Property

[BobKKKindle$]

I want to gain a better understanding of why exactly capitalists choose to support a system of private property. So, please rebut this - show why it is fair that a small minority should be paid vastly more than those that, in my view, actually do the hardest work:


Ownership of the means of production allows a capitalist to assert control of products produced by workers. This is illegitimate. The production of any good is a social activity, requiring the contribution and cooperation of many workers inside the workplace in addition to the support of society as a whole, and as such it is unfair that an individual, who may make no direct contribution to production or assume only a managerial role, should be able to deprive them of their products. In a modern capitalist enterprise based on share-ownership, the owners often bear no relation to the workplace and are not aware of how production is organized. Workers are capable of managing their own workplaces through a system of councils based on discussion and the democratic process, even in industries that require a high degree of technical expertise and discipline. The profits generated from the sale of products are a direct product of exploitation which, in the terminology of Marxist economics, refers to the accumulation of surplus value by paying workers less than the value of their labour.

[Dr Mindbender]

we already know what they will say- they get paid more because their job either requires more intelligence, skill or 'entreprenuerial spirit'.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 05, 2007 12:38 pm
we already know what they will say- they get paid more because their job either requires more intelligence, skill or 'entreprenuerial spirit'.
That's the problem - capitalist ethics require some sort of superiority of one human over another, and there is no moral, psychologicla or otherwise logical reason for such such superiority.

[Dr Mindbender]

the only thing which seems consistent to me about the higher paid bracket is that they are in the most demand via the market- For example, professional footballers and fashion designers get paid n times more than the most skilled brain surgeons yet their roles require no where near as much intelligence or skill.

[ontheliberalleft]

Its all about demand and supply. If there was a flood of excellent world class footballers, wages would decrease significantly. As it is, only a tiny tiny number of people can actually make it in the game.

In relation to property, I personally cannot understand how one could have Liberty without it. Liberty starts and ends with private property - Its your own little corner of the world. In the situation where people cannot afford a mortgage, and therefore rent, I think laws need to be passed to give them more privacy rights from their landlords. I used to have a **** of a Landlord who checked our flat nearly ever week, but due to a loophole he had this enshrined in the tenancy agreement. In other words, more needs to be done to protect ones right to property.

[spartan]

In relation to property, I personally cannot understand how one could have Liberty without it. Liberty starts and ends with private property - Its your own little corner of the world.
This reminds me of the quote "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." by Lenin.

The fact is the only people to benefit from private property are the people who can afford it which is the current owners and controllers of the means of production, the Bourgeoisie.

Private property never has and never will benefit the majority of people, the Proletarian, who are'nt rich and thus cant afford the "benefits" that private property gives you in our current Capitalist society.

So let me guess ontheliberalleft you are a Libertarian who believs in a Laissez-Fairre economic system as it is the most "free" system in the world yes?

Trouble is though this system is only free for the people who can afford it which is'nt the majority of people unfortunately.

That is why Libertarianism fails and Socilaism, which believes in the equality of all human beings, will succeed!

[ontheliberalleft]

Please don't make assumptions about me. My name is 'ontheliberalleft'. I have more in common with most of you than I do with Libertarians.

[Dimentio]

When communists talk about private property, they are not talking about your underpants, comrade. They are talking about such things like farms, factories and infrastructure.

Everything which is not crucial in supporting production would still be personally owned.

There is no rational need to example socialise your TV, your shoes or your luxury yacht.

Some communists, most often maoists, seem to stress some sort of symbolic justice and therefore choses to socialise a lot of meaningless stuff, like for example clothes and such.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:18 pm
Its all about demand and supply. If there was a flood of excellent world class footballers, wages would decrease significantly. As it is, only a tiny tiny number of people can actually make it in the game.

In relation to property, I personally cannot understand how one could have Liberty without it. Liberty starts and ends with private property - Its your own little corner of the world. In the situation where people cannot afford a mortgage, and therefore rent, I think laws need to be passed to give them more privacy rights from their landlords. I used to have a **** of a Landlord who checked our flat nearly ever week, but due to a loophole he had this enshrined in the tenancy agreement. In other words, more needs to be done to protect ones right to property.
No, more needs to be done to protect liberty, which includes certain rights to property but is not bound in it.

Property itself is only part of the means by which we live. Our liberty should be defined by all of these means - which are access to food, natural resources, air, healthcare, employment, social capabilities, free speach, freedom from slavery (and "indentured servitude" in capitalism), et al.

The concept that property is the end of liberty is an inhuman look at society and human rights in general. Property is merely a tool; humans are not property, even of themselves. They are human beings with the right to live in dignity via various means and goods, and this has little to do with the right to specific property, and certainly nothing to do with property itself as a wholistic ideal.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:48 pm
Please don't make assumptions about me. My name is 'ontheliberalleft'. I have more in common with most of you than I do with Libertarians.
"Spartan" usually has little to say except a barrage of judgemental, presumptious antagonistic nonsense, especially if he views somebody as deviating in any sense from his view of leftism.

Just so you know for future reference.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:48 pm
Please don't make assumptions about me. My name is 'ontheliberalleft'. I have more in common with most of you than I do with Libertarians.
Not an attack on you, but I'm wondering - does anyone here know how such a thing as the "liberal left" came about? If old school liberals (John Stuart Mill and so on) saw what is called "liberal" these days they'd be spinning in their graves.

Also it's hard not to associate you with classical liberals when you say things like:


Liberty starts and ends with private property

Which is the stance taken by classical liberals, big L "Libertarians", conservatives and the like. While I understand that everyone needs personal possessions - a place to live, things to eat, things to stick in their arseholes* and whatever I do not see why owning property is anything to do with this. The differences between the two have been brought up many times, and I should perhaps expand the FAQ on this point, but for the moment I will simply say this:

Most communists differentiate posession and property by utility. For example, most people will use their toothbrushes to clean their teeth, maybe lend them to close friends but generally they use the toothbrush themselves and it is theirs, but when one owns a factory they do not, physically, use it. In fact the owner of a factory will charge others for its use - by taking an amount of the total value produced by the workers in the factory they are effectively charging for the use of the equipment and dressing this up as benevolence. A less straightforward example would be an example of the same building - let's say a house. Now one person owns this house and lives there, it is their possession, but let's say some other person (more than likely a chattering-class leach) owns the same building and still uses it as a house but instead of living there charges someone to use it themselves - it is their property but the tenants possession - after a hypothetical revolution the "owner" would have no claim to it. Finally we have a really complicated question, and some comrades may disagree with me here (they may have disagreed earlier, but fuck them) - a cafe. Now let's say that one person owns this cafe and runs it as a business with themselves (and possibly a partner) as the sole employee(s), while they are petit-bourgeois this cafe is still their possession, however if they later expand (build extensions and whatever) and begin hiring people to work there it no longer stays in their possession - it is their property but the possession of those that work there and, therefore, post revolution it would come under the ownership of the community.

===

*FireFox's best spelling suggestion for arseholes - Wholesalers. No joke.

[spartan]

I have more in common with most of you than I do with Libertarians.
No self described "Liberal" has anything in common with us leftists especially one who says and believes in this:

In relation to property, I personally cannot understand how one could have Liberty without it. Liberty starts and ends with private property - Its your own little corner of the world.
I cannot see a Socialist agreeing with any of what you just said there.

That remark signifies that you are against Proletarian ownership and control of the MOP which they already operate.

That is also, coincidentally, a classic Liberal and Libertarian stance you took there with that remark so please dont give us that crap about you not being a Libertarian.

"Spartan" usually has little to say except a barrage of judgemental, presumptious antagonistic nonsense, especially if he views somebody as deviating in any sense from his view of leftism.

Just so you know for future reference.
Read his posts Dean and you might understand why i was being judgemental to someone who is'nt even remotely left.

[pusher robot]

Ownership of the means of production allows a capitalist to assert control of products produced by workers.

False, as a capitalist that produces products without regard to social demand will soon lose his capital and find it diverted to some more worthwhile venture.



The production of any good is a social activity
What does this mean? Anything can be said to be a "social activity."


requiring the contribution and cooperation of many workers inside the workplace

Yes...


in addition to the support of society as a whole

Why? What is illegitimate about a factory producing a product that, say, 5% of society wants and the rest don't care about?


as such it is unfair that an individual, who may make no direct contribution to production or assume only a managerial role, should be able to deprive them of their products.

This is assuming an unproven premise regarding the ownership of those products. Besides, the assumption of risk is a major contribution that a non-productive individual can make.


In a modern capitalist enterprise based on share-ownership, the owners often bear no relation to the workplace and are not aware of how production is organized.

Or even what assets are owned! But they do assume risk.


Workers are capable of managing their own workplaces through a system of councils based on discussion and the democratic process, even in industries that require a high degree of technical expertise and discipline.

And they are completely free to do so. Some choose to, some choose not to. I suppose that if they deemed it in their best interest, then they would.


The profits generated from the sale of products are a direct product of exploitation which, in the terminology of Marxist economics, refers to the accumulation of surplus value by paying workers less than the value of their labour.

Well, Marxist economics is wrong. The value of a given unit of labor is a factor of the supply of labor and the demand for labor, give or take market fluctuations.

[RGacky3]

Or even what assets are owned! But they do assume risk.

So what? How does assuming risk legitimize exploitation, and pretty much theft. A bank robber assumes risk as well.


And they are completely free to do so. Some choose to, some choose not to. I suppose that if they deemed it in their best interest, then they would.

Thats rediculous, have you ever asked a working class man if he'd rather be his own boss or be subordinate to someone else? No one wants to be subordinate. They are not completely free to do so, because the means to do so are controlled by a small amount of Captialists.

[pusher robot]

So what? How does assuming risk legitimize exploitation

Risk exists and it must be assumed by someone. All I am saying is that risk assumption has certain costs and it is a service performed by capitalists. If you remove the potential to profit from risk-taking while leaving the costs, then risks will not be taken.


No one wants to be subordinate.

I think you are very wrong. Remember that old saw, "lead, follow, or get out of the way?" Many people are happy to be followers. They are happy to trade low stress and low risk for low reward. They are content to do required of them and not exert any extra effort. They have no problem letting other people handle the really difficult tasks.



They are not completely free to do so, because the means to do so are controlled by a small amount of Captialists.

Employee-owned corporations are not impossible and not even all that uncommon. They just aren't terribly popular, and the main reason is that the employees dislike having to shoulder the risk along with the reward.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:54 pm
When communists talk about private property, they are not talking about your underpants, comrade. They are talking about such things like farms, factories and infrastructure.

Everything which is not crucial in supporting production would still be personally owned.

There is no rational need to example socialise your TV, your shoes or your luxury yacht.

Some communists, most often maoists, seem to stress some sort of symbolic justice and therefore choses to socialise a lot of meaningless stuff, like for example clothes and such.
But there is: It would seem that the socialist community will still need a way to make production decisions. Everyone cannot get a new TV every year. Absent allocation by pricing for personal property, that allocation will be done by the decision of the local council. The idea of a distinction betwen personal and private property becomes blurred and non-existent.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 05, 2007 10:53 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 05, 2007 10:53 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:54 pm
When communists talk about private property, they are not talking about your underpants, comrade. They are talking about such things like farms, factories and infrastructure.

Everything which is not crucial in supporting production would still be personally owned.

There is no rational need to example socialise your TV, your shoes or your luxury yacht.

Some communists, most often maoists, seem to stress some sort of symbolic justice and therefore choses to socialise a lot of meaningless stuff, like for example clothes and such.
But there is: It would seem that the socialist community will still need a way to make production decisions. Everyone cannot get a new TV every year. Absent allocation by pricing for personal property, that allocation will be done by the decision of the local council. The idea of a distinction betwen personal and private property becomes blurred and non-existent. [/b]
Do we assume that society do not have enough with resources to give everyone a TV per year and yet fulfilling basic needs? ;)

Besides, if an individual wants a TV, let her order it digitally. A committee is stone-age.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[spartan]

In the future machines will do all the hard work so you dont have to (I took that quote off a TV advert and edited it a little).

Seriously though i do think that machines that mass produce are the way foward for our future society.

The workers will only have to build the machines (Though eventually already built machines will build other machines when programmed, by humans as fellow machines cannot be trusted think Terminator, to do so), operate them (Actually only program the machines as it is the machines that will do most of the work), repair them (Though yet again special repair machines can do this as well) and thats about it really.

Anyway with a Technocratic approch in our future society i dont think there will be a problem with shortages unless all the machines broke down! :(

But we of course would have a back up if something like this happened.

[RGacky3]

Risk exists and it must be assumed by someone. All I am saying is that risk assumption has certain costs and it is a service performed by capitalists. If you remove the potential to profit from risk-taking while leaving the costs, then risks will not be taken.

Let me ask you, in a COmmunist Society, where production is not for profit, rather for social need, and where there is no property, all property is common, what risks are there? The only reason there are risks is because people who have a lot, have a lot to loose, so risks don't justify property, they are just a result of it, risks are assumed.


Many people are happy to be followers. They are happy to trade low stress and low risk for low reward. They are content to do required of them and not exert any extra effort. They have no problem letting other people handle the really difficult tasks.

Thats comeplete bull, most working people have high stress, since they don't know how long their job wil last, they have low pay, so they worry about bills and the such, THEY handle the really difficult tasks, (i.e. the actual work of production), and the reaons they do this, is not because they just like being followers, its because they are part of the have nots, they don't have a choice.


They just aren't terribly popular, and the main reason is that the employees dislike having to shoulder the risk along with the reward.

The main reason is because employees don't have the ability to sholder the risk.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:18 pm
Its all about demand and supply. If there was a flood of excellent world class footballers, wages would decrease significantly. As it is, only a tiny tiny number of people can actually make it in the game.

In relation to property, I personally cannot understand how one could have Liberty without it. Liberty starts and ends with private property - Its your own little corner of the world. In the situation where people cannot afford a mortgage, and therefore rent, I think laws need to be passed to give them more privacy rights from their landlords. I used to have a **** of a Landlord who checked our flat nearly ever week, but due to a loophole he had this enshrined in the tenancy agreement. In other words, more needs to be done to protect ones right to property.
Well consider what we mean by property. Also consider what is elgally meant by property. The landlord example is a very good one because elgally the property in question belongs to the landlord rather than the tenant. The landlord is within his rights to push his tenants around so long as there are no restrictions put on his property.

Of course social progress has taken us to the point where, in some countries at least, the landlord's property rights are curtailed to protect tenants. For instanc ehere, you can't be thrown out over a single missed rent payment. These are pretty samll fry measures but they do make a difference, as a socialist I would of course say they have to go further. But someone who wishes to defend property would talk about the landlords property rights and "freedom of contract". They would say you signed up with this terrible landlord of your own free will and the state has no business interfering.

The same argument is amde in creditor vs. debtor arguments or indeed almost any employer vs. employee argument. It always comes down to property rights and the related matter of freedom of contract to these people, and to me that is nonsense.

You say that things like your own home are part of freedom. Well naturally. Each person needs their own home, something I might add that capitalism is not very good at providing. I don't know if you follow the goings on of over here, but if you do Right To Buy will make my point quite clear. However a house is a necessity, we need them to live, where you need something and use it, of course you should be able to possess it and have, within reason, exclusive access to it. But the problem with private property does not lie in people's houses, clothes or porn collections!

Rather it comes down to the fact that it allows one class of people to effectively monopolise control of non human factors of production. This allows for a capitalist class to be able to dominate the economy and renders the rest of us more or less condemned to work for them. There are those who will say "but you can choose who you work for, you are your own free agent". Well to an extent you can choose your employer, though this isn't always practical unless you can jump directly from one job to another, the bills don't stop when you are out of work after all, do they? Anyway the point is that to me choosing your own employer is anlogous to the following:

Imagine if in the nineteen sixties you had someone in Poland discontent as you might imagine with the quality of government they were receiving and wishing the chance to change their government. Someone comes along and tells them they can certainly choose their government. They can move to one of the following countries and hence choose which government they have: East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union.

Not much of a choice is it? But by the logic that changing company is choosing your boss then changing country must be choosing your government. Naturally that would not be a decent choice for the unfortuante Pole in our example and the solution they would be wanting would presumably be to elect their own government.

Which leads us necessarilly into why not elect our own bosses? You might very well say that in some jobs you can and while there are only a few such jobs available you can always start your own co-operative. But here is the thing-you can't! Not very often anyway, because control of resources is dominated by the capitalists. Hence the trouble with private Property!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:18 pm
Its all about demand and supply. If there was a flood of excellent world class footballers, wages would decrease significantly. As it is, only a tiny tiny number of people can actually make it in the game.



most people who become professional footballers do so because they were lucky enough to be spotted by a talent scout, not necessarilly because they were any 'better'. The vast proportion of talented footballers are never discovered. This trashes the capitalist rationale that the market rewards the hard working and industrious.

Then if we're talking about who is most useful to society, then again its the poor old brain surgeon or jet propulsion scientist who gets the raw deal. I would much rather live in a world where Wayne Rooney and Stephen Hawking trade wages.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:33 pm


Anyway with a Technocratic approch in our future society i dont think there will be a problem with shortages unless all the machines broke down! :(


i dont see why, we could have machines to fix the machines.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Land can't be privately owned without the consent of the community through democratic-decision making. No one person has more claim to land, resources, and enterprise than someone else. Unless you're a barbarian and believe we should settle the dispute by fighting it out, which seems likely of "anarcho-capitalism"...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most work would be fun if it weren't for the ridiculous ways in which employers get their workers to be slaves to the almighty $. Workers and consumers should have mutual respect for each other by knowing they are one in the same. The crappy jobs which can't be fixed revolve around capital. Eliminate capital and you eliminate one-third of the work force. No more cashiers. No more financial assistance. No more bankers. No more scammers. No more advertising.

I don't know how many times I've gone into retail and heard a worker bit*ed out for something they have absolutely no power over. Consumers are taught to become obnoxious because they're always right. Yet the people who coin that phrase are the ones not dealing with consumers.

It's true we can't fully-automate every industry, but we can certainly make most fun, and the left-overs can be dealt with on an individual basis. We have the ability to land a rover on Mars, for God's sake. I think we can create remote-powered mine diggers so that people's lives aren't endangered.

[mikelepore]

Sometimes things seem to be necessary only because earlier they were artificially made necessary. It may seem necessary to have a key to unlock a box, or a password to unlock a computer, but those who call it unnecessary in the widest sense of the word are those who realize that it wasn't necessary to lock it in the first place. Under capitalism, things don't get done without the capitalist's signature, the capitalist's money, the capitalist's "risk". This produces the illusion that the "contribution" by the capitalist was intrinsically necessary. Why does this appear to be so? Only because society had previously adopted institutions under which the act of combining human labor with nature's raw materials to produce good and services isn't allowed to take place without the artificial dependence on the role of capitalist.

[Tungsten]

Bob

I want to gain a better understanding of why exactly capitalists choose to support a system of private property. So, please rebut this - show why it is fair that a small minority should be paid vastly more than those that, in my view, actually do the hardest work:

I would have thought that asking this question hell-knows-how-many times over a period of 18 months would have got you an answer by now. I'm sure it has, if not off me, off someone else. So perhaps you're asking again because you're not satisfied with the answer you're given?

Well I'm not satisfied with the reasons against property. It's a useful borderline to, say, stop some fucker(s) just walking off with your life's work for some arbitrary reason. Secondly, how are we judging what's "fair" and what isn't? I think the standard of what is or isn't fair, in most cases, is little more than an ass-pull.

[pusher robot]

Let me ask you, in a COmmunist Society, where production is not for profit, rather for social need, and where there is no property, all property is common, what risks are there?

There are always risks. If I plant a field and the weather is dry, the crops will fail. Living in a communist society will not cause crops to grow without water. Somebody, whether it is the farmer, the corporation, the state, or the community, has to bear that risk. If there is a bumper crop, somebody will reap the reward. Ideally, the entity is the same in both cases.

But this is impossible for me to address substantially because nobody has articulated a coherent vision of how enterprises will function under a communist society. We are supposed to accept on faith that everything will just work "somehow," while NOT turning out like the real-life examples of, say, the Soviet Union.

[RGacky3]

There are always risks. If I plant a field and the weather is dry, the crops will fail. Living in a communist society will not cause crops to grow without water. Somebody, whether it is the farmer, the corporation, the state, or the community, has to bear that risk. If there is a bumper crop, somebody will reap the reward. Ideally, the entity is the same in both cases.

When there is no property, and a crop fails, the community takes the risk, theres no seperation between investor, boss and worker.


But this is impossible for me to address substantially because nobody has articulated a coherent vision of how enterprises will function under a communist society. We are supposed to accept on faith that everything will just work "somehow," while NOT turning out like the real-life examples of, say, the Soviet Union.

This thread is about defending property ethically, which cannot be done.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 04:40 pm

Let me ask you, in a COmmunist Society, where production is not for profit, rather for social need, and where there is no property, all property is common, what risks are there?

There are always risks. If I plant a field and the weather is dry, the crops will fail. Living in a communist society will not cause crops to grow without water. Somebody, whether it is the farmer, the corporation, the state, or the community, has to bear that risk. If there is a bumper crop, somebody will reap the reward. Ideally, the entity is the same in both cases.

But this is impossible for me to address substantially because nobody has articulated a coherent vision of how enterprises will function under a communist society. We are supposed to accept on faith that everything will just work "somehow," while NOT turning out like the real-life examples of, say, the Soviet Union.
Usual Disclaimer: This article does not necessarilly represent my own views as there is stuff in here I disagree with. Nonetheless it is a coherant description of how a socialist society might work.

http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/economicdemocracy.htm

[pusher robot]

When there is no property, and a crop fails, the community takes the risk, theres no seperation between investor, boss and worker.

You can do that, but there are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want to.

For one, the individual farmer is going to care far less whether the crops fail or not, since the consequences to him are no greater than every other person. He might not undertake extraordinary measures or exert large amounts of effort to salvage a crop because the cost to him his tiny and the reward for doing so is tiny. Since it matters little to him personally either way, he will tend to take the path of least resistance.

The other problem that arises is that large deliberative bodies tend to be excessively conservative. When a farmer presents a radical new idea that he is convinced would be greatly beneficial, he has to now convince some decision-making body - probably mostly consisting of non-farmers - to both approve and underwrite his radical new idea, something which has in practice never worked well. Furthermore, if he encounters any resistance to his new idea, he is not likely to push hard for it because he gains very little for doing so. If he alone bore the risk, he can gamble on his bold new idea on his own. If it fails, the rest of the community is off the hook for the loss, and if it succeeds, he reaps the rewards in the marketplace.

[Tungsten]

RGacky3

This thread is about defending property ethically, which cannot be done.
You don't have a monopoly on ethics.

It can be done, providing you use a non-conventional view of ethics (i.e. you bother to question the validity of the status quo). In just about every society, the current order of the day, ethicaly speaking, is non-religious altruism. Your own choice of words confirm this.

The reason socialism has got as far as it has is for this reason. You didn't think you boys were eschewing something new and revolutionary, did you?

[RGacky3]

For one, the individual farmer is going to care far less whether the crops fail or not, since the consequences to him are no greater than every other person. He might not undertake extraordinary measures or exert large amounts of effort to salvage a crop because the cost to him his tiny and the reward for doing so is tiny. Since it matters little to him personally either way, he will tend to take the path of least resistance.

Thats not at all true, considering most farm workers work for a meager wage, or a portion of their work. Your also talking about incentives which has been talked about many many times, and your ignoring the fact that people take pride in their work, but again, thats not what we are talking about, we are asking you to justify Private property, meaning land and Capital.


When a farmer presents a radical new idea that he is convinced would be greatly beneficial, he has to now convince some decision-making body - probably mostly consisting of non-farmers - to both approve and underwrite his radical new idea, something which has in practice never worked well.

That is a good point you bring up, but that does'nt justify private property.

[pusher robot]

That is a good point you bring up, but that does'nt justify private property.

But it does.

If the farmland is his private property, no council or community organization or central planner or vanguard bureaucrat can tell him how to operate his farm. He bears the risk, and suffers the consequences when they play out badly BUT he also reaps the reward when those risks turn out well.

If the farmland is owned by all, then I suppose he has no more say over how his farming is conducted than any other member of the community. This leads to gross inefficiencies due to a lack of risk/reward incentives, once you aggregate them through the entire community.


Your also talking about incentives which has been talked about many many times, and your ignoring the fact that people take pride in their work

I'm not ignoring that fact at all. I'm just arguing that your estimation as to the importance of "pride in one's work" is a ridiculous, ludricous overestimation, especially when talking about work performed far from public view, that few people ever see in person, that is hard, and dangerous, and dirty.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 08:19 pm

If the farmland is his private property, no council or community organization or central planner or vanguard bureaucrat can tell him how to operate his farm. He bears the risk, and suffers the consequences when they play out badly BUT he also reaps the reward when those risks turn out well.

even in a hyothetical situation where the farmer is free to do this, he still has to convince the bak to lend the capital required to carry out this radical new scheme.

And that they will ius far from a given.

[Dr Mindbender]

technocracy, and improving efficiency through improved science will help remove or at least make less significant the risk/reward factor that pusher robot refers to.

Pusher Robot's scenario is only applicable in a society which is scientifically stagnant, which capitalism invariable causes. The motor car has been in existance since Henry ford's time and is still dependent on the 4 stroke cycle and petrol fuelled engine.

Going back to the original analogy, the risk factor involved in farming could be alleviated through the use of large biospheres with weather and temperature control.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Serpent+November 05, 2007 11:26 pm--> (Serpent @ November 05, 2007 11:26 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 05, 2007 10:53 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:54 pm
When communists talk about private property, they are not talking about your underpants, comrade. They are talking about such things like farms, factories and infrastructure.

Everything which is not crucial in supporting production would still be personally owned.

There is no rational need to example socialise your TV, your shoes or your luxury yacht.

Some communists, most often maoists, seem to stress some sort of symbolic justice and therefore choses to socialise a lot of meaningless stuff, like for example clothes and such.
But there is: It would seem that the socialist community will still need a way to make production decisions. Everyone cannot get a new TV every year. Absent allocation by pricing for personal property, that allocation will be done by the decision of the local council. The idea of a distinction betwen personal and private property becomes blurred and non-existent.
Do we assume that society do not have enough with resources to give everyone a TV per year and yet fulfilling basic needs? ;)

Besides, if an individual wants a TV, let her order it digitally. A committee is stone-age.

http://en.technocracynet.eu [/b]
Order it however you wish- it still has to be produced. Is there enough metal, plastics, ect produced a year to built a year to supply all people with a new TV? Probably, but only if other items which require metals, plastics ect. are not produced in as great a number as they might have been.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 06, 2007 11:10 pm
technocracy, and improving efficiency through improved science will help remove or at least make less significant the risk/reward factor that pusher robot refers to.

Pusher Robot's scenario is only applicable in a society which is scientifically stagnant, which capitalism invariable causes. The motor car has been in existance since Henry ford's time and is still dependent on the 4 stroke cycle and petrol fuelled engine.

Going back to the original analogy, the risk factor involved in farming could be alleviated through the use of large biospheres with weather and temperature control.
Biospheres won't reduce risk. And that is because somebody has to build them, ship them, and assemble them. Those workers have to burden themselves with risk as well, that their biospheres are wanted by farmers. Also the community at large bears the risk that the materials and labor used in construction of the biospheres are not more beneficial producing something else. Any economic activity involves risk. Even in a "technocracy."

[FriendorFoe]

If "managment" brings nothing to the table how did they get into the position of power ?



Why, as a worker, would I agree to make the same amount of money as someone who is only able to produce a fraction of what I do in the same position ?

[FriendorFoe]

......

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 07, 2007 12:22 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 07, 2007 12:22 am)
Ulster [email protected] 06, 2007 11:10 pm
technocracy, and improving efficiency through improved science will help remove or at least make less significant the risk/reward factor that pusher robot refers to.

Pusher Robot's scenario is only applicable in a society which is scientifically stagnant, which capitalism invariable causes. The motor car has been in existance since Henry ford's time and is still dependent on the 4 stroke cycle and petrol fuelled engine.

Going back to the original analogy, the risk factor involved in farming could be alleviated through the use of large biospheres with weather and temperature control.
Biospheres won't reduce risk. And that is because somebody has to build them, ship them, and assemble them. Those workers have to burden themselves with risk as well, that their biospheres are wanted by farmers. Also the community at large bears the risk that the materials and labor used in construction of the biospheres are not more beneficial producing something else. Any economic activity involves risk. Even in a "technocracy." [/b]
that is why automotive labour would be employed. Socialist technocracy doesnt apply safe, humanless works simply for utilities and agriculture, no no. It is applied across the board, from the remote cranes that load parts on to the ships, to the AI driving computers that will escourt the parts across land.

This is not economic activity in the capitalist sense at least because the means of production are not run on a 'profit first' basis. There is no market.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 07:16 pm
The other problem that arises is that large deliberative bodies tend to be excessively conservative. When a farmer presents a radical new idea that he is convinced would be greatly beneficial, he has to now convince some decision-making body - probably mostly consisting of non-farmers - to both approve and underwrite his radical new idea, something which has in practice never worked well. Furthermore, if he encounters any resistance to his new idea, he is not likely to push hard for it because he gains very little for doing so. If he alone bore the risk, he can gamble on his bold new idea on his own. If it fails, the rest of the community is off the hook for the loss, and if it succeeds, he reaps the rewards in the marketplace.
The flaw in your logic is that you fail to take into account the social opportunity cost of risky ventures.

Suppose a farmer privately owns a plot of land, and decides to try out some crazy new farming system that completely ruins his crop for that year. You are saying that the farmer is the only person who loses out, but that is simply not true. There is an opportunity cost involved - the farmer's land could have been put to better use. And this opportunity cost is paid by the people who would have benefitted from that alternative use - in other words, it is paid by society.

Every time you gamble with your property and lose, you are depriving society of the benefits it could have gained if you had put your property to better use. You are in effect gambling with the interests of society, but society has no say in this gamble.

Perhaps large deliberative bodies do tend to be excessively conservative. That is their prerogative. But I would like to remind you that there is an increasing trend in the business world to have companies owned and ultimately controlled by large deliberative bodies - whose members are known as "shareholders." If your capitalist friends are doing it, it can't be that bad, can it?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by ontheliberalleft+November 05, 2007 04:18 pm--> (ontheliberalleft @ November 05, 2007 04:18 pm) In relation to property, I personally cannot understand how one could have Liberty without it. Liberty starts and ends with private property - Its your own little corner of the world. [/b]
The problem is that the right to have your own little corner of the world implies the right to exclude everybody else from access to that little corner of the world. Your liberty is increased, and the liberty of everyone else is diminished. If all people owned equal amounts of property, these two effects on liberty would cancel each other out. But that is not the case. As it stands, your freedom is diminished more by the property rights of the rich than it is increased by your own property rights.

In other words, property rights cause you a net loss of liberty - they give you absolute control over your own little corner of the world but they restrict your access to the whole rest of the world.


Originally posted by [email protected]
In the situation where people cannot afford a mortgage, and therefore rent, I think laws need to be passed to give them more privacy rights from their landlords. I used to have a **** of a Landlord who checked our flat nearly ever week, but due to a loophole he had this enshrined in the tenancy agreement. In other words, more needs to be done to protect ones right to property.
I hope you do realize that any law strengthening the right to property would give more power to the landlord - since he is the actual owner in this case.


Jazzratt
Not an attack on you, but I'm wondering - does anyone here know how such a thing as the "liberal left" came about? If old school liberals (John Stuart Mill and so on) saw what is called "liberal" these days they'd be spinning in their graves.
Well, the word "left" itself is used so broadly and has been given so many contradictory meanings across time and space that it is almost meaningless. That's why I prefer to call myself a socialist or a communist rather than a "leftist." The terms "left" and "right" are the vaguest political labels you could possibly use.

So the answer to the question "how did liberals come to be called leftists" is "who knows - just about any political ideology is called 'leftist' somewhere."

[pusher robot]

There is an opportunity cost involved - the farmer's land could have been put to better use. And this opportunity cost is paid by the people who would have benefitted from that alternative use - in other words, it is paid by society.

True, society loses the wealth that would have been created for both parties in that transaction. This is somewhat unavoidable if people are going to be at all free to do things that are not socially productive. At the same time, a healthy chunk of that lost wealth under capitalism is the farmer's own, which creates great incentives to avoid the outcome if at all possible.


I would like to remind you that there is an increasing trend in the business world to have companies owned and ultimately controlled by large deliberative bodies - whose members are known as "shareholders." If your capitalist friends are doing it, it can't be that bad, can it?

Actually, public trading is typically a financing mechanism, and successful companies will attempt to buy back their shares and take the company private again.

[RGacky3]

Most Capitalists try and defend property from the concept of if you built it, or in the case of land, if you've worked it, you have a right to it.

That being said, how can you justify not giving workers the right to what they produce, or the land they work, or someone owning something he's never even seen.

[spartan]

Most Capitalists try and defend property from the concept of if you built it, or in the case of land, if you've worked it, you have a right to it.

That being said, how can you justify not giving workers the right to what they produce, or the land they work, or someone owning something he's never even seen.
Exactly!

Why cant the workers, who operate the means of production, own and control what they already operate themselves?

[synthesis]

I think the problem here is that we are operating on fundamentally different ethical systems.

I think both sides would agree that if freedom is a necessary aspect of civilized society and chattel slavery is a life without freedom, then it would make sense that you would deny people the "freedom" to sell themselves into chattel-style slavery, as that is a much greater loss of freedom than the loss of the freedom of not being able to sell yourself into slavery.

So the issue here is that one side sees wage slavery as "free" as people are "free" to sell themselves into it and free to starve if they choose not to; the other side recognizes that we live in a mode of production that necessitates the institution of wage slavery in order to keep the system going as it does.

It is certainly not as rigid as the medieval aristocracy but modern capitalism still requires a class of people occupying the hierarchical position of proletarians; both because those people would starve otherwise and because goods will not be sold if people do not have the means to purchase them.

Therefore, although modern capitalism necessitates the progressive step of eliminating domestic chattel slavery, it still demands that most of the population sell themselves into wage slavery in order to function at its best. Though it would not exist if it did not have ostensible advantages over other systems, the truth of the matter is that a civilized society should not necessitate selling one's life in order to preserve it.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 07:32 pm
that is why automotive labour would be employed. Socialist technocracy doesnt apply safe, humanless works simply for utilities and agriculture, no no. It is applied across the board, from the remote cranes that load parts on to the ships, to the AI driving computers that will escourt the parts across land.

This is not economic activity in the capitalist sense at least because the means of production are not run on a 'profit first' basis. There is no market.
It makes no difference. Just because the labor is a machine doesn't change that there is an element of risk in production. The machine could be producing goods which few people want; it could be producing goods inefficiently ect. ect. That machine itself could have been produced in an inefficient manner, was designed improperly for the work needed ect.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Edric O+November 07, 2007 09:29 pm--> (Edric O @ November 07, 2007 09:29 pm)
pusher [email protected] 06, 2007 07:16 pm
The other problem that arises is that large deliberative bodies tend to be excessively conservative. When a farmer presents a radical new idea that he is convinced would be greatly beneficial, he has to now convince some decision-making body - probably mostly consisting of non-farmers - to both approve and underwrite his radical new idea, something which has in practice never worked well. Furthermore, if he encounters any resistance to his new idea, he is not likely to push hard for it because he gains very little for doing so. If he alone bore the risk, he can gamble on his bold new idea on his own. If it fails, the rest of the community is off the hook for the loss, and if it succeeds, he reaps the rewards in the marketplace.
The flaw in your logic is that you fail to take into account the social opportunity cost of risky ventures.

Suppose a farmer privately owns a plot of land, and decides to try out some crazy new farming system that completely ruins his crop for that year. You are saying that the farmer is the only person who loses out, but that is simply not true. There is an opportunity cost involved - the farmer's land could have been put to better use. And this opportunity cost is paid by the people who would have benefitted from that alternative use - in other words, it is paid by society.

Every time you gamble with your property and lose, you are depriving society of the benefits it could have gained if you had put your property to better use. You are in effect gambling with the interests of society, but society has no say in this gamble.

Perhaps large deliberative bodies do tend to be excessively conservative. That is their prerogative. But I would like to remind you that there is an increasing trend in the business world to have companies owned and ultimately controlled by large deliberative bodies - whose members are known as "shareholders." If your capitalist friends are doing it, it can't be that bad, can it? [/b]
That could occur, and certainly does, in the capitalist community. Economic activity involves risk. But why would that sort of problem NOT occur in the socialist community? I see no reason to suppose that a socialist community will make people perfect, incapable of errors.

[Green Dragon]

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

Most Capitalists try and defend property from the concept of if you built it, or in the case of land, if you've worked it, you have a right to it.

That being said, how can you justify not giving workers the right to what they produce, or the land they work, or someone owning something he's never even seen.
Exactly!

Why cant the workers, who operate the means of production, own and control what they already operate themselves?
The assumption remains flawed: The production is always successful. It isn't, and the workers are left having worked, but having no compensation for their labor. That's the risk the socialists propose the workers should shoulder, which seems rather cold.

As far as the workers owning and controlling the means of production, why should the workers of a particular plant decide how much of Item X vs Item Y they will produce? should that not be controlled by what the customers for Items X or Y desire?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 08, 2007 01:37 am
The assumption remains flawed: The production is always successful. It isn't, and the workers are left having worked, but having no compensation for their labor. That's the risk the socialists propose the workers should shoulder, which seems rather cold.
That's not assumed at all. Why should a single person carry both the burden and the profit from labor, wile the laborer has neither? In that sense, the production will always fail in a capitalist system - having worked, but for no productive compensation. Socialists simply propose that workers should share all of the burdens with all of humanity, except the burden of work itself, which cannot be shared with those unable to work. This cuts out a plethora of useless jobs, people who will end up as part of the productive, rather than the wasteful or destructive labor force.


As far as the workers owning and controlling the means of production, why should the workers of a particular plant decide how much of Item X vs Item Y they will produce? should that not be controlled by what the customers for Items X or Y desire?

There are various systems described that would help define rationally how good are produced; suffice to say, most don't assume a 100% worker - controlled decision - making body on how many goods are made; the assumption is that when people are in need or desire, workers will be close to those in need if not be in need themselves, and thus be compelled to work. Various institutions, such as councils, have een proposed to this end.

Overall, your argument seems like a very naive, presuptive judgement on socialism.

[Overman]

That's not assumed at all. Why should a single person carry both the burden and the profit from labor, wile the laborer has neither? In that sense, the production will always fail in a capitalist system - having worked, but for no productive compensation. Socialists simply propose that workers should share all of the burdens with all of humanity, except the burden of work itself, which cannot be shared with those unable to work. This cuts out a plethora of useless jobs, people who will end up as part of the productive, rather than the wasteful or destructive labor force.

Why the rat race and what motivation do I have to change from one form of mass industrial society (Capitalism) to another form of mass industrial society (Communism) where all I'm doing is simply playing the game of chasing my own tail because however competent I may be, I and countless others never have any time to rest or enjoy the fruits of my labour including creative freedom because everybody else is engaged in the feeding frenzy of having more money, more children, more fame, more... for themselves?

What else do you propose? Going back to where everybody is doing equally uncreative and uninspiring jobs from generations to generations forever and ever.... ? Let&#39;s hear it for egalitarianism. <_< Sounds like hell, but it looks like humanity.

[pusher robot]

In that sense, the production will always fail in a capitalist system - having worked, but for no productive compensation.

That&#39;s not a description of capitalism, that&#39;s a description of old-fashioned slavery.

Capitalist workers do in fact work for productive compensation, it&#39;s just that the compensation they work for is equal to the market value of their labor, not the market value of the finished product.

[Overman]

Capitalist workers do in fact work for productive compensation, it&#39;s just that the compensation they work for is equal to the market value of their labor, not the market value of the finished product.

And who determines the market value of their labour other than the social class that has the money to pay them as well as has the claim on ownership of everything that is produced by them?

Rarely is there a rags to riches story in this type of situation where the one lowly worker "rises" to become a master of other workers, but that is beside the point of challenging the ethical consistency of having the labour of others owned which could never be accomplished without either trickery or coercion in the past that created such a situation where people are compelled to sell their work, creativity or inspiration and not be owners of it.

And indeed that is what happen as ownership from slave labour and trickery lead to the concentration of political capital (money) to compel yet more people to work for the system of money to further enrich the original slave masters and master liars and their descendents that was cooked up by the same people who enslaved them and robbed them in the first place.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 08, 2007 03:18 pm

In that sense, the production will always fail in a capitalist system - having worked, but for no productive compensation.

That&#39;s not a description of capitalism, that&#39;s a description of old-fashioned slavery.

Capitalist workers do in fact work for productive compensation, it&#39;s just that the compensation they work for is equal to the market value of their labor, not the market value of the finished product.
Slavery is equivalent to capitalism. It&#39;s pretty evident.


Why the rat race and what motivation do I have to change from one form of mass industrial society (Capitalism) to another form of mass industrial society (Communism) where all I&#39;m doing is simply playing the game of chasing my own tail because however competent I may be, I and countless others never have any time to rest or enjoy the fruits of my labour including creative freedom because everybody else is engaged in the feeding frenzy of having more money, more children, more fame, more... for themselves?
Thats an interesting image yo uhave of communism. More interesting is that a self-proclaimed "technocrat" is attempting to rail against dehumanization.


What else do you propose? Going back to where everybody is doing equally uncreative and uninspiring jobs from generations to generations forever and ever.... ? Let&#39;s hear it for egalitarianism. Sounds like hell, but it looks like humanity.

No, that has nothing to do with me or my ideology. But I&#39;m sure fuckheads like Nietzche will be great messiahs for some new, drugged world of technology you might propose.

But yeah - egalitarianism must be dull and uninspired. That logically follows from the concepts that humans are equal beings, right? Maybe it also follows that some humans are more equal than others.

[Obese-Dimentia]

I&#39;m not ignoring that fact at all. I&#39;m just arguing that your estimation as to the importance of "pride in one&#39;s work" is a ridiculous, ludricous overestimation, especially when talking about work performed far from public view, that few people ever see in person, that is hard, and dangerous, and dirty.

Correct me if Im wrong but this points out an social order problem not a counter to eliminating private property. If glorious crop returns are bested over the news of Paris Hiltons new baby, isn&#39;t his pride a little higher?

In history Surplus must develop before the creative arts begin to show. A Dictatorship of the proletariat should elevate the workers status to encourage surplus, when profit begins to become apparent, you can begin a conversion to a much more stimulating system encouraging art and such once again.

[Tungsten]

Kun Fanâ

So the issue here is that one side sees wage slavery as "free" as people are "free" to sell themselves into it and free to starve if they choose not to; the other side recognizes that we live in a mode of production that necessitates the institution of wage slavery in order to keep the system going as it does.
The real problem here is that one side is involved in hegemonic discourse. Guess whose.


It is certainly not as rigid as the medieval aristocracy but modern capitalism still requires a class of people occupying the hierarchical position of proletarians; both because those people would starve otherwise and because goods will not be sold if people do not have the means to purchase them.
Work is necessary no matter what the system. Reward according to the production of values (which are largely subjective) is by and large the fairest way of doing things. No value, no reward.


Therefore, although modern capitalism necessitates the progressive step of eliminating domestic chattel slavery, it still demands that most of the population sell themselves into wage slavery in order to function at its best. Though it would not exist if it did not have ostensible advantages over other systems, the truth of the matter is that a civilized society should not necessitate selling one&#39;s life in order to preserve it.
Does that mean we&#39;re all going to be able to do nothing and have our lives preserved regardless? Sounds good. Who&#39;s going to do all the work to preserve us, then? If the answer is "robots", then keep walking. If the answer is "some of us", then say hello to Mr Class Antagonisms (version 2.0). If the answer is "everyone", then it looks like we&#39;ll all still have to sell our lives in order to preserve them anyway.

No matter which way you turn, there&#39;s always a big "work or starve" sign blocking your path. The sooner this is understood, the sooner true progress can be made.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Dean+November 08, 2007 03:30 am--> (Dean @ November 08, 2007 03:30 am)
Green [email protected] 08, 2007 01:37 am
The assumption remains flawed: The production is always successful. It isn&#39;t, and the workers are left having worked, but having no compensation for their labor. That&#39;s the risk the socialists propose the workers should shoulder, which seems rather cold.
That&#39;s not assumed at all. Why should a single person carry both the burden and the profit from labor, wile the laborer has neither? In that sense, the production will always fail in a capitalist system - having worked, but for no productive compensation. Socialists simply propose that workers should share all of the burdens with all of humanity, except the burden of work itself, which cannot be shared with those unable to work. This cuts out a plethora of useless jobs, people who will end up as part of the productive, rather than the wasteful or destructive labor force.


As far as the workers owning and controlling the means of production, why should the workers of a particular plant decide how much of Item X vs Item Y they will produce? should that not be controlled by what the customers for Items X or Y desire?

There are various systems described that would help define rationally how good are produced; suffice to say, most don&#39;t assume a 100% worker - controlled decision - making body on how many goods are made; the assumption is that when people are in need or desire, workers will be close to those in need if not be in need themselves, and thus be compelled to work. Various institutions, such as councils, have een proposed to this end.

Overall, your argument seems like a very naive, presuptive judgement on socialism. [/b]
It is the socialist community which proposes that the workers who make the product get all of its value in return. The corrolary is that they get all of its failure in return as well. The entire community is subject to the risk.
The capitalist proposes that that labor be split up, so that the burden is not on one person, or group of people. The corrolary of that is that failure is limited in scope, the capitalist suffers the failure because he is the one taking the risk. The worker is compensated for his labor regardless of the success or otherwise of the endeavor because that risk is not placed on his shoulders.

I am aware that there are various theories on allocating resources in the socialist community. And they all seem to suffer from the same problem- total delusion, to put it mildly. I mean most workers are near where they work and will see what will be needed?? Give me a break&#33; I live in New Jersey, USA. A rather seasonal environment. I need an orange. I don&#39;t believe the labor of hypothetical orange grove workers of the hypothetical orange groves of southern New Jersey would produce much of an orange worth eating. I have to rely upon a bunch of guys a thousand miles, or three thousand miles away to supply me with oranges, and the solution to my problem is to send them a letter?

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 08, 2007 03:18 pm


Capitalist workers do in fact work for productive compensation, it&#39;s just that the compensation they work for is equal to the market value of their labor, not the market value of the finished product.
This is totally incorrect, it relies on the marginal productivity theory of distribution which has more holes than Swiss cheese.

[synthesis]

The real problem here is that one side is involved in hegemonic discourse. Guess whose.

Perhaps because there already exists an invisible hegemony that needs no defense on your part?



Work is necessary no matter what the system. Reward according to the production of values (which are largely subjective) is by and large the fairest way of doing things. No value, no reward.

But is all the work that is done today truly necessary? Is it all productive for the social or individual good? Could there not be some or many jobs that could be comfortably liquidated with society still running efficiently, were it not for the fact that the people without jobs would starve?

Your argument seems circular to me.


Does that mean we&#39;re all going to be able to do nothing and have our lives preserved regardless? Sounds good. Who&#39;s going to do all the work to preserve us, then? If the answer is "robots", then keep walking.

You dismiss the role of technology too quickly, I must say. Regardless, I doubt that anyone is really going to be happy "doing nothing." I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;m only truly happy and satisfied when I am being productive for some meaningful end. I think you are too quick to dismiss the basic psychological need for humans to have some sort of effect on the world around them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The concept of leisure and work being diametrically opposed is a relatively new one. Where before post-industrialization life was hard for almost everyone and fun was used to make work easier, we seek to establish a society where life is fun and work gives us a challenge.

People gravitate towards what interests them. That&#39;s why we see scientists, historians, doctors, and journalists accepting less pay as teachers. Few people could live doing nothing productive. If not sheer boredom the social pressure would be terrible.

Maslow&#39;s fifth basic need of self-actualization applies to the communist movement. This is severely lacking in a system where your work is just seen as a cog in the bigger corporate machine. It&#39;s true our post-industrial lifestyles are only partially completed by automation. That&#39;s because the money and resources have been spent on collecting, maintaining, and fighting for capital. We seek to automate the industries that are possible at that time and continue on the industrial image our comrades had of turning factories into fun workshops that are also productive.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 09, 2007 01:27 am
It is the socialist community which proposes that the workers who make the product get all of its value in return.
I never proposed that. I propose that the value should be communally held, the labor communally burdened, all with respect to ability and need.



The corrolary is that they get all of its failure in return as well. The entire community is subject to the risk.
The capitalist proposes that that labor be split up, so that the burden is not on one person, or group of people. The corrolary of that is that failure is limited in scope, the capitalist suffers the failure because he is the one taking the risk. The worker is compensated for his labor regardless of the success or otherwise of the endeavor because that risk is not placed on his shoulders.
There will be shortages and failures in all economies. The entire community can take a tiny hit, versus a single person taking a huge hit, perhaps even costing all he owns.

Also, workers are not fully compensated. Enron is a great example of this.



I am aware that there are various theories on allocating resources in the socialist community. And they all seem to suffer from the same problem- total delusion, to put it mildly.
Is it not delusional to think that an uncontrolled, centralized economy (what capitalism is) is somehow good for the people or sustainable?


I mean most workers are near where they work and will see what will be needed?? Give me a break&#33; I live in New Jersey, USA. A rather seasonal environment. I need an orange. I don&#39;t believe the labor of hypothetical orange grove workers of the hypothetical orange groves of southern New Jersey would produce much of an orange worth eating. I have to rely upon a bunch of guys a thousand miles, or three thousand miles away to supply me with oranges, and the solution to my problem is to send them a letter?
As I said before, councils and organized society is probably the most viable way of implementing an exchange of goods and ideas. Also, the workers will not have total control of the means of production, if I have my way - the entire population will. Perhaps, in a temporary Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they would, but that is meant as a very limited, short - lived concept - which will, incidentally, involve massive organization and exchange.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I mean most workers are near where they work and will see what will be needed?? Give me a break&#33; I live in New Jersey, USA. A rather seasonal environment. I need an orange. I don&#39;t believe the labor of hypothetical orange grove workers of the hypothetical orange groves of southern New Jersey would produce much of an orange worth eating. I have to rely upon a bunch of guys a thousand miles, or three thousand miles away to supply me with oranges, and the solution to my problem is to send them a letter?

Where trade is necessary, it will expand. Right now you rely on a small group of people directing what they think you want to your community. After the revolution you will be actively participating in discussion over what you want, and if not, you&#39;ll have resources available that have been decided upon by those in the community who do care.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 08, 2007 01:21 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 08, 2007 01:21 am)
Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 07:32 pm
that is why automotive labour would be employed. Socialist technocracy doesnt apply safe, humanless works simply for utilities and agriculture, no no. It is applied across the board, from the remote cranes that load parts on to the ships, to the AI driving computers that will escourt the parts across land.

This is not economic activity in the capitalist sense at least because the means of production are not run on a &#39;profit first&#39; basis. There is no market.
It makes no difference. Just because the labor is a machine doesn&#39;t change that there is an element of risk in production. The machine could be producing goods which few people want; it could be producing goods inefficiently ect. ect. That machine itself could have been produced in an inefficient manner, was designed improperly for the work needed ect. [/b]
this is the advantage of state ownership. Because a private entity specialises on one specific utility or good, it is a beaureaucratic obstacle course for its leadership to switch production to a different good that &#39;people want&#39;. However, if you have one body that is already responsible for the prodution of all goods, then there is no beaureacracy involved for that state body to control its own proportion of production. Cappies and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between &#39;people&#39; and &#39;state&#39;. Under communism, there is no such distinction because it is the people who determine state policy, as well as production appropriation and distribution.

[pusher robot]

Cappies and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between &#39;people&#39; and &#39;state&#39;.

It&#39;s not a trap, it&#39;s mathematical reality.

Social choice theory, specifically Arrow&#39;s theorem, tells us that it is impossible to have a totally consistent public choice mechanism for determining optimal social policy.

However, even assuming there was a perfect public choice method, it&#39;s still a useful distinction because the state as an entity can only take so many positions. Consider the question of beer production. Your three basic choices are:
-More beer
-Less beer
-The same amount of beer
Assuming the state is going to be producing some quantity of beer, it has to be one of these three options, right? You can&#39;t simultaneously produce more beer and less beer. So in that sense, the state is acting as a singular entity.

But the people that define the state&#39;s policies will all ALSO have their own singular opinions. Suppose that 50% want more beer, 30% want the same, and 20% want less. Roughly half the population has opinions on the matter contrary to the state&#39;s chosen course of action. You can&#39;t simply pretend they will change their minds to agree with the state&#33; So you still have to distinguish between the desires of the people as a collective and the desires of the people as individuals.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)It&#39;s not a trap, it&#39;s mathematical reality.[/b]
Absolutely, its a reality at the moment.

pusher robot

However, even assuming there was a perfect public choice method, it&#39;s still a useful distinction because the state as an entity can only take so many positions. Consider the question of beer production. Your three basic choices are:
-More beer
-Less beer
-The same amount of beer
Assuming the state is going to be producing some quantity of beer, it has to be one of these three options, right? You can&#39;t simultaneously produce more beer and less beer. So in that sense, the state is acting as a singular entity.

But the people that define the state&#39;s policies will all ALSO have their own singular opinions. Suppose that 50% want more beer, 30% want the same, and 20% want less. Roughly half the population has opinions on the matter contrary to the state&#39;s chosen course of action. You can&#39;t simply pretend they will change their minds to agree with the state&#33; So you still have to distinguish between the desires of the people as a collective and the desires of the people as individuals.

people can only drink so much beer, so i dont accept your analogy. With the exception of alcoholics i cant see a vast proportion wanting &#39;greater&#39; beer production anyway but since production will be determined by majority rule then the needs of everyone will be appropriated to via democratic motions. So if 50% vote for less beer and the rest either abstain or vote for more beer then the ones who want more can still have it since presumably the 50% nays will choose to forfeit their share since they were opposed to greater production in the first place.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:19 pm

I mean most workers are near where they work and will see what will be needed?? Give me a break&#33; I live in New Jersey, USA. A rather seasonal environment. I need an orange. I don&#39;t believe the labor of hypothetical orange grove workers of the hypothetical orange groves of southern New Jersey would produce much of an orange worth eating. I have to rely upon a bunch of guys a thousand miles, or three thousand miles away to supply me with oranges, and the solution to my problem is to send them a letter?

Where trade is necessary, it will expand. Right now you rely on a small group of people directing what they think you want to your community. After the revolution you will be actively participating in discussion over what you want, and if not, you&#39;ll have resources available that have been decided upon by those in the community who do care.
I am looking around the room I am in. I see a computer and accessories, a desk, chair, paper shredder, three crammed book shelves, a half dozen hats, well over a dozen pens, pair of scissors, a filing cabinet crammed with files folders divided accordong to category (with printed labels on them), an empty mug, a box of Christmas wrapping paper (yep, we get t done early here) assorted pictures, tiled flooring which I put down a few months ago (secured by glue). And this is just one room. I am sure most everyone has rooms crammed with little pieces of this and that.

And, in your socialist community ALL of it would be delivered to me ONLY upon my public request, and if the majority of the people present agree that I need it.

Do you really want to know that your next door neighbor needs a new nose hair trimmer every six months? Or how many maxipads your kids teacher needs per month? Do you really care? Who has the time or the interest to wade through such bullsh*t (and do you really want to admit being or knowing such a person)? Do you have any idea what such a meeting would be like? or how often it would have to be held, ad for how long?

Yet, thats what will need to happen in your socialist community for people to get their needed items.

I don&#39;t see it as an improvement over the present system.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 09, 2007 11:46 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 09, 2007 11:46 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 08, 2007 01:21 am

Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 07:32 pm
that is why automotive labour would be employed. Socialist technocracy doesnt apply safe, humanless works simply for utilities and agriculture, no no. It is applied across the board, from the remote cranes that load parts on to the ships, to the AI driving computers that will escourt the parts across land.

This is not economic activity in the capitalist sense at least because the means of production are not run on a &#39;profit first&#39; basis. There is no market.
It makes no difference. Just because the labor is a machine doesn&#39;t change that there is an element of risk in production. The machine could be producing goods which few people want; it could be producing goods inefficiently ect. ect. That machine itself could have been produced in an inefficient manner, was designed improperly for the work needed ect.
this is the advantage of state ownership. Because a private entity specialises on one specific utility or good, it is a beaureaucratic obstacle course for its leadership to switch production to a different good that &#39;people want&#39;. However, if you have one body that is already responsible for the prodution of all goods, then there is no beaureacracy involved for that state body to control its own proportion of production. Cappies and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between &#39;people&#39; and &#39;state&#39;. Under communism, there is no such distinction because it is the people who determine state policy, as well as production appropriation and distribution. [/b]
Well, its not the "people" who will control production in a communist community. It is the majority of the people (50%+1 or perhaps a bit higher threshhold). Otherwise, we are left in the position of praising the 95%+ of the vote folks like Stalin, Castro, Mao, ect received and saying this was a legitmate number and reflects something meaningful and positive to look forward to.

But it still doesn&#39;t matter. The historical record showa that it is NOT more efficient for beuaracracy to control all aspects of a particular production. And that, in part, because risk is still a factor. And that rather than risk being limited, thus the fallout from a bad decision or simply unfortunate events is contained, in the scenario you describe, risk is spread throughout the community. The impact of bad decsions are magnifed, and spread far and wide.

[Dr Mindbender]

i could go into the finer points of your historical innacuracies of your original analogy, but i wont bother cause i&#39;m too tired right now and anyway its for another discussion

. I never claimed that risk per se would be removed, what i am referring to is minimalising it to as small a margin as possible which capitalism is grossly inefficient at doing because it does not coincide with the interests of the class based status quo.
Yes, whatever risk is left will be spread out among the community therefore each member has equal entitlement. It will not be burdened by individuals, which my understanding was the rationale offered for the ludicrous wealth enjoyed by the establishment class.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Dean+November 09, 2007 07:34 pm--> (Dean @ November 09, 2007 07:34 pm)
Green [email protected] 09, 2007 01:27 am
It is the socialist community which proposes that the workers who make the product get all of its value in return.
I never proposed that. I propose that the value should be communally held, the labor communally burdened, all with respect to ability and need.



The corrolary is that they get all of its failure in return as well. The entire community is subject to the risk.
The capitalist proposes that that labor be split up, so that the burden is not on one person, or group of people. The corrolary of that is that failure is limited in scope, the capitalist suffers the failure because he is the one taking the risk. The worker is compensated for his labor regardless of the success or otherwise of the endeavor because that risk is not placed on his shoulders.
There will be shortages and failures in all economies. The entire community can take a tiny hit, versus a single person taking a huge hit, perhaps even costing all he owns.

Also, workers are not fully compensated. Enron is a great example of this.



I am aware that there are various theories on allocating resources in the socialist community. And they all seem to suffer from the same problem- total delusion, to put it mildly.
Is it not delusional to think that an uncontrolled, centralized economy (what capitalism is) is somehow good for the people or sustainable?


I mean most workers are near where they work and will see what will be needed?? Give me a break&#33; I live in New Jersey, USA. A rather seasonal environment. I need an orange. I don&#39;t believe the labor of hypothetical orange grove workers of the hypothetical orange groves of southern New Jersey would produce much of an orange worth eating. I have to rely upon a bunch of guys a thousand miles, or three thousand miles away to supply me with oranges, and the solution to my problem is to send them a letter?
As I said before, councils and organized society is probably the most viable way of implementing an exchange of goods and ideas. Also, the workers will not have total control of the means of production, if I have my way - the entire population will. Perhaps, in a temporary Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they would, but that is meant as a very limited, short - lived concept - which will, incidentally, involve massive organization and exchange. [/b]
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.

2. Actually, the community will take a large hit, because there is little in the way of barriers. Thats what it means to have the entire burden on your shoulder.

What I meant with regards to compensation, is that a laborer works, and is paid for his work REGARDLESS whether the product proves to be useful and has value to the community, in the capitalist community
In the socialist community, in such a circumstance, there is no value, thus nothing to be divided. The worker receives nothing, other than perhaps that bare minimum to survive which is scarcely the great promise of socialism.
(ENRON workers were paid for their work).

3. Not at all. Capitalism is good for people and is quite sustainable.

4. How long should the "Dictatorship of the Proleteriat" function. The last major one went 74 years, and didn&#39;t quite live up to the hopes and dreams which so many sunk itself into in its youth.

And what I have said is that is has nothing to do with the structure of the councils. What are the ideas being exchanged? What sort of knowledge is being used when discussing trade (how is a "fair" trade determined?)?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:24 am
i could go into the finer points of your historical innacuracies of your original analogy, but i wont bother cause i&#39;m too tired right now and anyway its for another discussion

. I never claimed that risk per se would be removed, what i am referring to is minimalising it to as small a margin as possible which capitalism is grossly inefficient at doing because it does not coincide with the interests of the class based status quo.
Yes, whatever risk is left will be spread out among the community therefore each member has equal entitlement. It will not be burdened by individuals, which my understanding was the rationale offered for the ludicrous wealth enjoyed by the establishment class.
Yes, the objective is to minimise risk. So one needs methods, knowledge, understandings that will do this.

The capitalist seeks to minimise risk (or more accurately perhaps, manage risk) because its HIS risk.

But in the socialist community (as described) , that risk is spread out so it is not as apparent, or its not considered as big a deal. Which means the risk is of a greater, not lesser, nature, and its hanging over everyone&#39;s head, not just a few. The question is whether that is a more ethical, a more humane society, as was originally posed on this thread. I don&#39;t see how.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 10, 2007 02:32 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 10, 2007 02:32 am)
green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker. [/b]
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 10, 2007 02:38 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 10, 2007 02:38 am)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:24 am
i could go into the finer points of your historical innacuracies of your original analogy, but i wont bother cause i&#39;m too tired right now and anyway its for another discussion

. I never claimed that risk per se would be removed, what i am referring to is minimalising it to as small a margin as possible which capitalism is grossly inefficient at doing because it does not coincide with the interests of the class based status quo.
Yes, whatever risk is left will be spread out among the community therefore each member has equal entitlement. It will not be burdened by individuals, which my understanding was the rationale offered for the ludicrous wealth enjoyed by the establishment class.
Yes, the objective is to minimise risk. So one needs methods, knowledge, understandings that will do this.

The capitalist seeks to minimise risk (or more accurately perhaps, manage risk) because its HIS risk.

But in the socialist community (as described) , that risk is spread out so it is not as apparent, or its not considered as big a deal. Which means the risk is of a greater, not lesser, nature, and its hanging over everyone&#39;s head, not just a few. The question is whether that is a more ethical, a more humane society, as was originally posed on this thread. I don&#39;t see how. [/b]
a collective entity working with common objective is far more ethical for the community, by a long way.

Under private endeavour, the specific onus is the interests of the owner. The contribution of the worker is merely a means to an end, while the suffering or perks involved are merely consequences.

When that state of affairs is reversed, the onus becomes the other way round. The interests of the company owner does not necessarilly equal the interests of his staff. More often than not the reverse is the case.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 10, 2007 02:42 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 10, 2007 02:42 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:32 am

green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t. [/b]
Of course all labour has value, otherwise there would be no purpose to it. I&#39;m not referring to random tasks which have no demand though, but specifically to established industries. If a capitalist cannot profit from something he&#39;s not going to build his enterprise around it. However, I see no rhyme or reason as to why his task cannot be performed by a worker&#39;s council or union. The arguments against this are based upon nothing but classist chauvinism.

Very few of the most successful CEO&#39;s are renowned for their intellectual savvy, otherwise they&#39;d be headhunted by various prestigous academic establishments.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 02:38 am
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t.
You&#39;re confusing labor with something else. The market rewards people who make sex devices more than individual farmers. Does that mean the labor required to produce a dildo is more valuable than the labor required to feed you? Let&#39;s test this theory by not allowing both of these professions to operate for one week and see what their real value is...



Yes, the objective is to minimise risk. So one needs methods, knowledge, understandings that will do this.

The capitalist seeks to minimise risk (or more accurately perhaps, manage risk) because its HIS risk.

This is more true of the Petit-bourgeoisie than capitalists. I don&#39;t know what system you&#39;re looking at, but an executive losing his job does way better off than a common worker losing his. The petit-bourgeoisie have to juggle the demands of their workers and the banks in hopes of breaking to the top -- which most don&#39;t. If it it weren&#39;t for the fact they withhold workers the the fruits of their labor, I&#39;d feel sympathetic towards their plight.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 10, 2007 02:42 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 10, 2007 02:42 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:32 am

green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t. [/b]
Well Labour expended on useless production is obviously valueless. But products that are useful derive their value from the labour that went into making them.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 10, 2007 01:17 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 10, 2007 01:17 pm)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 10, 2007 02:42 am--> (Green Dragon &#064; November 10, 2007 02:42 am)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:32 am

green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t. [/b]
Well Labour expended on useless production is obviously valueless. But products that are useful derive their value from the labour that went into making them. [/b]
This is why workers would produce useful items. Producing valueless commodities doesn&#39;t happen often if there&#39;s no use for it.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 10, 2007 01:17 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 10, 2007 01:17 pm)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 10, 2007 02:42 am--> (Green Dragon &#064; November 10, 2007 02:42 am)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:32 am

green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t. [/b]
Well Labour expended on useless production is obviously valueless. But products that are useful derive their value from the labour that went into making them. [/b]
No. Useful products derive their value from those who find those products useful.
The consumer of a finished product does not care cares about the amount of labor involved in that finished useful product. A product which consumers do not wish remains useless and valueless no matter how much labor went into its production.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 10, 2007 03:41 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 10, 2007 03:41 am)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 10, 2007 02:42 am--> (Green Dragon &#064; November 10, 2007 02:42 am)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:32 am

green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t. [/b]
Of course all labour has value, otherwise there would be no purpose to it. I&#39;m not referring to random tasks which have no demand though, but specifically to established industries. If a capitalist cannot profit from something he&#39;s not going to build his enterprise around it. However, I see no rhyme or reason as to why his task cannot be performed by a worker&#39;s council or union. The arguments against this are based upon nothing but classist chauvinism.

Very few of the most successful CEO&#39;s are renowned for their intellectual savvy, otherwise they&#39;d be headhunted by various prestigous academic establishments. [/b]
Its not the case all labor has value. Established industries in 1950 are different in 2007, and will be so in 2050. Socialists always seem to perceive socialism as based upon the current threads of society they currently reside. Yet change happends, has happened, and because of capitalism.

It is true that if a capitalist cannot profit from a certain production, he won&#39;t engage in it. But this has to be true with respect to socialism as well. If production of an item in a socialist community wastes resources, it makes no sense to produe it (the production of niche items or that wghich create no profit can only be done by using the wealth created by the profitable industries, so the point still holds).

Why can&#39;t a workers council do the same job as a capitalist? Because it doesn&#39;t have the same role as a capitalist. Those elected officals are taking the same risk, the same ganble as everyone else. The community is not being shielded, and are having the risks thrown in the entirety upon their shoulders.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 10, 2007 01:25 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 10, 2007 01:25 pm)
Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 10, 2007 01:17 pm--> (Demogorgon &#064; November 10, 2007 01:17 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 02:42 am

Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:32 am

green dragon
1. Okay. The labor is communally burdened. That means the ENTIRE burden is on the workers. And its not just labor. The capitalists remove a lot of that burden from the workers. I do not see how that is bad for the worker.
Because it means the capitalists can use this as a justification for taking the production value of the worker.
You keep insisting that all production has value. It doesn&#39;t. Just because a worker produces something, doesn&#39;t mean it has value. If nobody wants it, its valueless. There is no value to it for the worker. he has labored, and received nothing back. That is the risk you claim will benefit the worker. It doesn&#39;t.
Well Labour expended on useless production is obviously valueless. But products that are useful derive their value from the labour that went into making them. [/b]
This is why workers would produce useful items. Producing valueless commodities doesn&#39;t happen often if there&#39;s no use for it. [/b]
True. Which is why capitalism is the stronger and more rational system in this regard. The capitalist can only make profit if he produces items which people want.

In the socialist community, the producer is the worker who assumes the risk that his production is in fact useful. But since that risk is spread throughout the community, his personal, individual, risk, is that much smaller. Combined with the theory that useless and useful products have value simply because it involves labor, the divide between useful and useless is blurred.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The capitalist can only make profit if he produces items which people want.

False. The capitalist can only make profit if he produces items which people want and can afford. Most materials are wasted on inferior goods.


In the socialist community, the producer is the worker who assumes the risk that his production is in fact useful. But since that risk is spread throughout the community, his personal, individual, risk, is that much smaller. Combined with the theory that useless and useful products have value simply because it involves labor, the divide between useful and useless is blurred.

What a ridiculous statement. It&#39;s starting to sound like you&#39;re just trying to disagree for the sake of it. The consumers are entering fields that interest them the most. They&#39;re going to produce what they want. They don&#39;t have to be there. Their life isn&#39;t hanging on the balance.

This is a better alternative to capitalism. Having the consumers act as the workers. Profit motive a lot of times gives us total shit. Corporations [Apple comes to mind] will design products just so that you have to use up more of their services.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 13, 2007 08:12 pm
No. Useful products derive their value from those who find those products useful.
The consumer of a finished product does not care cares about the amount of labor involved in that finished useful product. A product which consumers do not wish remains useless and valueless no matter how much labor went into its production.
Well actually the Labour that went into a product is of great iterest to the consumer because that is what determines the price&#33;

You are confusing two different concepts of value here. Exchange value and Use value. Something&#39;s Use Value is as the name might suggest absed on how useful it is for people. And it is a pretty subjective thing. Although of course some things have very high level of Use Value for all people, Oxygen for instance.

Exchange Value is what we are talking about when we discuss value here. That does not come down to an items use, as I say Oxygen has a very high use value, but precious little exchange value. Exchange Value comes from the amount of Labour that goes into it. And of course Exchange Value is expressed in price.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
good argument, i wish i thought of that. However i suspect the lassez faire cappie response to this will be along the lines of &#39;&#39;it was the capitalist who brought them the work opportunity in the first place therefore any risk incurred is not their responsibility&#39;&#39;. Or something along those lines.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
Uncertainty is different than risk.

If we flip a coin and I agree to pay you &#036;100 if it comes up heads, you do not have anything at risk. However, your future interest in the &#036;100 is uncertain.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 14, 2007 06:28 pm--> (pusher robot &#064; November 14, 2007 06:28 pm)
Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
Uncertainty is different than risk.

If we flip a coin and I agree to pay you &#036;100 if it comes up heads, you do not have anything at risk. However, your future interest in the &#036;100 is uncertain. [/b]
i dont think you&#39;ve appreciated Edrico&#39;s point. If a worker commits themself to a contract for an establishment whose future is less than certain, they&#39;ve potentially risked their personal circumstances by not accepting a job with a more stable situation. This does the worker no favours, since an employment where they have been working for only a short period is a black mark on their CV (resume in the USA).

Which brings me to another point, state vs private ownership. As a rule of thumb, state bodies do not &#39;go out of business&#39; which means that those working there have a greater chance of keeping their jobs for the forseeable future.

[pusher robot]

This does the worker no favours, since an employment where they have been working for only a short period is a black mark on their CV (resume in the USA).

That&#39;s only true if you quit those jobs or were fired for some fault of your own. No sensible person would hold it against a prospective employee that the business they worked for was a failure unless they materially contributed to its failing.


Which brings me to another point, state vs private ownership. As a rule of thumb, state bodies do not &#39;go out of business&#39; which means that those working there have a greater chance of keeping their jobs for the forseeable future.

That&#39;s a bug, not a feature. The main reason an enterprise "goes out of business" is because it was not producing value to society greater than the value of its resource inputs. In other words, it was consuming labor and material commodities and producing goods or services worth less than what they were consuming. Why would anyone consider it a benefit of socialist societies that resources would be directed into enterprises that actually diminish the value of the resources poured into them? That&#39;s plainly wasteful.

Furthermore, if what you say is true, then it exposes the lie of the "state will whither away" argument which is necessary to preclude the emergence of full-scale totalitarianism.

EDIT:

Is the goal of a socialist society to preserve the status quo? Is the aim to make the future as foreseeable as possible by minimizing the opportunity for change?

I thought it was to maximize material benefit, even if that means that some people will have to change jobs. This focus on being able to work the same job your whole life without having to worry about whether what you are doing is productive or not smacks much more of infantilism than revolutionary leftism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 14, 2007 08:28 pm--> (pusher robot @ November 14, 2007 08:28 pm)
Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
Uncertainty is different than risk.

If we flip a coin and I agree to pay you &#036;100 if it comes up heads, you do not have anything at risk. However, your future interest in the &#036;100 is uncertain. [/b]
In that case, business owners are also not risking anything as soon as they&#39;ve recovered their initial investment.

Suppose you invest money in a business, and that business survives long enough for you to get back the money you invested. From that point on, the only thing at risk are your future profits. You no longer risk making a net loss from the business - you only risk the end of your profits. Therefore, you are in the same position as a worker, who only risks the end of his wage payments.

Or, to use your argument, there is no longer any risk for the owner as soon as he recovers his initial investment; it&#39;s just that his future interest is uncertain.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 14, 2007 08:05 pm--> (pusher robot &#064; November 14, 2007 08:05 pm)
This does the worker no favours, since an employment where they have been working for only a short period is a black mark on their CV (resume in the USA).

That&#39;s only true if you quit those jobs or were fired for some fault of your own. No sensible person would hold it against a prospective employee that the business they worked for was a failure unless they materially contributed to its failing.

[/b]
no you wont hold it against the applicant, but nonetheless it would give you a distinct disadvantage. If you were an employer and someone came to you with 15 years experience and someone else came with 1 month experience who would you hire?

Originally posted by pusher [email protected]

Why would anyone consider it a benefit of socialist societies that resources would be directed into enterprises that actually diminish the value of the resources poured into them? That&#39;s plainly wasteful.
Again, you keep drawing this irrelevant distinction between &#39;people&#39; and &#39;state&#39;. In a post revolutionary scenario, the people become the state, so clearly the chances of it producing things that are unwanted are next to nil. Compare that with today, when so many marketing attempts are a dismal failure.


pusher robot

Furthermore, if what you say is true, then it exposes the lie of the "state will whither away" argument which is necessary to preclude the emergence of full-scale totalitarianism.
Firstly im not personally totally won over by the theory that the state &#39;will wither away&#39; per se, i believe that institutions such as unions and councils will be necessary for the running of public affairs and as such there will always be some degree of organised planning. I dont subscribe to the romantic anarchist dream of community planning and doing things on that specific a scale.
Secondly, the word &#39;totalitarianism&#39; is subject to definition. Personally i view the existing status quo as a &#39;totalitarianism of the free market&#39; but obviously that doesnt coincide with your view of the world.
the free market =/= freedom.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 08:28 pm
Or, to use your argument, there is no longer any risk for the owner as soon as he recovers his initial investment; it&#39;s just that his future interest is uncertain.
That&#39;s not usually true. For example, if the business only earns &#036;100,000 but the employees are owed &#036;150,000, that owner has to come up with &#036;50,000 from somewhere, meaning even assets already owned are still at risk.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 14, 2007 09:03 pm--> (pusher robot @ November 14, 2007 09:03 pm)
Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 08:28 pm
Or, to use your argument, there is no longer any risk for the owner as soon as he recovers his initial investment; it&#39;s just that his future interest is uncertain.
That&#39;s not usually true. For example, if the business only earns &#036;100,000 but the employees are owed &#036;150,000, that owner has to come up with &#036;50,000 from somewhere, meaning even assets already owned are still at risk. [/b]
usually, that owner never does though, because the workers concerned do not have the capital to hire the legal means to claim their lost earnings. Its a case of his word against theirs, and how the scales of justice are tilted in the favour of the establishment class.

[pusher robot]

In a post revolutionary scenario, the people become the state, so clearly the chances of it producing things that are unwanted are next to nil. Compare that with today, when so many marketing attempts are a dismal failure.

That is literally impossible.

"People" are discrete organic units, typically of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

A "state" is an abstract organization with a given political and social meaning.

One cannot become the other any more than walruses can become criminal courts.

Thus your assumption is not "clear" at all; it is not even warranted, given the empirical failure of non-market systems to ever do anything like what you describe.


usually, that owner never does though, because the workers concerned do not have the capital to hire the legal means to claim their lost earnings. Its a case of his word against theirs, and how the scales of justice are tilted in the favour of the establishment class.

You miss the point. Usually, businesses will continue operation even when they fail to turn a profit, until it is apparent that they will not return a profit in the future, or they are completely out of both assets and credit. Furthermore, what you describe is rare even when the business goes completely tits up, because of this marvelous invention called "contingency fees." So unless you have some evidence, I&#39;m not inclined to believe that assertion.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot
... So unless you have some evidence, I&#39;m not inclined to believe that assertion.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...17/ai_n13620062 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050417/ai_n13620062)

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:20 am

The capitalist can only make profit if he produces items which people want.

False. The capitalist can only make profit if he produces items which people want and can afford. Most materials are wasted on inferior goods.


In the socialist community, the producer is the worker who assumes the risk that his production is in fact useful. But since that risk is spread throughout the community, his personal, individual, risk, is that much smaller. Combined with the theory that useless and useful products have value simply because it involves labor, the divide between useful and useless is blurred.

What a ridiculous statement. It&#39;s starting to sound like you&#39;re just trying to disagree for the sake of it. The consumers are entering fields that interest them the most. They&#39;re going to produce what they want. They don&#39;t have to be there. Their life isn&#39;t hanging on the balance.

This is a better alternative to capitalism. Having the consumers act as the workers. Profit motive a lot of times gives us total shit. Corporations [Apple comes to mind] will design products just so that you have to use up more of their services.
1. If the capitalist cannot produce an item for which consumers can afford, he will not turn a profit. This tends to focus the labor of the capitalist.

2. I am wondering if "worker" should substitute for "consumer" when it was written "when you wrote "the consumers are entering fields..." If not, I have no idea what you are refering to. If so, its another error of socialism. The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of the consumers, not to satisfy the needs of the workers. Nobody cares what the workers wish to produce. In any rational economy, its completely irrelevent. All that matters is whether what is produced, is needed and wanted by consumers. The interests of the worker and the interest of the consumer are not the same.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+November 14, 2007 03:31 pm--> (Demogorgon @ November 14, 2007 03:31 pm)
Green [email protected] 13, 2007 08:12 pm
No. Useful products derive their value from those who find those products useful.
The consumer of a finished product does not care cares about the amount of labor involved in that finished useful product. A product which consumers do not wish remains useless and valueless no matter how much labor went into its production.
Well actually the Labour that went into a product is of great iterest to the consumer because that is what determines the price&#33;

You are confusing two different concepts of value here. Exchange value and Use value. Something&#39;s Use Value is as the name might suggest absed on how useful it is for people. And it is a pretty subjective thing. Although of course some things have very high level of Use Value for all people, Oxygen for instance.

Exchange Value is what we are talking about when we discuss value here. That does not come down to an items use, as I say Oxygen has a very high use value, but precious little exchange value. Exchange Value comes from the amount of Labour that goes into it. And of course Exchange Value is expressed in price. [/b]
Price is determined by supply and demand. The amount of labor involved in determining price exists, but it is of a small amount.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
The argument is that any economic activity involves a degree of risk. Even in a socialist community one has to recognise the plan could be thwarted by unforeseen events.
So the risk has to go somewhere. True, in the capitalist community, the worker risks his livlihood and paycheck as his labor may no longer be in demand. But he is paid for his work performed, regardless of what happens to the industry. But since he is supposed to share the good times, in a socialist community, he must share the bad as well. The worker could very well have worked for nothing.
The capitalist may only risk previously earned capital in the capitalist community (but that is far more than what the worker is risking in a capitalist community). But this has to be true for the worker in the socialist community as well (whether directly, or more likely, as a result of community pooling of resources).

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 14, 2007 06:49 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 14, 2007 06:49 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 06:28 pm

Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
Uncertainty is different than risk.

If we flip a coin and I agree to pay you &#036;100 if it comes up heads, you do not have anything at risk. However, your future interest in the &#036;100 is uncertain.
i dont think you&#39;ve appreciated Edrico&#39;s point. If a worker commits themself to a contract for an establishment whose future is less than certain, they&#39;ve potentially risked their personal circumstances by not accepting a job with a more stable situation. This does the worker no favours, since an employment where they have been working for only a short period is a black mark on their CV (resume in the USA).

Which brings me to another point, state vs private ownership. As a rule of thumb, state bodies do not &#39;go out of business&#39; which means that those working there have a greater chance of keeping their jobs for the forseeable future. [/b]
But as workers are free to move about from job to job in a socialist community, why assume all working opportunities are of a similiar stable nature? Producing typewriters was at one point far more stable than producing computers. Yet if workers do not take the risk, the gamble, its a problem for the community.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 12:30 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 15, 2007 12:30 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 06:49 pm

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 14, 2007 06:28 pm

Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
By the way, the notion that a business owner is taking all the risk associated with the failure of his business is utter bullshit. If the business fails, the workers lose their jobs. They are taking risks too.

Indeed, the owner is only risking previously-earned income (capital) which he could presumably do without. The workers are risking their source of income by agreeing to be employed by a risky business. The workers have more to lose - they are in fact taking more risks.
Uncertainty is different than risk.

If we flip a coin and I agree to pay you &#036;100 if it comes up heads, you do not have anything at risk. However, your future interest in the &#036;100 is uncertain.
i dont think you&#39;ve appreciated Edrico&#39;s point. If a worker commits themself to a contract for an establishment whose future is less than certain, they&#39;ve potentially risked their personal circumstances by not accepting a job with a more stable situation. This does the worker no favours, since an employment where they have been working for only a short period is a black mark on their CV (resume in the USA).

Which brings me to another point, state vs private ownership. As a rule of thumb, state bodies do not &#39;go out of business&#39; which means that those working there have a greater chance of keeping their jobs for the forseeable future.
But as workers are free to move about from job to job in a socialist community, why assume all working opportunities are of a similiar stable nature? Producing typewriters was at one point far more stable than producing computers. Yet if workers do not take the risk, the gamble, its a problem for the community. [/b]
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 12:11 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 15, 2007 12:11 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:31 pm

Green [email protected] 13, 2007 08:12 pm
No. Useful products derive their value from those who find those products useful.
The consumer of a finished product does not care cares about the amount of labor involved in that finished useful product. A product which consumers do not wish remains useless and valueless no matter how much labor went into its production.
Well actually the Labour that went into a product is of great iterest to the consumer because that is what determines the price&#33;

You are confusing two different concepts of value here. Exchange value and Use value. Something&#39;s Use Value is as the name might suggest absed on how useful it is for people. And it is a pretty subjective thing. Although of course some things have very high level of Use Value for all people, Oxygen for instance.

Exchange Value is what we are talking about when we discuss value here. That does not come down to an items use, as I say Oxygen has a very high use value, but precious little exchange value. Exchange Value comes from the amount of Labour that goes into it. And of course Exchange Value is expressed in price.
Price is determined by supply and demand. The amount of labor involved in determining price exists, but it is of a small amount. [/b]
Think about how supply and demand works though. If you draw a simply market diagram, you will see on the supply curve that at any given price suppliers will produce a certain quantity. The effects of supply and demand will be seen in the way that demanders will show their willingness to buy so much at any given price and in a perfect market (not that those really exist) a price and quantity will be settled on.

But ultimately it is that supply curve which is the crux of the matter here, where does it come from? Not out of thin air, that;s for sure.

At any given quantity produced there will be a price that corresponds to the amount of social labour that went into making it.

It is possible to demonstrate this mathematically. There is an article showing this that floats about this site from time to time demonstrating the empirical strenght of the LTV. I will look for it later.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.
Why do socialists always seem to conceive of a socialist community as being a set, permanent feature?

A "niche" good today can be greatly demanded by the majority tomorrow. And even though this is not so for every "niche" product, this automation still requires production in and of itself.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 01:04 am--> (Green Dragon &#064; November 15, 2007 01:04 am)
Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.
Why do socialists always seem to conceive of a socialist community as being a set, permanent feature?

A "niche" good today can be greatly demanded by the majority tomorrow. And even though this is not so for every "niche" product, this automation still requires production in and of itself. [/b]
needs of a changing public can be met via more efficient production means ie improving speed, flexibilty, versatility and production rates of automotive technology. Its not a problem that cant be solved via scientific solutions.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 01:26 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 01:26 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 01:04 am

Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.
Why do socialists always seem to conceive of a socialist community as being a set, permanent feature?

A "niche" good today can be greatly demanded by the majority tomorrow. And even though this is not so for every "niche" product, this automation still requires production in and of itself.
needs of a changing public can be met via more efficient production means ie improving speed, flexibilty, versatility and production rates of automotive technology. Its not a problem that cant be solved via scientific solutions. [/b]
Needs of the public for stonger ands better computers, at one point a "niche" product, are not to be met by producing typewriters more rapidly and more efficiently.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 01:30 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 15, 2007 01:30 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 01:26 am

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 01:04 am

Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.
Why do socialists always seem to conceive of a socialist community as being a set, permanent feature?

A "niche" good today can be greatly demanded by the majority tomorrow. And even though this is not so for every "niche" product, this automation still requires production in and of itself.
needs of a changing public can be met via more efficient production means ie improving speed, flexibilty, versatility and production rates of automotive technology. Its not a problem that cant be solved via scientific solutions.
Needs of the public for stonger ands better computers, at one point a "niche" product, are not to be met by producing typewriters more rapidly and more efficiently. [/b]
thats what i meant by improving automotive technology, if the same production machinery can be calibrated to produce various goods or even various qualities of the same good then collectively of course a greater bach of a specific product can be manufactured at short notice.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 01:34 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 01:34 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 01:30 am

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 01:26 am

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 01:04 am

Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.
Why do socialists always seem to conceive of a socialist community as being a set, permanent feature?

A "niche" good today can be greatly demanded by the majority tomorrow. And even though this is not so for every "niche" product, this automation still requires production in and of itself.
needs of a changing public can be met via more efficient production means ie improving speed, flexibilty, versatility and production rates of automotive technology. Its not a problem that cant be solved via scientific solutions.
Needs of the public for stonger ands better computers, at one point a "niche" product, are not to be met by producing typewriters more rapidly and more efficiently.
thats what i meant by improving automotive technology, if the same production machinery can be calibrated to produce various goods or even various qualities of the same good then collectively of course a greater bach of a specific product can be manufactured at short notice. [/b]
Its going round and round. THAT automation technology for a niche market is itself a niche product produced somewhere else. Even if it could be "callibrated" appropriately, you have solved nothing. The product from that automation is still a "niche" product, and the resources of the community will still be geared from such risky endeavors to those more "stable" industries.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 01:46 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 15, 2007 01:46 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 01:34 am

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 01:30 am

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 01:26 am

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 01:04 am

Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 12:36 am
because a socialist society will not waste its energies in niche industries that are of minimal importance. This is partly why im i technocrat though since you bring it up, goods that only a minority of people want can easily be covered through automation since only a minimal amount of staff and production will be required.
Why do socialists always seem to conceive of a socialist community as being a set, permanent feature?

A "niche" good today can be greatly demanded by the majority tomorrow. And even though this is not so for every "niche" product, this automation still requires production in and of itself.
needs of a changing public can be met via more efficient production means ie improving speed, flexibilty, versatility and production rates of automotive technology. Its not a problem that cant be solved via scientific solutions.
Needs of the public for stonger ands better computers, at one point a "niche" product, are not to be met by producing typewriters more rapidly and more efficiently.
thats what i meant by improving automotive technology, if the same production machinery can be calibrated to produce various goods or even various qualities of the same good then collectively of course a greater bach of a specific product can be manufactured at short notice.
Its going round and round. THAT automation technology for a niche market is itself a niche product produced somewhere else. Even if it could be "callibrated" appropriately, you have solved nothing. The product from that automation is still a "niche" product, and the resources of the community will still be geared from such risky endeavors to those more "stable" industries. [/b]
if its a base unit which is responsible for the production of a wide range of goods then i fail to understand how you can label it &#39;niche&#39;.

Id like to think that at some stage in the future (post revolutionary you understand) that AI systems could advance to the stage where they can compute and understand fluctuations in human need patterns to the extent that they could be left unsupervised, therefore requiring no human attention, interaction or energy. Bearing in mind that AI is already in its infancy, i see no reason or cause to stop this from becoming a reality other than the stubborn ignorance of those who defend the existing status quo.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 02:02 am
if its a base unit which is responsible for the production of a wide range of goods then i fail to understand how you can label it &#39;niche&#39;.

Id like to think that at some stage in the future (post revolutionary you understand) that AI systems could advance to the stage where they can compute and understand fluctuations in human need patterns to the extent that they could be left unsupervised, therefore requiring no human attention, interaction or energy. Bearing in mind that AI is already in its infancy, i see no reason or cause to stop this from becoming a reality other than the stubborn ignorance of those who defend the existing status quo.
I didn&#39;t call it a "niche" product- you said the socialist community would not waste its energies on production which is enjoyed by only a small group of people (ie "niche" products) and instead would farm it out to machines. Its true that a product which can be produced more quickly, or using fewer resources, will benefit the community. But I don&#39;t see the socialist community doing a better job than the capitalist one. I see it doing worse.

I have no particular objections to your vision. But with respects to socalism, including technocracy, it seems to be a case of "can&#39;t get there from here." I mean, you have already stated that stable industries are preferable to risky ones. Yet your entire project depends on the community taking massive risks (there is no guarantee that a quest to build a better mousetrap results in success, or that its results are worth the efforts placed into it). Themachinery which is developed over time, and it has to be over time, can only be beneficial IF the efforts invested in it is less than the benefits derived from it. And that can only come about by risking the resources on that endeavor instead of placing it into the more "stable" and established industries of the community.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 12:09 am
1. If the capitalist cannot produce an item for which consumers can afford, he will not turn a profit. This tends to focus the labor of the capitalist.

2. I am wondering if "worker" should substitute for "consumer" when it was written "when you wrote "the consumers are entering fields..." If not, I have no idea what you are refering to. If so, its another error of socialism. The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of the consumers, not to satisfy the needs of the workers. Nobody cares what the workers wish to produce. In any rational economy, its completely irrelevent. All that matters is whether what is produced, is needed and wanted by consumers. The interests of the worker and the interest of the consumer are not the same.
1.) That&#39;s exactly what I said. Thank you for reiterating my statement to further prove my point.

2.) No, I purposely used the word consumer to show that innovation will be spurred from the workers simply because they are wanting better products themselves. Everyone is a worker and consumer, it only depends on the circumstance of what your currently engaged in. No one who dislikes perfume will be a part of the production of perfume when they have nearly endless options available to them. The interests of the worker and consumer currently aren&#39;t the same because of the system. People are forced to partake in careers they could care less about, without having any say in the true production of goods and services.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And that can only come about by risking the resources on that endeavor instead of placing it into the more "stable" and established industries of the community.

Workers are more likely to participate in risk than capitalists when neither they nor the community have much to lose from it. A group can take a minor hit whereas an individual that loses almost everything is prone to liking the status quo. That&#39;s what keeps most people from becoming innovative. Without the fear of losing capital innovation would only improve.

Demand can be measured without the market through participation. Even if not everyone chooses to engage over what they want, the workers can produce what they think people want much like capitalists do. There is no clear definition of a "niche product." It&#39;s only viewed as such because a smaller proportion than what&#39;s deemed "normal" enjoy it. The challenge is for capitalists to show why people who enjoy these "niche products" wouldn&#39;t engage in the production of such items.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by GeneCosta+November 15, 2007 02:33 am--> (GeneCosta @ November 15, 2007 02:33 am)
Green [email protected] 15, 2007 12:09 am
1. If the capitalist cannot produce an item for which consumers can afford, he will not turn a profit. This tends to focus the labor of the capitalist.

2. I am wondering if "worker" should substitute for "consumer" when it was written "when you wrote "the consumers are entering fields..." If not, I have no idea what you are refering to. If so, its another error of socialism. The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of the consumers, not to satisfy the needs of the workers. Nobody cares what the workers wish to produce. In any rational economy, its completely irrelevent. All that matters is whether what is produced, is needed and wanted by consumers. The interests of the worker and the interest of the consumer are not the same.
1.) That&#39;s exactly what I said. Thank you for reiterating my statement to further prove my point.

2.) No, I purposely used the word consumer to show that innovation will be spurred from the workers simply because they are wanting better products themselves. Everyone is a worker and consumer, it only depends on the circumstance of what your currently engaged in. No one who dislikes perfume will be a part of the production of perfume when they have nearly endless options available to them. The interests of the worker and consumer currently aren&#39;t the same because of the system. People are forced to partake in careers they could care less about, without having any say in the true production of goods and services. [/b]
1. I fail to see what you have proved. A capitalist wishes to turn a profit. Thus will produce those items which are needed and wanted. He does not make a profit if he produces items which are uneeded and unwanted.

2. Okay. So only females will be involved in the production of perfume. I don&#39;t see where these "endless options" are coming from. I live in a northern suburban area, and my options of working in an orange grove are fairly limited. I suppose I could communte 1000 mile a day daily, but that would be a fairly inefficient use of the community&#39;s resources.
I am also wondering what these perfume workers propose to wear, eat, drink, sleep, and recreate, since they are obviously not involved in a daily basis on these types of production decisions.
It would be nice if everyone could work where they liked to work. But since the purpose of work is not to make the workers happy, but to make their customers happy, there is no reason to suppose the two will line up. Even in a socialist community.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:39 am

And that can only come about by risking the resources on that endeavor instead of placing it into the more "stable" and established industries of the community.

Workers are more likely to participate in risk than capitalists when neither they nor the community have much to lose from it. A group can take a minor hit whereas an individual that loses almost everything is prone to liking the status quo. That&#39;s what keeps most people from becoming innovative. Without the fear of losing capital innovation would only improve.

Demand can be measured without the market through participation. Even if not everyone chooses to engage over what they want, the workers can produce what they think people want much like capitalists do. There is no clear definition of a "niche product." It&#39;s only viewed as such because a smaller proportion than what&#39;s deemed "normal" enjoy it. The challenge is for capitalists to show why people who enjoy these "niche products" wouldn&#39;t engage in the production of such items.
The "revolution" is supposed to come about after the vast improvement caused by capitalism. They own the MOP. So the workers would have a great deal to lose, more so than what they could lose today.

And yes, most people are willing to take risk, when there is not much of as risk to be made.
But again, the issue is that &#39;risk" is just that-risk. The risk doesn&#39;t have to been successful. While I suppose it could be said that risk spread out means more people would partake of it, it can also mean the opposite- that fewer people would take it as they do not see the beenfits as worth it, because it is spread out. Or the dangers of the risk not seen becaus the pitfalls are also spread out. The resources used in the risk cannot be used in what is the known, the trued, and the tried.

Yes, the workers can certainly produce items which they hope their fellow workers wish to consume. But the challenge they face is operating within that socialist environment. They must be able to do things like adjust production (such as labor), raise or lower prices, offer greater or lesser compensation, and supremely, have a system of knowledge which tells them they are being successful in what they do.

There is no particular challenge to the capitalists to explain as to whether workers who enjoy particular products would not produce it. Because most likely, a "niche" product is still one which is enjoyed by thousands of people, by which hardly need thousand sof people to produce. The worker may have no interest in building say, hybrid automobiles, but still enjoy driving them.

[Robert]

Without the fear of losing capital innovation would only improve.

That argument is intriguing and has logical appeal, and it may be correct, but it doesn&#39;t seem inevitable. It assumes that fear of losing capital is a principal impediment to innovation. Is this correct? Much innovation that I have seen in my lifetime has resulted from materialistic ambition, not altruism. Medical breakthroughs may be an exception. But has there been more, or less innovation in capitalist states than in socialist states? My glib answer is that it has mostly been in India, Scandinavia, Israel, the USA, the UK, Korea (guess which part) and Japan, and innovators there have gotten rich in ways that they presumably would not if they weren&#39;t free to try. Correct?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)I didn&#39;t call it a "niche" product- you said the socialist community would not waste its energies on production which is enjoyed by only a small group of people [/b]
Thats not to say that production of &#39;niche&#39; products would stop per se, more the appropriation of resources based on on line of prodution would be allocated on the basis of how many people want that product.

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
But I don&#39;t see the socialist community doing a better job than the capitalist one. I see it doing worse.[/b]
Other than your own reservations and cliches of the soviet era, can you provide a rationale as to why you think this?

Originally posted by Green Dragon

I have no particular objections to your vision. But with respects to socalism, including technocracy, it seems to be a case of "can&#39;t get there from here." I mean, you have already stated that stable industries are preferable to risky ones

The reason why private enterprises fail which specialise in niche products is because they overproduce an item and subsequently not enough people want to buy it. If you&#39;ve already ascertained how many people want an item then you&#39;ve already removed that risk because youre not going to overproduce and subsequently waste resources, time and energy.

Green [email protected]

Themachinery which is developed over time,
that time will be greatly reduced since its advancement causes a conflict of interest with the existing establishments.

Green Dragon

and it has to be over time, can only be beneficial IF the efforts invested in it is less than the benefits derived from it. And that can only come about by risking the resources on that endeavor instead of placing it into the more "stable" and established industries of the community.
It cannot fail to be beneficial if the same amount of produce or potentially even more can be derived from fewer or the same resources respectively. Plus if we&#39;re talking about efficiency, then you would be avoiding the wastage i spoke about previously.
Take if you will, the unsold food produced by big supermarket chains and what happens to it. Capitalist inefficiency in action&#33;

[spartan]

The "revolution" is supposed to come about after the vast improvement caused by capitalism. They own the MOP. So the workers would have a great deal to lose, more so than what they could lose today.
The only thing the workers would lose is their chains.

This was summed up pretty nicely by Marx when he said: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite&#33;" Karl Marx.

[pusher robot]

Needs of the public for stonger ands better computers, at one point a "niche" product, are not to be met by producing typewriters more rapidly and more efficiently.

An excellent, devastating analogy&#33;

What is being missed by our misguided friends here is the gains to be realized from a system that allows people to make huge gambles on unpopular or unknown ideas. Many times, these gambles do not pay off, because the idea was not really worthwhile. But it is those few successes, the long shots that turn out to be "game changers" that have continually pushed technology forward. It is completely reliant on the ability of visionaries to be able to gamble their own assets, or the assets of a relatively small number of people.

In a capitalist society:
You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You go to Silicon Valley and talk to 10 venture capitalists, 2 of whom understand your idea and agree to invest several million dollars into a startup company. Your idea is successful and society greatly benefits from your invention. The VC&#39;s who invested in your company realize a huge payoff from their gamble on your idea.

In a communist society:
You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You explain to the people in your community the benefits of this idea, but they don&#39;t understand your idea at all and don&#39;t see the potential benefit to society. Since they correctly perceive that most such ideas fail and never turn out to be useful, they only see your proposal as a drain on resources. Permission denied, you are ordered not to waste any resources on pursuing your idea.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
An excellent, devastating analogy&#33;[/b]
hardly.


Originally posted by pusher [email protected]

What is being missed by our misguided friends here is the gains to be realized from a system that allows people to make huge gambles on unpopular or unknown ideas. Many times, these gambles do not pay off, because the idea was not really worthwhile. But it is those few successes, the long shots that turn out to be "game changers" that have continually pushed technology forward. It is completely reliant on the ability of visionaries to be able to gamble their own assets, or the assets of a relatively small number of people.

In a capitalist society:
You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You go to Silicon Valley and talk to 10 venture capitalists, 2 of whom understand your idea and agree to invest several million dollars into a startup company. Your idea is successful and society greatly benefits from your invention. The VC&#39;s who invested in your company realize a huge payoff from their gamble on your idea.

I still fail to understand why &#39;capitalization&#39; as you call it is such a prerequiste to the transfer of ideas and their fruition. Also I find it ever so slightly pretentious and chauvinistic that a &#39;venture capitalist&#39; is somehow going to have the scientific savvy to understand the ins and outs of a particular brainchild, particularly if they accumulated their wealth through an irrelevant forte.
If i invent for example, a feasible replacement to the motorcar engine and i wanted technical feedback i&#39;m going to head to the engineering department of my nearest university, or i will speak to the qualified engineers at the manufacturers of a company, but not the CEO&#39;s because they do not know JS. Their field is BOOK-KEEPING, NOT SCIENCE.


pusher robot


You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You explain to the people in your community the benefits of this idea, but they don&#39;t understand your idea at all and don&#39;t see the potential benefit to society. Since they correctly perceive that most such ideas fail and never turn out to be useful, they only see your proposal as a drain on resources. Permission denied, you are ordered not to waste any resources on pursuing your idea.
*yawn* you had to end on another strawman, didnt you, what an anti-climax.
This is based entirely on your own reservations, about negative stereotypes, and does not take into account the advantages of collective learning, and the fact that in a society where education is given a greater onus over menial labour and extra-curricular activities then I may actually be more likely to encounter someone who knows what they&#39;re talking about.

[synthesis]

In a capitalist society:
You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You go to Silicon Valley and talk to 10 venture capitalists, but they don&#39;t understand your idea at all and don&#39;t see the potential benefit to themselves. Since they correctly perceive that most such ideas fail and never turn out to be useful, they only see your proposal as a drain on resources. Permission denied, you don&#39;t have any resources to waste on pursuing your idea.

In a communist society:
You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You explain to the people in your community the benefits of this idea, some of whom understand your idea and agree to collaborate with you. Your idea is successful and society greatly benefits from your invention.


___

The point is not that you are right or wrong, but you are just inventing scenarios that happen to go along with the ideology you propose. It works just as well either way when you&#39;re operating in fantasy-land.

I argue that a society without wage slavery is entirely possible with the technology we have at hand. You talk as if the knowledge, curiosity, or innovation that we experience in our society will suddenly dissipate with economic democracy.

Think about every brilliant brain that goes to waste because it must focus on working 40-hour weeks in order to survive, and think about how they could be put to far better use. It&#39;s not very hard to imagine now, is it?

[RGacky3]

I think the argument that Capitalism is better for new and risky inventions and that outweighs all the exploitation, poverty, oppression, heiarchies and inequality is rediculous, plus in the real world Capitalism churns out tons of inventions, but most of them are only given value through huge amounts of marketing and culture manipulation.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:10 am
I think the argument that Capitalism is better for new and risky inventions and that outweighs all the exploitation, poverty, oppression, heiarchies and inequality is rediculous, plus in the real world Capitalism churns out tons of inventions, but most of them are only given value through huge amounts of marketing and culture manipulation.
This sort of argument strikes me as slightly ridiculous- particularly from a socialist angle. If it is true that needs of the people are somehow artificially generated by the capitalists, then we have to make some conclusions about the people:

they are easily maipulated and can be easily directed to want to certain thngs by slick marketing campaigns.

But if this is true, it would seem to deal a very serious blow to the ideals of socialism. And this is because socialism REQUIRES a faith that people are smart and intelligent, and are able to make informed and educated decisions about political and economic issues of their community. An easilily manipulated people would result in a pisspoor socialist community.

Of course, it could be argued that socialism will "educate" the people appropriately (which brings into the equation the whole "Which came first? Chiken or the egg?debate). Or that socialism magically transforms people in some fashion (which requires proof in and of itself, and is most likely a claim nothing more than a partisan bolierplate).

No, if people are basically stupid then the socialist faces a major problem in his program. If they are not, then in such circumstances the capitalist is meeting a legitimate need of the people and no manipulation is involved.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:54 pm

The "revolution" is supposed to come about after the vast improvement caused by capitalism. They own the MOP. So the workers would have a great deal to lose, more so than what they could lose today.
The only thing the workers would lose is their chains.

This was summed up pretty nicely by Marx when he said: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite&#33;" Karl Marx.
My comment dealt with society post-revolution when they already possessed the MOP. At that point, they indeed have a great deal to risk.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 15, 2007 10:27 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 15, 2007 10:27 am)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)I didn&#39;t call it a "niche" product- you said the socialist community would not waste its energies on production which is enjoyed by only a small group of people [/b]
Thats not to say that production of &#39;niche&#39; products would stop per se, more the appropriation of resources based on on line of prodution would be allocated on the basis of how many people want that product.

Originally posted by Green Dragon

But I don&#39;t see the socialist community doing a better job than the capitalist one. I see it doing worse.
Other than your own reservations and cliches of the soviet era, can you provide a rationale as to why you think this?

Originally posted by Green Dragon

I have no particular objections to your vision. But with respects to socalism, including technocracy, it seems to be a case of "can&#39;t get there from here." I mean, you have already stated that stable industries are preferable to risky ones

The reason why private enterprises fail which specialise in niche products is because they overproduce an item and subsequently not enough people want to buy it. If you&#39;ve already ascertained how many people want an item then you&#39;ve already removed that risk because youre not going to overproduce and subsequently waste resources, time and energy.

Green [email protected]

Themachinery which is developed over time,
that time will be greatly reduced since its advancement causes a conflict of interest with the existing establishments.

Green Dragon

and it has to be over time, can only be beneficial IF the efforts invested in it is less than the benefits derived from it. And that can only come about by risking the resources on that endeavor instead of placing it into the more "stable" and established industries of the community.
It cannot fail to be beneficial if the same amount of produce or potentially even more can be derived from fewer or the same resources respectively. Plus if we&#39;re talking about efficiency, then you would be avoiding the wastage i spoke about previously.
Take if you will, the unsold food produced by big supermarket chains and what happens to it. Capitalist inefficiency in action&#33; [/b]
ANY production in a rational economy (such as capitalism) would be based upon what the demand is for those products. But then such an economy then requires that production is geared to satisy the needs of people who want a particular item- niche or not. Yet the socialists on this thread continue to insist that the worker of that particular product will decide what to produce (based upon what he or she is willing to risk in making such decisions) and that the value of that product is in large part determined by how much labor went into that product. Production is therefore NOT being geared to satisfy the needs of the consumers in the socialist community (its just sort being assumed that, somehow, it will all work out, which it won&#39;t). Its being geared to satisfy the need of the worker producing those items. And since production in the socialist community is not geared to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers, then it does not strike me as being able to do a better job in providing goods to the people.

[Dr Mindbender]

As ive said before to pusher robot, the cappies, liberals and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between the communist state and post-revolutionary peoples. So For the Nth and last time-
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 2, THE STATE WILL BE CONSTITUTED BY THE PEOPLE&#39;s THEREFORE THE PEOPLE&#39;S WILL WILL DETERMINE PRODUCTION.
Production will take place on appropriation by demand, decided democratically, by the state (peoples) councils. Since these are constituted by the people, everyone gets a fair say.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 pm
If i invent for example, a feasible replacement to the motorcar engine and i wanted technical feedback i&#39;m going to head to the engineering department of my nearest university, or i will speak to the qualified engineers at the manufacturers of a company, but not the CEO&#39;s because they do not know JS. Their field is BOOK-KEEPING, NOT SCIENCE.


Define "feasible" in a socialist community.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 16, 2007 01:51 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 16, 2007 01:51 am)
Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 pm
If i invent for example, a feasible replacement to the motorcar engine and i wanted technical feedback i&#39;m going to head to the engineering department of my nearest university, or i will speak to the qualified engineers at the manufacturers of a company, but not the CEO&#39;s because they do not know JS. Their field is BOOK-KEEPING, NOT SCIENCE.


Define "feasible" in a socialist community. [/b]
defined through several characteristics, including efficiency, environmental impact and resources and time needed to build one unit. If all of these factors can be regarded as having greater positives then it seems to me a project can be deemed feasible. Other people may have different definitions whom i cant speak for but i feel thats a fair one to start with.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 01:51 am
As ive said before to pusher robot, the cappies, liberals and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between the communist state and post-revolutionary peoples. So For the Nth and last time-
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 2, THE STATE WILL BE CONSTITUTED BY THE PEOPLE&#39;s THEREFORE THE PEOPLE&#39;S WILL WILL DETERMINE PRODUCTION.
Production will take place on appropriation by demand, decided democratically, by the state (peoples) councils. Since these are constituted by the people, everyone gets a fair say.
Yes, and this "cappie" has already challenged that notion:

The production is determined by the democratically elected council, that council still needs to know what to produce. Seems to me the only way to do this, and to remain a democratic council, is for the people to inform the council what they need. So the council can be expected to wade through many requests for carpeting, cat litter, lawn mowers, hats, gloves ect ect ect. This generates mountains of requests. Then, since production cannot satisy all peole at once (does a person really need a new refrigerator every year? ) they will have to be able to deny people things they request. A "fair say" will not guarantee by a person will not guarantee that that person will get what he or she wants if the council determines somebody else has the greater need.

Such a structure destroys the divide which sociialsist like to make between "public" and "personal" property, since ALL possessions are ultimately at the approval of the democratically elected council. The other issue is the immense beauracracy which will be needed to be created to help support the council in its decisions.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 16, 2007 01:55 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 16, 2007 01:55 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 16, 2007 01:51 am

Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 pm
If i invent for example, a feasible replacement to the motorcar engine and i wanted technical feedback i&#39;m going to head to the engineering department of my nearest university, or i will speak to the qualified engineers at the manufacturers of a company, but not the CEO&#39;s because they do not know JS. Their field is BOOK-KEEPING, NOT SCIENCE.


Define "feasible" in a socialist community.
defined through several characteristics, including efficiency, environmental impact and resources and time needed to build one unit. If all of these factors can be regarded as having greater positives then it seems to me a project can be deemed feasible. Other people may have different definitions whom i cant speak for but i feel thats a fair one to start with. [/b]
That would be a fair definition of "feasable."

Unfortunately, (for the socialist) its how the capitalists generally define it as well.
So, sorry, its an unworkable definition within a socialist community.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 16, 2007 01:59 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 16, 2007 01:59 am)
Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 01:51 am
As ive said before to pusher robot, the cappies, liberals and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between the communist state and post-revolutionary peoples. So For the Nth and last time-
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 2, THE STATE WILL BE CONSTITUTED BY THE PEOPLE&#39;s THEREFORE THE PEOPLE&#39;S WILL WILL DETERMINE PRODUCTION.
Production will take place on appropriation by demand, decided democratically, by the state (peoples) councils. Since these are constituted by the people, everyone gets a fair say.
Yes, and this "cappie" has already challenged that notion:

The production is determined by the democratically elected council, that council still needs to know what to produce. Seems to me the only way to do this, and to remain a democratic council, is for the people to inform the council what they need. So the council can be expected to wade through many requests for carpeting, cat litter, lawn mowers, hats, gloves ect ect ect. This generates mountains of requests. Then, since production cannot satisy all peole at once (does a person really need a new refrigerator every year? ) they will have to be able to deny people things they request. A "fair say" will not guarantee by a person will not guarantee that that person will get what he or she wants if the council determines somebody else has the greater need.

Such a structure destroys the divide which sociialsist like to make between "public" and "personal" property, since ALL possessions are ultimately at the approval of the democratically elected council. The other issue is the immense beauracracy which will be needed to be created to help support the council in its decisions. [/b]
i envisage some sort of &#39;checklist&#39; survey system which every citizen can complete and then this helps the council process who needs what to ensure that none of the wastage i spoke of previously can happen. As for avoiding beaureacracy, as much as possible, I believe in a federal system where the jurisdiction is broken down into smaller and smaller authorities, dealing with respective issues ultimately down to the workplace level so that state affairs such as this can be dealth with by trade unions.
While smaller authorities deal with issues such as appropriation of goods, (convienient since the workplaces will be where these things are produced) larger authorities can deal with things like utilities and civic planning.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 14, 2007 11:03 pm--> (pusher robot @ November 14, 2007 11:03 pm)
Edric [email protected] 14, 2007 08:28 pm
Or, to use your argument, there is no longer any risk for the owner as soon as he recovers his initial investment; it&#39;s just that his future interest is uncertain.
That&#39;s not usually true. For example, if the business only earns &#036;100,000 but the employees are owed &#036;150,000, that owner has to come up with &#036;50,000 from somewhere, meaning even assets already owned are still at risk. [/b]
Are you suggesting that most businesses are making a net loss most of the time?

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 15, 2007 03:56 pm

You are a person with a visionary idea for producing nano-widgets, but it&#39;s a long shot and requires substantial capitalization to pursue. You go to Silicon Valley and talk to 10 venture capitalists, 2 of whom understand your idea and agree to invest several million dollars into a startup company. Your idea is successful and society greatly benefits from your invention. The VC&#39;s who invested in your company realize a huge payoff from their gamble on your idea.


In one in a hundred instances, and probably less frequently, it may turn out like that.

But several other outcomes are more probable.

1. The venture capitalists won&#39;t invest in your idea until you tell them exactly what it is. Now that they know your idea, they don&#39;t need you anymore. They can start their own company, and hire people like you, for low wages, to implement your idea. Your profit: zero. (And, since you knew in advance that this is what would happen, you didn&#39;t bother to bring the idea to them in the first place. You did the smart thing and just forgot about it.)

2. The person with the idea is an employee who, as a requirement to obtain enployment, signed the standard contract that said the employer acquires all rights to any of the individual&#39;s inventions, even those developed during off hours.

3. In most cases, capitalist ideas are trivial, with generality like "find some way to do this better", and then hundreds or perhaps thousands of designers and technicians who work for flat salaries are assigned that task of "finding some way." The solution process occurs in such specialized increments that there is no single inventor. The team of workers as a whole is the inventor.

4. The person who had the wonderful new idea is a worker who suggested it to the boss. The boss responds by instructing the worker to shut up and obey orders. It is made clear that generating suggestions is considered an act of disloyalty. The personnel folder of the worker who suggested the new idea is rubber-stamped to indicate that the individual is subsequently viewed by the company as a trouble-maker.

P.S. - My conclusions are based on my experience working for 17 years as a design engineer in a semiconductor company.

[pusher robot]

The point is not that you are right or wrong, but you are just inventing scenarios that happen to go along with the ideology you propose. It works just as well either way when you&#39;re operating in fantasy-land.


Yes, you&#39;re right, it was a crappy argument.

But it does have at least this going for it: the first hypothetical can at least be empirically proven to be possible. It happens every day under the status quo. On the other hand, all nontrivial applications of the socialist theories to the same sets of circumstances have yielded fairly mostly failure. We have only faith in your theory that it is in fact feasible.

[Demogorgon]

It is perfectly possible to construct a socialist model that both allows for and encourages innovation. The point is, control of resources should be decentralised as possible. I have suggested a particular model here many times where resources are first used t satsfy needs and the rest divied up for individual co-operatives to do as they will with them. Innovation is very easy to envisage under such a model.

Easier than it is under capitlaism, where far from someone with a new idea being able to go ahead and carry it out, they require funding. Whether it be from the bank, their company, some individual venture capitalist or whatever. Anyone who has ever tried to get such funding will tell you it is not easy and you have to fight tooth and nail to get it. Hell sometimes it is even alloated by committee, the thing the capitalists here seem to criticise the most.

[pusher robot]

I have suggested a particular model here many times where resources are first used t satsfy needs and the rest divied up for individual co-operatives to do as they will with them. Innovation is very easy to envisage under such a model.

How do you define "needs" in such a way that they aren&#39;t practically infinite?


Whether it be from the bank, their company, some individual venture capitalist or whatever.

The difference is that under capitalism, the potential funders all have a personal and not just a generalized interest in funding successful ventures. That greatly increases the motivation to seek out and fund possible successes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

All these capitalist arguments about motivation ignore one key fact: Assuming that the benefits from a given venture are finite over a given period of time, increasing one person&#39;s motivation by giving him a larger share of the benefits will necessarily decrease the motivation of everyone else.

In other words, if all the benefits from a firm&#39;s success go to a single person (the owner) or to a group of funders, then all the other people involved in the firm - for example the workers - have no stake in the firm&#39;s success and no incentive to make the firm perform better.

Wages, by the way, are not an incentive for workers to help the firm perform better, since workers&#39; wages are not normally tied to the firm&#39;s performance.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 16, 2007 02:02 am--> (Green Dragon @ November 16, 2007 02:02 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 01:55 am

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 16, 2007 01:51 am

Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 pm
If i invent for example, a feasible replacement to the motorcar engine and i wanted technical feedback i&#39;m going to head to the engineering department of my nearest university, or i will speak to the qualified engineers at the manufacturers of a company, but not the CEO&#39;s because they do not know JS. Their field is BOOK-KEEPING, NOT SCIENCE.


Define "feasible" in a socialist community.
defined through several characteristics, including efficiency, environmental impact and resources and time needed to build one unit. If all of these factors can be regarded as having greater positives then it seems to me a project can be deemed feasible. Other people may have different definitions whom i cant speak for but i feel thats a fair one to start with.
That would be a fair definition of "feasable."

Unfortunately, (for the socialist) its how the capitalists generally define it as well.
So, sorry, its an unworkable definition within a socialist community. [/b]
yes, I was going to reply to this one before the server fucked up -if you read my post i deliberately omitted &#39;financial factors&#39; which is relevant under capitalism but not under socialism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 16, 2007 07:33 pm
How do you define "needs" in such a way that they aren&#39;t practically infinite?


Come on, you know economics. You don&#39;t need me to explain the differenc ebetween wants and needs. Essentially we use our resources first to satisfy our needs then let the co-ops or whatever satisfy wants

The difference is that under capitalism, the potential funders all have a personal and not just a generalized interest in funding successful ventures. That greatly increases the motivation to seek out and fund possible successes.Sure, but it&#39;s not ideal because as Edric O points out, it does not extend the incentive tot ose doing the actual work.

It is perfectly feasible to have a model whereby their is personal incentive to success within a socialst framework. Ignoring talk of some future Communist society for a moment, as we can hardly draw up "recipes for the cookshops of the future" after all and looking at a potential transitional socialist phase, you can have people all working as part of some co-operative body or another (for the sake of simplicity we will leave out other actors).

As this is a transitional phase, we still have money to buy what we need so each worker will be receiving money from their co-operative. It shall not, however, be wage slaery as they are drawing the full fruits of their labour rather than a mere wage. Essentially under these circumstances a workers rewards are directly tied to the success of the body to which they are affiliated.

YOu can provide all sorts of models like that, and I won&#39;t pin my clours to any given mast and I am not saying the above is definitely a good diea or whatever, it is simply an example to show you how personal incentives are possible under socialism.

[synthesis]

How do you define "needs" in such a way that they aren&#39;t practically infinite?

The Communist concept of a "need" is oriented around the idea that humans have a "right to life", not in the pro-life way but that a civilized society should respect a person&#39;s right to life, which is denied whenever a person does not have food, shelter, clean water, and healthcare; in short, those things which people require to live.

It doesn&#39;t mean anything else. If you have a friend who can build televisions and he builds you a bigger one than what everyone else has, there is no need for a People&#39;s Brigade to come through and repossess it. However, we argue that a society oriented in such a way that people have to devote most of their lives to such activities to survive is nothing more then slavery in a more efficient disguise.

[Robert]

whenever a person does not have food, shelter, clean water, and healthcare

Sounds wonderful.

Here&#39;s the problem: What if anything does a person owe to society in exchange for these guarantees?

Then follows this bigger problem: What if he doesn&#39;t want to pay the price set by society? Health care for example requires real hospitals with real employees who deserve a living wage too. Or does he get to set his own price and society owes him the food, shelter etc. on his terms?

[Dr Mindbender]

that depends what you mean by the &#39;anything&#39;. If its labour, then the status quo has set about a precedence of providing in quantity only the most boring, alienating and degrading work.

It will be about bringing about a change of onus from meeting the whims of the free market to utilising the talents, individuality and aspirations of the working people concerned. About the transition from human energy to automotive power. Then people will be willing to help build the progressive society.

[Robert]

Ulster, you are usually very transparent. I confess however that I do not now have the faintest idea what you are talking about. If people are free under your system, then they will have the freedom to ask for more than what everyone else thinks is reasonable. You do want them to have that freedom, I hope.

As for this:


Then people will be willing to help build the progressive society.

Don&#39;t count on it. Not without guarantees of wages and benefits that society may -- or may not -- be willing to pay. What do they do then? Refuse to work? In the meantime do the nurses at the hospital have to give them care even if they aren&#39;t working because they aren&#39;t happy with their wages?
If you say yes, then you&#39;re talking enslavement of the nurses.

Give it up.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 08:37 am
Not without guarantees of wages and benefits that society may -- or may not -- be willing to pay. What do they do then? Refuse to work? In the meantime do the nurses at the hospital have to give them care even if they aren&#39;t working because they aren&#39;t happy with their wages?
If people didn&#39;t think socialism was going to be better, they wouldn&#39;t of had a movement to bring its existence into their nation. The nurses, expecting a better future, would still care for the needy and such. I&#39;m sure they would understand why some of their benefits are going downhill temporarily due to revolt, an imperialist nation attacking theirs in an attempt to stop the revolution, etc. You also forget that most nurses want to be nurses, either as their main job or to advance onto one that they feel they will be better at. (such as a doctor, etc)

Socialism would be viewed as a liberating force, hence the nurses will continue to do their jobs as they too will also view it in the same way unless 99% of the nurses in the nation happen to be so anti-Communist that they will refuse to do their work and cause people to suffer.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 18, 2007 01:37 pm
Ulster, you are usually very transparent. I confess however that I do not now have the faintest idea what you are talking about. If people are free under your system, then they will have the freedom to ask for more than what everyone else thinks is reasonable. You do want them to have that freedom, I hope.

As for this:


Then people will be willing to help build the progressive society.

Don&#39;t count on it. Not without guarantees of wages and benefits that society may -- or may not -- be willing to pay. What do they do then? Refuse to work? In the meantime do the nurses at the hospital have to give them care even if they aren&#39;t working because they aren&#39;t happy with their wages?
If you say yes, then you&#39;re talking enslavement of the nurses.

Give it up.
its a matter of logistics. People will be free to take what they can, but since its only practical for people to take so much this will limit what they do take. Does that make sense? To avoid people making multiple visits to outlets, i envisage a ticket system in place of wages which allows the person to take as much as they can per visit. This can be computer scanned for the person&#39;s benefit, in case the ticket is either lost or someone attempts to use it fraudulently. All goods would be available under one roof, since it would be a state institution and the need for competing shop brands would be removed.
You have to remember that at the moment the vast majority of produce is either squandered or disposed of entirely, all of the unsold food in supermarkets for example is thrown away rather than given to the starving needy.

[synthesis]

Well, here&#39;s the thing. A communist society is not going to work if most people in it do not respect the basic right to life of all humans. But the point is that it is indeed a basic right and the fact that most people today do not believe in it does not mean that it is an unfeasible system.

Analogously, the fact that people may not believe in freedom to speak freely for flag burners does not mean that freedom to speak freely is not a basic right. For most people to believe in the right to life I suspect it will take a drastic reversal of conditions for most Westerners to adhere to our point of view.

[synthesis]

Also, if we are talking hypothetically here, there could easily be an unwritten system where expertise is rewarded with other expertise. For example, I suspect that the afore-mentioned television technician would be far more likely to build a flat-screen TV, of his or her own volition, for someone who is donating their labor to improve others&#39; quality of life than for someone who wants to sit on their ass in their apartment and grow weed plants all day.

Is it so unreasonable to suspect that most people would be in favor of a system where everyone donates perhaps 200 hours a year to service of the community, to practice their craft or teach it to others, and had the rest of their lives to be as productive as they wish -- as opposed to the current system, where most people "donate" 2000+ hours a year in the interest of their employing business?

[Robert]

If people didn&#39;t think socialism was going to be better, they wouldn&#39;t of had a movement to bring its existence into their nation.

Well, yes, Mrdie, of course the socialists believe it. In the USA, that&#39;s a very, very small number. But I thought we were talking communism here, in which case the number is even smaller, because no one is buying into the theory here for all the reasons I&#39;m giving you, plus their memory of the East Germans cheering as the wall came down.



I&#39;m sure they would understand why some of their benefits are going downhill temporarily due to revolt

I&#39;m sure they would too, but they wouldn&#39;t be happy about it, especially if they see the leaders of the revolt sitting around smoking pipes and theorizing while they&#39;re busy starting IV&#39;s, inserting tracheotomy tubes, and making rounds (do you guys have any idea how hard nursing is?)

But you&#39;re still avoiding the question. Let&#39;s go beyond the revolution. Now we&#39;re day-to-day, and our hypothetical nurse is working, say, 12-16 hours a day because there&#39;s an epidemic of influenza or Avian flu. They are going to expect more in return than the warm unquantifiable feeling that they are helping their fellow man. Will they continue to show up for work even if they feel that society is undervaluing their service? Probably. But again, they won&#39;t be happy, the word will get around, and fewer students will apply to nursing school. That&#39;s human nature.


since its only practical for people to take so much this will limit what they do take. Does that make sense?

No. Are you serious? Clever and greedy people can take everything, and they&#39;ve shown a propensity to do so for the last 5000 years. Taxation and confiscation can stop people from becoming pharoahs, but, don&#39;t you know many people yourself who have more than they need and want more?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 02:05 am
i envisage some sort of &#39;checklist&#39; survey system which every citizen can complete and then this helps the council process who needs what to ensure that none of the wastage i spoke of previously can happen. As for avoiding beaureacracy, as much as possible, I believe in a federal system where the jurisdiction is broken down into smaller and smaller authorities, dealing with respective issues ultimately down to the workplace level so that state affairs such as this can be dealth with by trade unions.
While smaller authorities deal with issues such as appropriation of goods, (convienient since the workplaces will be where these things are produced) larger authorities can deal with things like utilities and civic planning.
The "checklist" would not so much be a guide to the council, but its driving force in its decision. I see no other way to prove that production is only geared for needed goods. The logistics would be immense, however, far superceding any hope of a decentralised system.

Logically, such entralised system is impossible. And that is because requests for an item, has to be produced somewhere. And since you have agreed that the benefits of production should outweigh its costs, there is no requirement for a producer to provide you with the item you wish, if that producer determines that such production does not benefit him. And also because every community cannot possibly produce all things. How does the community compel another community to provide its needed items (capitalism of course has a thouroughly reasonable answer)?

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 16, 2007 07:45 pm
All these capitalist arguments about motivation ignore one key fact: Assuming that the benefits from a given venture are finite over a given period of time, increasing one person&#39;s motivation by giving him a larger share of the benefits will necessarily decrease the motivation of everyone else.

In other words, if all the benefits from a firm&#39;s success go to a single person (the owner) or to a group of funders, then all the other people involved in the firm - for example the workers - have no stake in the firm&#39;s success and no incentive to make the firm perform better.

Wages, by the way, are not an incentive for workers to help the firm perform better, since workers&#39; wages are not normally tied to the firm&#39;s performance.
It was indeed adressed earlier in this thread.

Its called "risk." To repeat: Ever economic undertaking involves this. Even in a socialist community, since socialism does NOT bestow upon the community clairvoyance. And the risk is whether there ARE benefits resulting from that economic undertaking. So yes, in a socialist community the workers might share the benefits of a successful economic endeavor. But they also must share the cost of failure, a reality which socialists never seem to consider.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 09:19 pm
defined through several characteristics, including efficiency, environmental impact and resources and time needed to build one unit. If all of these factors can be regarded as having greater positives then it seems to me a project can be deemed feasible. Other people may have different definitions whom i cant speak for but i feel thats a fair one to start with.
That would be a fair definition of "feasable."

Unfortunately, (for the socialist) its how the capitalists generally define it as well.
So, sorry, its an unworkable definition within a socialist community. [/QUOTE]
yes, I was going to reply to this one before the server fucked up -if you read my post i deliberately omitted &#39;financial factors&#39; which is relevant under capitalism but not under socialism. [/quote]


It ought be noted that you agree that that production wull only take place if the benefits of that production outweigh its costs. That is what a "profit" is all about. Socialist production, in your technocracy, will need to turn a profit to justify its existence. Nothing to be ashamed about. It is entirely reasonable and rational to say that the value of a produced good ought to exced the costs in producing.

But then you need a way to determine this. Efficiency? Perhaps a more efficient machine could produce more goods ina shorter period of time. But how does one determine if there is a need for more of those goods? Environmental impact? Polution is a byproduct of living (all creatures pollute). How does on e know if the benefits of a less polluting machine is worth the costs which are applied elsewhere?
Financial factorss are the best way to measure this. The socialist community will be lost without it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
No. Are you serious? Clever and greedy people can take everything, and they&#39;ve shown a propensity to do so for the last 5000 years. Taxation and confiscation can stop people from becoming pharoahs, but, don&#39;t you know many people yourself who have more than they need and want more?[/b]
Without an effective or appropriate mode of transport to complete this task how do you suppose they will accomplish it? Psychokinesis? Anyway, &#39;clever&#39; people have already found ways to discredit and undermine the system of capital, eg.counterfeit money; so what makes the present status quo so superior in that respect?


Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
The "checklist" would not so much be a guide to the council, but its driving force in its decision. I see no other way to prove that production is only geared for needed goods. The logistics would be immense, however, far superceding any hope of a decentralised system. [/b]
Even a &#39;driving force&#39; would be preferable to an apathetic government cabinet that couldnt give a shit if x million people have to freeze to death on a street corner.
Thats not to say i dont think it wouldnt be effective, if they already know the demand before theyve produced it i dont see how there can be a discernable amount of wastage.

Originally posted by Green Dragon

Logically, such entralised system is impossible. And that is because requests for an item, has to be produced somewhere. And since you have agreed that the benefits of production should outweigh its costs, there is no requirement for a producer to provide you with the item you wish, if that producer determines that such production does not benefit him. And also because every community cannot possibly produce all things. How does the community compel another community to provide its needed items (capitalism of course has a thouroughly reasonable answer)?
that rationale is only applicable under a decentralised economy where producers are driven by the want for financial profit. Since all people would constitute the post-revolutionary state, and since the producers are owned by the state and require a healthy, motivated workforce, the benefit lies therein via mutual gain.

Green [email protected]

It ought be noted that you agree that that production wull only take place if the benefits of that production outweigh its costs. That is what a "profit" is all about. Socialist production, in your technocracy, will need to turn a profit to justify its existence. Nothing to be ashamed about. It is entirely reasonable and rational to say that the value of a produced good ought to exced the costs in producing.
the context of &#39;profit&#39; will changed from &#39;financial gain&#39; to &#39;improvement of life quality&#39;.

Going back to my previous point The socialist technocracy will end the partitions between state, people, and industry. It will be a unified body acting with a single mutual goal- the pursuit of knowledge and better living standards without compromise.

Green Dragon

But then you need a way to determine this. Efficiency? Perhaps a more efficient machine could produce more goods ina shorter period of time. But how does one determine if there is a need for more of those goods? Environmental impact? Polution is a byproduct of living (all creatures pollute). How does on e know if the benefits of a less polluting machine is worth the costs which are applied elsewhere?
Financial factorss are the best way to measure this. The socialist community will be lost without it..
I disagree, financial factors have only acted as an arbitrary distraction from the meaningful issues we should have concentrating on all along. ie the environmental and human costs.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 19, 2007 06:35 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 19, 2007 06:35 pm)

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
The "checklist" would not so much be a guide to the council, but its driving force in its decision. I see no other way to prove that production is only geared for needed goods. The logistics would be immense, however, far superceding any hope of a decentralised system. [/b]
Even a &#39;driving force&#39; would be preferable to an apathetic government cabinet that couldnt give a shit if x million people have to freeze to death on a street corner.
Thats not to say i dont think it wouldnt be effective, if they already know the demand before theyve produced it i dont see how there can be a discernable amount of wastage.

Originally posted by Green Dragon

Logically, such entralised system is impossible. And that is because requests for an item, has to be produced somewhere. And since you have agreed that the benefits of production should outweigh its costs, there is no requirement for a producer to provide you with the item you wish, if that producer determines that such production does not benefit him. And also because every community cannot possibly produce all things. How does the community compel another community to provide its needed items (capitalism of course has a thouroughly reasonable answer)?
that rationale is only applicable under a decentralised economy where producers are driven by the want for financial profit. Since all people would constitute the post-revolutionary state, and since the producers are owned by the state and require a healthy, motivated workforce, the benefit lies therein via mutual gain.

Green [email protected]

It ought be noted that you agree that that production wull only take place if the benefits of that production outweigh its costs. That is what a "profit" is all about. Socialist production, in your technocracy, will need to turn a profit to justify its existence. Nothing to be ashamed about. It is entirely reasonable and rational to say that the value of a produced good ought to exced the costs in producing.
the context of &#39;profit&#39; will changed from &#39;financial gain&#39; to &#39;improvement of life quality&#39;.

Going back to my previous point The socialist technocracy will end the partitions between state, people, and industry. It will be a unified body acting with a single mutual goal- the pursuit of knowledge and better living standards without compromise.

Green Dragon

But then you need a way to determine this. Efficiency? Perhaps a more efficient machine could produce more goods ina shorter period of time. But how does one determine if there is a need for more of those goods? Environmental impact? Polution is a byproduct of living (all creatures pollute). How does on e know if the benefits of a less polluting machine is worth the costs which are applied elsewhere?
Financial factorss are the best way to measure this. The socialist community will be lost without it..
I disagree, financial factors have only acted as an arbitrary distraction from the meaningful issues we should have concentrating on all along. ie the environmental and human costs. [/b]
1. I wrote a note about this a few days ago on this thread. Can you imagine the time needed to inventory every possible thing you own and determine whether you need it replaced? Can you imagine the beauracracy that will be needed to wade through these requests? What happens if you forget something? What if you would rather spend your evenings at Revleft.com, than determining what books you will fell like reading next month or determining that you want a bologna sandwich with wheat bread three weeks from next Friday, but on white the next day? I mean, how ridiculous.
And this is just about the consumers on the final stage of production. Carpenters will need nails, bakers flour, publishers paper ect ect ect. Your entire community, or a huge amount anyhow will have to be allocated just to figure out where to allocate its production.

People will freeze on the streets waiting for the beauracracy to process the request for a new winter coat.
The old joke in the USSR: Fellow goes into the store to get a new refrigerator. Places the order and is told it will come on Oct 10 ten years in the future. Morning or afternoon" asjed the customer. "Why does that matter" asked the storekeeper. "The stove is being delivered in the morning."
That is what your plan will result in.

And because the system is so haywire, there is no "mutual gain" to be found. Everyone will be miserable.

2. Your system cannot do all things at one time. But you are reverting back to making general claims about your system, and shying away from the nuts and bolts of it.

[Dr Mindbender]

All of these concerns, and more will be confronted by the advancement and development of data reading technology, among other areas of science which are currently neglected by a system which has little or no interest in developing them.

The point &#39;the system will be haywire&#39; was a strawman. Other than the point you provided which i have countered above, you have provided no rationale.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 08:01 pm
All of these concerns, and more will be confronted by the advancement and development of data reading technology, among other areas of science which are currently neglected by a system which has little or no interest in developing them.

The point &#39;the system will be haywire&#39; was a strawman. Other than the point you provided which i have countered above, you have provided no rationale.
And you are moving further and further away...

Technocracy will work because just said it would work. No other proofs or evidence required.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 15, 2007 08:58 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 15, 2007 08:58 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 01:51 am
As ive said before to pusher robot, the cappies, liberals and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between the communist state and post-revolutionary peoples. So For the Nth and last time-
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 2, THE STATE WILL BE CONSTITUTED BY THE PEOPLE&#39;s THEREFORE THE PEOPLE&#39;S WILL WILL DETERMINE PRODUCTION.
Production will take place on appropriation by demand, decided democratically, by the state (peoples) councils. Since these are constituted by the people, everyone gets a fair say.
Yes, and this "cappie" has already challenged that notion:

The production is determined by the democratically elected council, that council still needs to know what to produce. Seems to me the only way to do this, and to remain a democratic council, is for the people to inform the council what they need. So the council can be expected to wade through many requests for carpeting, cat litter, lawn mowers, hats, gloves ect ect ect. This generates mountains of requests. Then, since production cannot satisy all peole at once (does a person really need a new refrigerator every year? ) they will have to be able to deny people things they request. A "fair say" will not guarantee by a person will not guarantee that that person will get what he or she wants if the council determines somebody else has the greater need.

Such a structure destroys the divide which sociialsist like to make between "public" and "personal" property, since ALL possessions are ultimately at the approval of the democratically elected council. The other issue is the immense beauracracy which will be needed to be created to help support the council in its decisions. [/b]
Bull. Private posessions remain private, no one&#39;s taking them away.

The council would just be negating waste.

[Dr Mindbender]

its about political motives. In order to demonstrate my point, I need to disect capitalism so bear with me. The reason technocracy is not applied under capitalism (far be it from it not being operable) is due to a conflict of interest. In order for capitalism to survive, it has to pigeonhole people into different socio-economic circumstances, or what we &#39;commies&#39; refer to as the &#39;class system&#39;. In order to preserve this, it requires humans to stay in base forms of duties, cleaning, production line work etc in order to provide a rationale to reward those who are lucky enough to succeed at academic forms of employment, either by accident of birth into the middle class or by climbing the greasy pole. It provides a pool of desperate people willing to work for low wages, which in turn helps maximise the profit margins of the means of production owners. This is why technocracy comes into direct conflict with the free market, despite the fact that a robotic factory does not require wages, toilet breaks or food and could operate indefinitely 24/7 without the above mentioned 3 amenities, therefore n times more efficiently.
If technocracy was applied (under capitalism at least), in the context of replacing those human labourers the ensuing crisis would either trigger a radical change or it would create a precedence to provide those unemployed people with positions that are not occupied by a more efficient mechanical production workforce. When you bear these factors in mind, it is unsurprising why the establishment class is unbothered about running things to the best extent possible, as long as it can preserve its own social dominance even if it does mean destroying the spirits of their workers and potentially the planet in the process.

To be honest, I&#39;m not the most astute poster here but i hope I&#39;ve given it a damn good go. Serpent is more read in the ways of technocracy, and is probably better equipped to defend the philosophy than i am.

(C&#39;mon help me out guys&#33;) *shameless plea for help* :unsure:

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 19, 2007 08:11 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 19, 2007 08:11 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 15, 2007 08:58 pm

Ulster [email protected] 16, 2007 01:51 am
As ive said before to pusher robot, the cappies, liberals and neo-cons fall into this trap of drawing a distinction between the communist state and post-revolutionary peoples. So For the Nth and last time-
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 2, THE STATE WILL BE CONSTITUTED BY THE PEOPLE&#39;s THEREFORE THE PEOPLE&#39;S WILL WILL DETERMINE PRODUCTION.
Production will take place on appropriation by demand, decided democratically, by the state (peoples) councils. Since these are constituted by the people, everyone gets a fair say.
Yes, and this "cappie" has already challenged that notion:

The production is determined by the democratically elected council, that council still needs to know what to produce. Seems to me the only way to do this, and to remain a democratic council, is for the people to inform the council what they need. So the council can be expected to wade through many requests for carpeting, cat litter, lawn mowers, hats, gloves ect ect ect. This generates mountains of requests. Then, since production cannot satisy all peole at once (does a person really need a new refrigerator every year? ) they will have to be able to deny people things they request. A "fair say" will not guarantee by a person will not guarantee that that person will get what he or she wants if the council determines somebody else has the greater need.

Such a structure destroys the divide which sociialsist like to make between "public" and "personal" property, since ALL possessions are ultimately at the approval of the democratically elected council. The other issue is the immense beauracracy which will be needed to be created to help support the council in its decisions.
Bull. Private posessions remain private, no one&#39;s taking them away.

The council would just be negating waste. [/b]
Presumably, in a socialist community, things break dowm. At some point the refrigrerator produced by that capitalist company Maytag or Whirlpool will need to be replaced. It will need to be replaced by the socialist refrigerator workers.
The problem here is that these workers are not going work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So your labor councils are going to have to decide who deserves that refrigerator first. And the only way it can do that is if you tell the council what you have, and if they approve that you need it replaced. In other words, your "private" property is in reality subject to the approval of the people. Its not really private at all, at least not in the way it is understood now, and how you probably mean it to be.

I&#39;m trying to help you out, Chum. You have to analyse socialism on the basis of socialism if you want to get anywhere. Simply saying it will be a certain way is really not enough.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 19, 2007 08:18 pm
its about political motives. In order to demonstrate my point, I need to disect capitalism so bear with me. The reason technocracy is not applied under capitalism (far be it from it not being operable) is due to a conflict of interest. In order for capitalism to survive, it has to pigeonhole people into different socio-economic circumstances, or what we &#39;commies&#39; refer to as the &#39;class system&#39;. In order to preserve this, it requires humans to stay in base forms of duties, cleaning, production line work etc in order to provide a rationale to reward those who are lucky enough to succeed at academic forms of employment, either by accident of birth into the middle class or by climbing the greasy pole. It provides a pool of desperate people willing to work for low wages, which in turn helps maximise the profit margins of the means of production owners. This is why technocracy comes into direct conflict with the free market, despite the fact that a robotic factory does not require wages, toilet breaks or food and could operate indefinitely 24/7 without the above mentioned 3 amenities, therefore n times more efficiently.
If technocracy was applied (under capitalism at least), in the context of replacing those human labourers the ensuing crisis would either trigger a radical change or it would create a precedence to provide those unemployed people with positions that are not occupied by a more efficient mechanical production workforce. When you bear these factors in mind, it is unsurprising why the establishment class is unbothered about running things to the best extent possible, as long as it can preserve its own social dominance even if it does mean destroying the spirits of their workers and potentially the planet in the process.

To be honest, I&#39;m not the most astute poster here but i hope I&#39;ve given it a damn good go. Serpent is more read in the ways of technocracy, and is probably better equipped to defend the philosophy than i am.

(C&#39;mon help me out guys&#33;) *shameless plea for help* :unsure:
If the capitalist was simply interested in keeping people at a low base level, then his industrial technology in 2007 would be the same as it was in 1790. He isn&#39;t and it isn&#39;t

The capitalist is absolutely interested in technological development and would love a fully automated factory. Because labor costs woyuld be so much lower. Labor costs in a fully automated factory? Well, yes, somebody has to design, build, maintain the machines, and if one develops machines to do that job, someone will have to do the same to those machines.
And machines HAVE been replacing people in factories. Workers in American manufaturing is down since 1950, yet American manufacturing output has increased. Exactly the kind of situation you want to see.

But the problem here is that you want it all at once- and that is not going to happen. It has nothing to do with lack of will (a term which any socialists should shudder from given this was the driving force of the National Socialists), but of natural limits which technology can never solve. There is only 24 hours in a day; there are only X number of people available in the community, only X amount of resources to be used.

It goes back to "risk" here. If your community chooses to sink resources in a crash course of building a machine to make all automobiles, those resources has to come from somewhere. And it comes from NOT producing something else. So the community does not have that product, and since that crashcourse is a "risk" there is no guarantee it will be successful. Moreover, even if it is "successful" would the resources used in getting justify the advance (after all, even you have conceded the benefits must outweigh the risk)?

The ironical thing is that your proposals would cause the types of problems you see occuring in the capitalist vision of technological advance. A sudden appearance of a machine that produces cars with no human workers throws tens of thousands out of work. This creats social instability, and will presumably require the community to alloocate resources to retrain and support those workers who are otherwise producing nothing for the community. The capitalist advancement occurs over a slower time so they adjustments to the community are not so pronounced and sudden and burdensome.

Another irony is that it is doubtful that your community could prodce that machinery anyhow. Since the socialist community will only produce what is needed (no wastage) it means that all resources are allocated to maintain the current standard of the community. If the community wishes to advance, it would need to allocate resources from that base line of production. The result will be shortages in certain products or available labor. Of course, getting ahead involves sacrifice and the community could reasonably decide that that sacrifice is worth it. But then, since the socialist tends to criticise the capitalist for creating such a system of sacrifice and scarcity, how can a proper socialist go that route himself?

[Robert]

Well, Dragon, you may be being a little hard on our comrades: the USSR did beat the USA into space, and it was a soviet doctor who invented the laser surgery technique for correcting near-sightedness. I&#39;m not sure if they qualified as "proper socialists."

Radial keratotomy was what I was trying to remember: The procedure was discovered by accident by Svyatoslav Fyodorov who removed glass from the eye of one of his patients who had been in an accident. A boy, who wore eyeglasses, fell off his bicycle and his glasses shattered on impact, with glass particles lodging in his eyes. A procedure was performed consisting of making numerous radial incisions which extended from the pupil to the periphery of the cornea in a pattern like the spokes of a wheel. After the glass was removed (by this method) and the cornea healed, he found that the patient&#39;s eyesight was significantly improved.[1]


Note that it was an accidental discovery, but still, it ain&#39;t chopped liver ....

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 08:59 pm
Well, Dragon, you may be being a little hard on our comrades: the USSR did beat the USA into space, and it was a soviet doctor who invented the laser surgery technique for correcting near-sightedness. I&#39;m not sure if they qualified as "proper socialists."

Radial keratotomy was what I was trying to remember: The procedure was discovered by accident by Svyatoslav Fyodorov who removed glass from the eye of one of his patients who had been in an accident. A boy, who wore eyeglasses, fell off his bicycle and his glasses shattered on impact, with glass particles lodging in his eyes. A procedure was performed consisting of making numerous radial incisions which extended from the pupil to the periphery of the cornea in a pattern like the spokes of a wheel. After the glass was removed (by this method) and the cornea healed, he found that the patient&#39;s eyesight was significantly improved.[1]


Note that it was an accidental discovery, but still, it ain&#39;t chopped liver ....
Yep. Soviet citizens could gaze at the sky and marvel at their satelites they sent there, their fellow comrades in their space stations- while standing on line for toilet paper.

There is a tradeoff involved. And our "comrades" do not wish to see it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+November 19, 2007 09:31 pm--> (Green Dragon @ November 19, 2007 09:31 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 08:59 pm
Well, Dragon, you may be being a little hard on our comrades: the USSR did beat the USA into space, and it was a soviet doctor who invented the laser surgery technique for correcting near-sightedness. I&#39;m not sure if they qualified as "proper socialists."

Radial keratotomy was what I was trying to remember: The procedure was discovered by accident by Svyatoslav Fyodorov who removed glass from the eye of one of his patients who had been in an accident. A boy, who wore eyeglasses, fell off his bicycle and his glasses shattered on impact, with glass particles lodging in his eyes. A procedure was performed consisting of making numerous radial incisions which extended from the pupil to the periphery of the cornea in a pattern like the spokes of a wheel. After the glass was removed (by this method) and the cornea healed, he found that the patient&#39;s eyesight was significantly improved.[1]


Note that it was an accidental discovery, but still, it ain&#39;t chopped liver ....
Yep. Soviet citizens could gaze at the sky and marvel at their satelites they sent there, their fellow comrades in their space stations- while standing on line for toilet paper.

There is a tradeoff involved. And our "comrades" do not wish to see it. [/b]
what post 1924 USSR has to do with communism is lost on me. :rolleyes:


Someone hasnt read the FAQ&#33; *ahem*

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 19, 2007 09:57 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 19, 2007 09:57 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 09:31 pm

Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 08:59 pm
Well, Dragon, you may be being a little hard on our comrades: the USSR did beat the USA into space, and it was a soviet doctor who invented the laser surgery technique for correcting near-sightedness. I&#39;m not sure if they qualified as "proper socialists."

Radial keratotomy was what I was trying to remember: The procedure was discovered by accident by Svyatoslav Fyodorov who removed glass from the eye of one of his patients who had been in an accident. A boy, who wore eyeglasses, fell off his bicycle and his glasses shattered on impact, with glass particles lodging in his eyes. A procedure was performed consisting of making numerous radial incisions which extended from the pupil to the periphery of the cornea in a pattern like the spokes of a wheel. After the glass was removed (by this method) and the cornea healed, he found that the patient&#39;s eyesight was significantly improved.[1]


Note that it was an accidental discovery, but still, it ain&#39;t chopped liver ....
Yep. Soviet citizens could gaze at the sky and marvel at their satelites they sent there, their fellow comrades in their space stations- while standing on line for toilet paper.

There is a tradeoff involved. And our "comrades" do not wish to see it.
what post 1924 USSR has to do with communism is lost on me. :rolleyes:


Someone hasnt read the FAQ&#33; *ahem* [/b]
Somebody thinks the FAQ is wrong. Ahem :D

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
If the capitalist was simply interested in keeping people at a low base level, then his industrial technology in 2007 would be the same as it was in 1790. He isn&#39;t and it isn&#39;t

The capitalist is absolutely interested in technological development and would love a fully automated factory.[/b]
What is to stop him from fulfilling his vision then? He would produce his goods x times faster and he wouldnt have to pay a workforce of slower, human workers. The only motive i can see is his own personal sadistic gratification of preserving the class system status quo, and the fear of a desperate working class revolt. Oh yes, without workers, there can be no transfer of wages to be spent on the goods. Cause at the end of the day, thats all the poor little prole sheep should be, is good obedient consumers. Always seen but never heard.

Originally posted by Green [email protected]

Well, yes, somebody has to design, build, maintain the machines, and if one develops machines to do that job, someone will have to do the same to those machines.
what robotic engineering? Hardly something which hasnt been used as a reasoning for generous financial reward.I think you&#39;ll find that role has been allocated as the preserve of elite petit beourgioise intellectualist snobs carved from the most pretentious halls of learning, among brain surgeons, propulsion scientists and other upper-middle class stereotyped occupations. Japanese robotic scientists enjoy practical celebrity status.

Green Dragon

And machines HAVE been replacing people in factories. Workers in American manufaturing is down since 1950, yet American manufacturing output has increased. Exactly the kind of situation you want to see.
Yes, but theyve only been replacing workers on a drip drip basis, far too slow for anyone to take any notice. The difference is theres been no onus on the beourgioise dominated establishment to provide employment or training for those workers that have been made redundant.
This is where socialist technocracy would differ- it would liberate everyone from the factories, and provide roles which are both constructive and relevant to that person&#39;s aspirations.

Im not really going to break down your last post anymore, but i just want to finish on the debate about social and material conditioning- It has produced these illusions of scarcity when in fact there is no danger of any such crisis- The lifestyles of vast wastage by the social elite and its squandering habits would be the only thing at risk. These are the resources that would be used to fulfill these policies.
The same goes with training and education- there is no lack of it, only an unwillingless to allocate it to those who either cant afford it, or were born into the wrong socio-economic class. There is no motivation or rationale besides classist chauvinism under the present status quo for every person to recieve a more advanced education because to do so would be to elevate the present workforce to a level where they can no longer be exploited and extorted on the production lines. Collective intelligence will advance scientific progress beyond levels currently acheivable under capitalism, and that progress will in turn provide all with the equal level of prosperity and dignity that the existing establishment want us to believe is not possible.

[Robert]

The only motive i can see is his own personal sadistic gratification of preserving the class system status quo, and the fear of a desperate working class revolt.


Ulster, do you actually know any capitalists? The successful ones are too busy working and keeping up with his competition to give a damn about politics or "class systems." I doubt that most of them even know what you&#39;re talking about. The richer the people get, the more they can buy his stuff. He doesn&#39;t care if the working man saves up a little capital and starts his own business. Seriously.

He very likely started from nothing himself. Again, this is a U.S. perspective. Maybe it really is impossible for the working man to break into the big money leagues in the UK, but I doubt it.

Dragon, do you know of any self-made men in Europe?

[Dr Mindbender]

hard working beourgioise? Thats a laugh&#33; :lol:

Most of them are only living in privelege because they were fortunate enough to be pushed out of a beourgioise uterus&#33;

[Robert]

Most of them are only living in privelege because they were fortunate enough to be pushed out of a beourgioise uterus&#33;




<bourgeois>
<privilege>
<bourgeoisie>

They spell better, too.


Ulster, I am now convinced that you do not know anyone who owns and successfully operates his own business. Not one single person.

Here&#39;s a start for you, and it&#39;s from Barclays in the UK:


24 July 2006

UK small business owners spend 60 per cent longer at work than the average employee – but want to keep their weekends free


Owners of small and medium businesses in the UK work 24 hours longer each week than the rest of the UK workforce according to research carried out by Barclays. UK entrepreneurs spent an average of 61.1 hours working each week in 2005, significantly ahead of the UK average working week of 37.4 hours.

However, as the long hours culture persists more and more owner-managers are drawing the line at letting work eat into their weekends. 43 per cent said they now will not work weekends compared to 36 per cent in 2003 and Sundays have become even more precious with only 29 per cent admitting to working on that day compared to 36 per cent in 2003.




http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content...12&NewsAreaID=2 (http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=712&NewsAreaID=2)


The figures are as convincing in the USA, and likely the same in Germany, France, and Scandinavia.

There are no doubt idle rich, but not idle capitalists. If the cappies don&#39;t keep their eyes open and work hard, they lose to the competition and close down.

Explain it to him, Dragon. This kid is wearing me out, and I have to get back to work.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 19, 2007 11:02 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 19, 2007 11:02 pm)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
If the capitalist was simply interested in keeping people at a low base level, then his industrial technology in 2007 would be the same as it was in 1790. He isn&#39;t and it isn&#39;t

The capitalist is absolutely interested in technological development and would love a fully automated factory.[/b]
What is to stop him from fulfilling his vision then? He would produce his goods x times faster and he wouldnt have to pay a workforce of slower, human workers. The only motive i can see is his own personal sadistic gratification of preserving the class system status quo, and the fear of a desperate working class revolt. Oh yes, without workers, there can be no transfer of wages to be spent on the goods. Cause at the end of the day, thats all the poor little prole sheep should be, is good obedient consumers. Always seen but never heard.

Green [email protected]

Well, yes, somebody has to design, build, maintain the machines, and if one develops machines to do that job, someone will have to do the same to those machines.
what robotic engineering? Hardly something which hasnt been used as a reasoning for generous financial reward.I think you&#39;ll find that role has been allocated as the preserve of elite petit beourgioise intellectualist snobs carved from the most pretentious halls of learning, among brain surgeons, propulsion scientists and other upper-middle class stereotyped occupations. Japanese robotic scientists enjoy practical celebrity status.

Green Dragon

And machines HAVE been replacing people in factories. Workers in American manufaturing is down since 1950, yet American manufacturing output has increased. Exactly the kind of situation you want to see.
Yes, but theyve only been replacing workers on a drip drip basis, far too slow for anyone to take any notice. The difference is theres been no onus on the beourgioise dominated establishment to provide employment or training for those workers that have been made redundant.
This is where socialist technocracy would differ- it would liberate everyone from the factories, and provide roles which are both constructive and relevant to that person&#39;s aspirations.

Im not really going to break down your last post anymore, but i just want to finish on the debate about social and material conditioning- It has produced these illusions of scarcity when in fact there is no danger of any such crisis- The lifestyles of vast wastage by the social elite and its squandering habits would be the only thing at risk. These are the resources that would be used to fulfill these policies.
The same goes with training and education- there is no lack of it, only an unwillingless to allocate it to those who either cant afford it, or were born into the wrong socio-economic class. There is no motivation or rationale besides classist chauvinism under the present status quo for every person to recieve a more advanced education because to do so would be to elevate the present workforce to a level where they can no longer be exploited and extorted on the production lines. Collective intelligence will advance scientific progress beyond levels currently acheivable under capitalism, and that progress will in turn provide all with the equal level of prosperity and dignity that the existing establishment want us to believe is not possible. [/b]
1. "What&#39;s to stop him...?" How about limits to demand? Just because a factory can produce items for 24 hours doesn&#39;t mean there is sufficient demand to justify producing for 24 hours. How about the costs outstripping the benefits? Yes, even you have agreed that such is a reasonable concern. maybe the costs of developing, manufacturing and training the labor in its use costs more than what the product is worth to the community.

2. Robotic engineers? In capitalist Japan? Can&#39;t be&#33; :blink:

3. I did in fact respond (anticipate?) to the "drip-drip" argument of yours and showed why the capitalist way of doing it is superior to the socialist/technocratic way.

4. the rest of the essay was nothing more than essay and ideology- technocracy will work because I say it will.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 19, 2007 11:54 pm

Most of them are only living in privelege because they were fortunate enough to be pushed out of a beourgioise uterus&#33;




<bourgeois>
<privilege>
<bourgeoisie>

They spell better, too.


Ulster, I am now convinced that you do not know anyone who owns and successfully operates his own business. Not one single person.

Here&#39;s a start for you, and it&#39;s from Barclays in the UK:


24 July 2006

UK small business owners spend 60 per cent longer at work than the average employee – but want to keep their weekends free


Owners of small and medium businesses in the UK work 24 hours longer each week than the rest of the UK workforce according to research carried out by Barclays. UK entrepreneurs spent an average of 61.1 hours working each week in 2005, significantly ahead of the UK average working week of 37.4 hours.

However, as the long hours culture persists more and more owner-managers are drawing the line at letting work eat into their weekends. 43 per cent said they now will not work weekends compared to 36 per cent in 2003 and Sundays have become even more precious with only 29 per cent admitting to working on that day compared to 36 per cent in 2003.




http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content...12&NewsAreaID=2 (http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=712&NewsAreaID=2)


The figures are as convincing in the USA, and likely the same in Germany, France, and Scandinavia.

There are no doubt idle rich, but not idle capitalists. If the cappies don&#39;t keep their eyes open and work hard, they lose to the competition and close down.

Explain it to him, Dragon. This kid is wearing me out, and I have to get back to work.
I&#39;ve been on a roll all day and finding out we are moving back to square one. The socialists woud probably argue that the longer hours by the small business owners are due to the natures of capitalism- which will vanish after the revolution.

Just don&#39;t ask them to explain how.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)

<bourgeois>
<privilege>
<bourgeoisie>

They spell better, too.
[/b]

Wow, spelling fascism&#33; Is that what your level of argument has been reduced to? <_<
BTW as much as you would want to believe the &#39;bourgeois&#39; do not have a monopoly on language and intellectualism.


Robert the great


Here&#39;s a start for you, and it&#39;s from Barclays in the UK:

24 July 2006

UK small business owners spend 60 per cent longer at work than the average employee – but want to keep their weekends free


Owners of small and medium businesses in the UK work 24 hours longer each week than the rest of the UK workforce according to research carried out by Barclays. UK entrepreneurs spent an average of 61.1 hours working each week in 2005, significantly ahead of the UK average working week of 37.4 hours.

However, as the long hours culture persists more and more owner-managers are drawing the line at letting work eat into their weekends. 43 per cent said they now will not work weekends compared to 36 per cent in 2003 and Sundays have become even more precious with only 29 per cent admitting to working on that day compared to 36 per cent in 2003.




http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content...12&NewsAreaID=2 (http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=712&NewsAreaID=2)


The figures are as convincing in the USA, and likely the same in Germany, France, and Scandinavia.

There are no doubt idle rich, but not idle capitalists. If the cappies don&#39;t keep their eyes open and work hard, they lose to the competition and close down.

Explain it to him, Dragon. This kid is wearing me out, and I have to get back to work.
While i have no doubt successful capitalists excel at book-keeping, and other arbitrary endeavours that have no material contribution to a progressive or scientifically mobile society, it fails to take into account that this state of affairs cannot exist without an underclass of menial labour and that it also spews a 2nd generation of lazy upperclass rich kids who bring fourth to the table no constructive faculties of their own. Also, you fail to acknowledge that the establishments these people start up are impossible without the skills, intelligence and labours of those who involved in ways other than a economic or financial capacity.

[Robert]

To be clear, those stats I provided are, as you note, for small businesses. CEO&#39;s of large cap businesses work 90 hours and up. Seriously.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 20, 2007 12:09 am
To be clear, those stats I provided are, as you note, for small businesses. CEO&#39;s of large cap businesses work 90 hours and up. Seriously.
90 hours of what? Sitting behind a desk getting sucked off by their secretary or entertaining VIP clientelle at corporate luncheons?

FFS, let me get my violin out and play them a little tune&#33; :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

oh yeah, and they only get a 6 figure salary - it must be hell for them trying to decide what sports car to buy next&#33;

:lol:

[Robert]

Jesus, Ulster, it&#39;s not "the bourgeois," it&#39;s "the bourgeoisie." Now I&#39;m a fascist? I was trying to help you. You need to know how to spell words that you use derisively in every second post.

As to this:



While i have no doubt successful capitalists excel at book-keeping, and other arbitrary endeavours that have no material contribution to a progressive or scientifically mobile society, it fails to take into account that this state of affairs cannot exist without an underclass of menial labour

Bookkeeping? Arbitrary? Like they push arbitrary buttons on calculators, injection moulders, and laptop computers running spreadsheets and trust to luck that the money will pour in? I weep for you, friend. I hope you are young; if you are, you have a chance to grow out of it.

[Robert]

Sitting behind a desk getting sucked off by their secretary

I have to admit I laughed my ass off at that&#33; Pretty good image, Ulster. Wildly inaccurate and defamatory, but I still like it.



and they only get a 6 figure salary

Six figures? The CEO of a Standard & Poor&#39;s 500 company made on average &#036;14.78 million in total compensation in 2006. That&#39;s &#036;14,780,000.00, or 8 figures by my count. I agree that&#39;s obscene, but don&#39;t say they don&#39;t work harder than the laborers. They do.


p.s.

<clientele>

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the Great+--> (Robert the Great)
Jesus, Ulster, it&#39;s not "the bourgeois," it&#39;s "the bourgeoisie." Now I&#39;m a fascist? I was trying to help you. You need to know how to spell words that you use derisively in every second post. [/b]
I was using the word fascist in a light hearted way but you were too damn pedantic to notice.


Originally posted by Robert the Great+--> (Robert the Great)
Bookkeeping? Arbitrary? Like they push arbitrary buttons on calculators, injection moulders, and laptop computers running spreadsheets and trust to luck that the money will pour in? I weep for you, friend. I hope you are young; if you are, you have a chance to grow out of it.[/b]
The point is the vast proportion of these number crunching tasks if any which are given so much reverence under the existing status quo. would be necessary or relevant under a system where the means of production are controlled and appropriated on a not for profit basis. In any case i fail to understand why this data processing and calculation work cannot be completed by a computer.


Originally posted by Robert the Great

I have to admit I laughed my ass off at that&#33; Pretty good image, Ulster. Wildly inaccurate and defamatory, but I still like it.
Is it really? i thought this would be commonplace and indeed notorious in beourgiose male society, you know, with their utter hypocrisy and contempt for their own wives.

Robert the [email protected]

Six figures? The CEO of a Standard & Poor&#39;s 500 company made on average &#036;14.78 million in total compensation in 2006. That&#39;s &#036;14,780,000.00, or 8 figures by my count. I agree that&#39;s obscene, but don&#39;t say they don&#39;t work harder than the laborers. They do.
...and what? All this does is lend weight to my original point.

Robert the Great

I agree that&#39;s obscene, but don&#39;t say they don&#39;t work harder than the laborers. They do.
I can say that, because the vast proportion of them are born into it.

In any case, the ones who do &#39;work&#39; for it are dependent upon the labour of a workforce without whom their fortune would not be possible. There is also this tendency for the system to reward those purely for being able to manipulate the dynamics of capital. It is badly appropriated in terms of the broad intellectual fields. For example, a hard working scientist will seldomly be as materially wealthy as a successful CEO despite the fact that the former in all likliehood worked a damn site harder.

[Robert]

i fail to understand why this data processing and calculation work cannot be completed by a computer.

That&#39;s because you don&#39;t know how computers work. Or what data processing is. And because you&#39;ve never been or worked anywhere near a CEO.


...and what? All this does is lend weight to my original point.

Yes, it does. I was actually trying to supply you with more current ammo. And I even agree with you on the merits. (Why can&#39;t you be fair like me?)

Back to my question: you don&#39;t really know any capitalists, do you? It&#39;s okay, just tell me. I&#39;ll answer any reasonable question of yours in return. And you don&#39;t really now what capitalists do. You just know the commie caricature. And it&#39;s very unfair.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by robert the great+--> (robert the great)
That&#39;s because you don&#39;t know how computers work. Or what data processing is.[/b]
I find it quite frightening that you feel you know me well enough to say that.


Originally posted by robert the [email protected]

And because you&#39;ve never been or worked anywhere near a CEO.
I. Don&#39;t. Care. I do know that the primary cause that CEO&#39;s have on my life is that they take the production value of my labour.

robert the great

Back to my question: you don&#39;t really know any capitalists, do you? It&#39;s okay, just tell me. I&#39;ll answer any reasonable question of yours in return. And you don&#39;t really now what capitalists do. You just know the commie caricature. And it&#39;s very unfair.
That really depends on what you class as a capitalist. If you mean someone who supports the ideaology, then I know lots. If you mean someone who practices it, I know some but not on the same capacity as a CEO.
As for the caricature, There has been no discernable attempt for one to come forward and break that mould. That sort of contempt and arrogance only adds to my dislike of them.

[Robert]

I find it quite frightening that you feel you know me well enough to say that.

It&#39;s obvious from your odd supposition that the CEO could just turn on a computer and watch the money roll in. Ulster, you know as much about business as I know about communism. Let&#39;s just agree that that&#39;s not very much in either case. Fair enough?

[Dr Mindbender]

its not so much a case of &#39;turning the computer on and watching the money roll in&#39;, its more a case of the CEO being wealthy enough to hire someone to do the &#39;brainy stuff&#39; for him. Correct me if i&#39;m wrong, but most prolific entrepreuners employ (in some cases an entire workforce of) accountants. Am i right? If you want to concede your lack of knowledge about communism that is your prerogitive. I may know not much about venture capitalism about i&#39;ve sure as hell felt its human costs.