve found so far on the political, economic and moral ideals of international socialism.



Know Your Enemy:


The United States Government Committed the September 11 Attacks


Revealing Quotes 2: Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy


Revealing Quotes 4: Jewish Plutocracy, Jewish Power


The Israeli Connection To 9-11


War At Home:
Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It
by Brian Glick


Neighborhood Bully: American Militarism
interview with Ramsey Clark


The CIA, Insider Trading and the World Trade Center Terror Attack


Fake Terror: the Road to Dictatorship


Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS


U.S. Government Surveillance


U.S. Government Domestic Oppression


The Battle of Seattle


Terrorism Begins At Home: Police Brutality in America


America’s Techno-Fascist Future




Related sites


International A.N.S.W.E.R.
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism&#33;
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
“Build a united and active anti-war movement&#33;”
This site has a great deal of information for anti-war activists, including leaflets and flyers you can download.



International Action Center
http://www.iacenter.org
“Information, activism and resistance to U.S. militarism, war, and corporate greed, linking with struggles against racism and oppression within the United States.”



National War Tax Resistance
Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC)
http://www.nwtrcc.org/
“The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee is a coalition of groups from across the U.S., formed in 1982 to provide information and support to people involved in or considering some form of war tax resistance (WTR).
“Affiliate organizations and individual supporters are joined together in a common struggle for a more just and peaceful society. We oppose militarism and war and refuse to participate in the tax system which supports such violence.
“NWTRCC sees poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, economic exploitation, environmental destruction and militarization of law enforcement as integrally linked with the militarism which we abhor. Through the redirection of our tax dollars NWTRCC members contribute directly to the struggle for peace and justice for all. NWTRCC promotes war tax resistance within the context of a broad range of nonviolent strategies for social change, and is firmly embedded in the peace movement.”
“NWTRCC’s goal is to maintain and build a national movement of conscientious objectors to military taxes by supporting, coordinating and publicizing the WTR actions of groups and individuals. These actions include: war tax resistance, protest, and refusal; the redirection of military taxes to meet human needs; support of the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill; and adjustment of lifestyle to avoid tax liability. WTR actions are undertaken in accordance with each individual’s moral, religious or political conscience, and are hoped to contribute toward changing the priorities and policies of the U.S. government.”
NWTRCC makes available the book: War Tax Resistance: A Guide To Withholding Your Support From The Military
“The most comprehensive guide to war tax resistance (WTR), including philosophical and political questions, information on the federal budget, the history of WTR, personal WTR stories, methods, consequences, international WTR, WTR organizing, and more."



We The People Organization: Taxes - Showdown
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/showdown.htm
“The federal income tax and social security tax are unconstitutional and illegal; the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the income tax amendment) never even came close to being ratified in 1913; federal income taxes are voluntary, not compulsory, and there is no law that requires citizens to file and pay federal income taxes...”



World Socialist Web Site
http://www.wsws.org/
WSWS: September 11 Aftermath
http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/terr-us.shtml
WSWS: News & Analysis: U.S. Militarism
http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/na-milit.shtml
The huge World Socialist Web Site is a great resource for thinking people. WSWS has a massive amount of information and insightful commentary. It specializes in the kind of straight talk about brutal U.S. imperialism which is absolutely unheard-of in the corporate-controlled mass-media.
The homepage is updated daily with real news and analysis from around the world. In particular right now, WSWS is one of the best sites for news and analysis of America’s current genocide and state terrorism of the people in Iraq.
Throughout the site you’ll find the kind of deeply informed, historically aware, refreshingly realistic analysis that only the experience of 154 years of international socialist struggle could make possible.
Millions of people are waking up to the fact that the corporate-owned, mainstream mass-media are lying to them. People of intelligence and conscience are turning off the boob-tube and turning on to truthful, non-corporate news sources on the Internet.
WSWS has very informative sections about the American/British state terrorism of the Afghan peoples, and the racist Israeli terrorism of the Palestinian people.
There is also an extensive number of high-quality articles about the Balkans and the U.S./NATO terror campaign against the Yugoslavian people.



Restoring Pacifica as a Democratic Forum for Independent Voices
http://www.savepacifica.net/index.htm
“Given the importance of the media in hegemonic processes, and in contesting those processes, what is happening to Pacifica, and now WBAI, should be first order business for the left. This was our only radio network, and it is being destroyed&#33;”
— Edward S. Herman
author of The Real Terror Network



The International Office of the Leonard Peltier Defence Committee
http://www.freepeltier.org



Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal
http://www.mumia2000.org



Refuse & Resist&#33;
http://www.refuseandresist.org/altindex.html
“Refuse & Resist is the organization for everyone who refuses to go along with today’s national agenda of repression and cruelty, poverty and punishment.”



CollegeActivist.com
http://www.collegeactivist.com/
“Want to spread the word about animal rights on your campus?
“Whether you’re an individual or working with a group, whether you’re just getting started with animal rights or you’re a veteran activist, PETA’s College Action Campaign can help you speak out for animals on your campus&#33;” (And they don’t mean frat boys.)



TV-Turnoff Network
http://www.tvturnoff.org/
“TV-Turnoff Network encourages children and adults to watch much less television in order to promote healthier lives and communities.
“TV-Turnoff Network has helped millions of Americans to break free of TV through our two primary programs, National TV-Turnoff Week and More Reading, Less TV. Our 3,000 members include teachers, parents, doctors, and others — Americans from every corner of the country and walk of life.”



Capitalism Sucks&#33;
http://www.capitalismsucks.com/
“Experts Agree: Capitalism Sucks.”
“How Do You Want to Fight Capitalism Today?”



RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
Rage Activism Calendar
http://rage.protest.net/
“The United States of America was founded in revolution, a fact that we citizens choose to remember only once a year. Ever since, our nation has worked to destroy the revolutionary works of people around the globe as they struggle for freedom.
“In 1776, the U.S. was born half-formed, and today the American Revolution is still only half-finished. Soldiers in the late 1700s fought successfully to free all Americans from a British yoke, but neglected to free themselves from their home-grown dictators...”



Bibliography


War Tax Resistance:
A Guide To Withholding Your Support From The Military
Available from the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
“The most comprehensive guide to war tax resistance (WTR), including philosophical and political questions, information on the federal budget, the history of WTR, personal WTR stories, methods, consequences, international WTR, WTR organizing, and more.”



Against Empire
by Michael Parenti
“The history of imperialism is also, however, a history of resistance, struggle, and achievement; Against Empire offers compelling alternatives for progressive change.” .... “Precise, rational ways to transform public policy to build democratic institutions.”



War At Home:
Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It
by Brian Glick


Nonviolent Resistance (Satyagraha)
by Mohandas K. Gandhi
Dover Publications; ISBN 0-486-41606-2
Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of India’s great movement of independence from the bloodsucking British Empire, a liberation which was accomplished by means of nonviolent revolution in spite of the British massacres of Indian people. Gandhi and his followers thus gained the deep respect and admiration of millions of people around the world for their disciplined adherence to the policy of passive resistance, and his ideas were a driving force behind the American civil-rights movement.
This volume focuses on Gandhi’s vision of Satyagraha, whereby one appeals to reason and conscience and puts an end to evil by converting the evil-doer. The book begins with an explanation of the principles of Satyagraha and proceeds with detailed discussions of the self-training and courage necessary for it. Includes discussion of the use and effectiveness of such techniques as non-payment of fines and taxes, social boycotts, fasting, sympathetic strikes, and other forms of non-cooperation.



Autobiography:
The Story of My Experiments with Truth
by Mohandas K. Gandhi
Dover Publications; ISBN 0-486-24593-4
“Personal account of the life of the man who freed India from colonization through the Satyagraha (nonviolent protest) movement. His early boyhood life, legal studies, purification, and the ultimate salvation of his homeland are carefully recounted in this inspiring and critical work of insurmountable importance.”



Blackshirts and Reds:
Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
by Michael Parenti


The Beast Reawakens
by Martin A. Lee


Rogue State:
A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
by William Blum


Killing Hope:
U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII
by William Blum


The Fire This Time:
U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf
by Ramsey Clark


Desert Slaughter:
The Imperialist War Against Iraq
by the Workers League


Pirates and Emperors, Old and New:
International Terrorism in the Real World
by Noam Chomsky


The Real Terror Network:
Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda
by Edward S. Herman


Western State Terrorism
Alexander George, editor; essays by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Gerry O’Sullivan and others


Apocalypse 1945:
The Destruction of Dresden
by David Irving


A People’s History of the United States:
1492 — Present
by Howard Zinn


Derailing Democracy:
The America the Media Don’t Want You to See
by David McGowan


101 Things To Do ’Til The Revolution
by Claire Wolf
“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
“The ideal citizen of a tyrannical state is the man or woman who bows in silent obedience in exchange for the status of a well-cared-for herd animal. Thinking people become the tyrant’s worst enemies.
“Before their thunder roars, there is a period of anticipation, in which more occurs than the literal-minded tyrant can ever understand. A few overt acts of sedition shatter the heavy peace. But the greater force, unrecognized, rolls forward in near silence, as millions of individuals quietly withdraw their consent from the state. The pundits call it apathy. They could not be more wrong.
“That time is now. And we are those people.
“This book is dedicated to you, the enemy of the state.”



Don’t Shoot the Bastards (Yet):
101 More Ways to Salvage Freedom
by Claire Wolf
“Are you... fed up with the Powers That Be encroaching on your freedom?
“Have you... tried everything — voting, peaceful protest, letter writing, petitions — and found that it just didn’t work?
“Are you... beginning to think violent rebellion might be the ultimate, dreaded answer?
“Stop&#33; Wait&#33; There are a lot more things you can do&#33;”



Further bibliography:
Today’s Fascist America


“When we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without a government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.”
— Thomas Paine
Common Sense



The political differences between Stalinism, communism, anarchy and democratic socialism
Because of decades of deceitful propaganda from both capitalists and Soviet Stalinists, most people in the U.S. are likely to make the mistake of thinking that the Stalinist totalitarianism of the Soviet Union represented “communism” or “socialism”.
However true communism and socialism are actually inherently democratic systems — unlike capitalism which inherently tends toward fascism. It was therefore quite natural for the vast majority of working class people in Russia, prior to the Revolution of 1917, to hold the idea of democratic socialism/communism in high esteem. They were not politically retarded (unlike patriotic working class Americans), so they understood the simple, obvious fact that a socialist democracy was in their self-interest.
Therefore, throughout his murderous reign, Josef Stalin sought to exploit the prestige of socialism by claiming that his brutal tyranny was “socialist” and “communist”. In a similar fashion, American capitalism claims it stands for “democracy”, when in fact it has always created and supported brutal fascist dictatorships around the world.
American military pressure and economic subversion worked together with Stalinist tyranny to destroy any hope of democratic socialism in the Soviet Union throughout its 74-year existence. A murderous, nationalistic party dictatorship was falsely labeled “communism” by both capitalists and Stalinists, and to this day most people in America are totally clueless as to the true meaning of socialism and communism.
The collapse of the Stalinist Soviet Union in 1991 and its rapid mutation into a capitalist mafia state was a great victory for American capitalism. All the hapless peoples of the former Soviet bloc exchanged the Stalinist tyranny for the far more degraded tyranny of American-style corporate mafia capitalism. The future is very dark indeed for them all.
Genuine socialist democracy has no chance of surviving anywhere in the world as long as the United States remains a capitalist military power. Only tyrannical, Stalinist police-states can provide sufficient state security even to temporarily fight off CIA subversion. Genuinely democratic, socialist societies have no chance at all. They are too open and free, and therefore too vulnerable.
Everywhere in the world socialist democracy has arisen, the fascism-promoting United States military/government has ruthlessly destroyed it.
&#036; &#036; &#036;
So Stalinism, (what most people erroneously think is “communism”), is the dictatorship of a nationalistic, political-party bureaucracy. But in its true and original meaning, the word “communism” refers to a form of social organization which is radically democratic. It is exactly what the word suggests: communal. Democratic communism is the final stage in the evolution of democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism is an intermediate step. It is based on the observation that the vast majority of our heterogeneous human race still requires some limited degree of hierarchical organization — an honestly democratic government that will maintain an egalitarian peace and stability. Democratic socialism will not be permanent. It is a socio-political organization that will be evolved by society as society itself evolves, until an ideal condition of social harmony and freedom is reached wherein there is actually no need for any sort of governmental authority.
That’s what anarchy is all about. As with “communism”, the true meaning of “anarchy” is contained within the structure of the word: an-archy, “no rulers” — and therefore no tyranny. And for that reason it does not mean chaos. Chaos is just another form of tyranny. Total freedom from any and all forms of tyranny is the ideal of true anarchists. This is the ideal of democratic communism too — co-operative, non-hierarchical, communal living, with all decisions of the group made by truly democratic consensus.
Harmonious anarchy, or democratic communism, therefore, are names given to that ultimate social ideal where there will be no need for any government. But for the present, democratic socialist government is simply realism. At this stage of human evolution, harmonious anarchy is workable only in small groups which are intellectually and emotionally homogenous. It will be obvious to anyone with a little knowledge of history and current events, and a little experience in life, that if all governments miraculously disappeared overnight, societies would degenerate into the tyranny of chaos. People would quickly organize themselves around dominant egos, or warlords, for mutual protection, and these groups would inevitably fight each other. Then within the general chaos the groups would mutate into progressively larger levels of tyrannical social organization until we again had national governments — and again reached the level of international chaos we enjoy today.
This assumption is based not only on the events of history, but on an examination of the fundamental nature of individuals within society. The way in which a society is organized will inevitably be a direct expression of the sum total of that society’s component individuals. And what is the nature of individual people? Virtually all people in the world are egocentric, to varying degrees. Most people are deeply and primitively egocentric. Because we all suffer from egocentricity, most people do not truly like or trust most other people. Most people co-operate within the larger society primarily for selfish survival, not because they honestly love and care about their society in general.
Or to put it clinically: whatever outward appearances of conformity there might be, all societies are actually composed of a very heterogenous mix of egocentric personalities. These differing personalities do not naturally resonate with each other, so there is a fundamental tendency toward disharmony within all societies. Therefore in order to cooperate with each other in general, people need a compelling reason, and that reason is physical survival.
The greatest problem, however, is that there are too many people whose egocentricity is severely pathological. Some of these sick people are very clever and deceitful, some are intellectually intelligent, some are neurotically driven to compete and others are compulsive dominators. Put them all together and you have a government. Or a corporation. (Or an insane asylum.) Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in the world are easily fooled and easily led by dominant individuals within their own cultures. History is proof enough of this. In almost every country, evil leaders have always been able to recruit legions of homicidal psychopaths to fill the ranks of their armies, navies, air forces, intelligence agencies and police forces.
And yet, all these psychopaths are still a small percentage of humanity. It’s amazing, therefore, that they are able to wield as much control as they do over the vast majority of people. In a great many countries today the explanation for this tyranny is that it originates from outside their societies — from the United States government and military. The victim societies are relatively powerless because their fascist governments are given money and weapons by the United States government (using your tax dollars). If the societies resist this imperial tyranny they are slaughtered and tortured by the hundreds of thousands, as in Central America, or even the millions, as during the Korean Genocide and Vietnam Genocide. And no matter what they do they are impoverished by the tens of millions.
So what is the explanation for American society? There is no tyranny outside the United States which oppresses the American people. Why then do so many Americans submit to, and even applaud, the vicious evil of our sadistic government and military? The explanation for this can only be that such Americans are not just stupid and ignorant, they are evil themselves. They may not be homicidal psychopaths, but they aren’t at all enraged by those who are — as long as the psychopaths wear official uniforms. Such Americans are moral cowards. They are very easily corrupted by evil influences, and they permit themselves to be dominated by a diabolically evil government.


“Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.
“Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”
— Michael Rivero
WhatReallyHappened.com


All evil empires rise and fall, and a glorious day will come at last when the world is blessed with the total annihilation of the monstrously predatory United States military/government.
But that will not end all of humanity’s problems. Even with the inevitable demise of the Great Satan, humanity will not be prepared to create a paradise on Earth, free of all authority structures. At the present primitive stage of humanity’s social evolution, the vast majority of people are in a sufficiently pathological condition of egocentricity that we are incapable of living harmoniously with each other without at least some degree of benevolent external control.


“There has never been a perfect government, because men have passions; and if they did not have passions, there would be no need for government.”
— Voltaire


Without the benevolent authority of an honestly democratic socialist government, most societies would remain totally vulnerable to the degenerate and predatory tendencies of fascist mafia-capitalism or primitive feudal warlordism (which are essentially the same things).
Socialist democracy represents the beginning of political sanity and social health in this world. But only the beginning.



See also:
Socialism, real and fake
by Noam Chomsky


Revealing Quotes 2: Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy


Revealing Quotes 4: Jewish Plutocracy, Jewish Power


In Defense of the Russian Revolution:
A Reply to the Post-Soviet School of Historical Falsification
by David North
http://www.wsws.org/history/1995/apr1995/idrr.shtml






Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign&#33;







“We have assumed the commitment to direct the Bolivarian Revolution towards socialism and to contribute to the socialist path, with a new socialism, a socialism of the 21st century, which is based in solidarity, in fraternity, in love, in justice, in liberty, and in equality.” -Hugo Chavez Frias



"Por desesperada que sea la causa de mi Patria siempre sera la causa del honor, y siempre estaré dispuesto a honrar su enseña con mi sangre" -Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez, Fundador de la Nacionalidad Dominicana <--Dominicanos: visiten mi grupo para ver si salvamos a la Rep. Dominicana: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistas-dominicanos/



"The left is back, and it&#39;s the only path we have to get out of the spot to which the right has sunken us. Socialism builds and capitalism destroys." -Hugo Chavez Frias