Question about the workplace under communism [Archive]

FriendorFoe

28th November 2007, 19:09

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 28, 2007 06:11 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 28, 2007 06:11 pm)
Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)
Do I get more "stuff" if I work harder then my co workers ?[/b]
In my interpretation of technocratic socialism, you get to take as much stuff as you can carry home in a visit from the outlet. But since everyone else has the same means, the answer is no. You will work harder because you will be doing a job you enjoy, rather than being co-erced into a boring one by the whims of the free market.

friend or [email protected]

How would we chose who the managers are ?
The unions will become the managerial entities. All 'managerial' decisions will be decided democratically by the union members.

friend or foe

i know there is a faq section but i didnt get a clear answer from there.
I hope this helps. [/b]
another question how would it be decided who is a "free-rider" and who is just bad at their jobs ?

If every one gets the same amount of "stuff" and you say that the "free-riders" would be excluded from the spoils of the peoples labour or "stuff", would that not mean that the "free-riders" would die because there is no other outlet to get food and shelter from ?

So managment would be a matter of popularity ?

Dr Mindbender

28th November 2007, 19:21

Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)another question how would it be decided who is a "free-rider" and who is just bad at their jobs ?[/b]
a ''free rider'' is someone who is able but unwilling to provide a useful or positive means of work or service. This however, will be an extreme minority, because the state will make a point of ensuring that everyone has a job which they find rewarding, but also matches their talents. To this end, it will provide free education that in no way discriminates on the basis of class, or economic situation. This will provide the work training needed.

Originally posted by friend or [email protected]

If every one gets the same amount of "stuff" and you say that the "free-riders" would be excluded from the spoils of the peoples labour or "stuff", would that not mean that the "free-riders" would die because there is no other outlet to get food and shelter from ?
You would have to be fairly lazy for that to happen. If an ideal job, training or vocation that was relevant to your interests along with a dignified livliehood was merely a matter of consulting a careers advisor why on earth would you not bother? The only exception would be for the disabled, but hopefully the advancement of medical science will herald the end of their problems.

friend or foe

So managment would be a matter of popularity ?
I like to think of it as a matter of democracy. Why should democracy only be applied every 5 years when we get to choose who fucks us over for the next half decade? Why cant it be applied to most or all facets of our lives?

pusher robot

28th November 2007, 19:37

This however, will be an extreme minority, because the state will make a point of ensuring that everyone has a job which they find rewarding, but also matches their talents. To this end, it will provide free education that in no way discriminates on the basis of class, or economic situation. This will provide the work training needed.

This is a just utopianism, plain and simple.

Let me illustrate:
I love lasagna. It is my favorite food. BUT:
It does not logically follow that I want to eat lasagna every day.

Furthermore:
It does not logically follow that I enjoy producing lasagna.

Furthermore:
Even if I did enjoy producing lasagna, it does not logically follow that my lasagna is of any value to anybody else but myself.

Furthermore:
Who is going to do the dishes?

Bottom line:
People get bored. Their interests change. They tire of repetition. They may even - gasp - be most interested in unproductive or highly consumptive things.

If an ideal job, training or vocation that was relevant to your interests along with a dignified livliehood was merely a matter of consulting a careers advisor why on earth would you not bother?And if my interests are entirely nonproductive? If I don't have the aptitude to pursue jobs that interest me? If there are already a vast surplus of people sharing my interests?

We can't all be millionaire cowboy astronauts who play professional football between moon missions.

Why cant it be applied to most or all facets of our lives?One big reason is that for every facet of our life under democratic control, that's one facet less under self-control. Another reason is that it is scientifically true that democratic decision-making is not always optimal. Disregarding the objective truth that good-looking, socially extroverted tall people with good hair have huge built-in advantages in any popular contest, even assuming perfectly rational voting behavior it is impossible to avoid sub-optimal voting results.

Dr Mindbender

28th November 2007, 19:55

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
Furthermore:
Who is going to do the dishes?[/b]
via the automotive productive potential that is currently squandered under the existing status quo. Even under capitalism, we already have dish washers so this particular question is a no-brainer.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
Bottom line:
People get bored. Their interests change. They tire of repetition. They may even - gasp - be most interested in unproductive or highly consumptive things.[/b]
why do the beourgioise establishment class seldomly get bored of the business lifestyle even though they have the purchasing power to obtain a completely different environment? Most CEO's spend their dying breath doing their book-keeping. It pretty pretentious to assume that everyone else somehow 'magicly changes'.

Originally posted by pusher robot

And if my interests are entirely nonproductive? If I don't have the aptitude to pursue jobs that interest me? If there are already a vast surplus of people sharing my interests?
non-productive lifestyles are typically born of the alienation and social stagnation nurtured by the present, ruling ideology. The idea that the establishment and priveleged classes somehow have a monopoly on brainpower has been preserved by the fact that it generally takes excessive amounts of money to acheive prestigous qualifications. People are individualists by nature, by the admission of the capitalists so it stands to reason that the workforce will stand in equilibrium with this nature.

pusher [email protected]

We can't all be millionaire cowboy astronauts who play professional football between moon missions.
No, but that lifestyle would only interest so many people. Lots of people would rather be a chef, an actor, or a sportsperson. Society will flourish around that diversity.

pusher robot

One big reason is that for every facet of our life under democratic control, that's one facet less under self-control. Another reason is that it is scientifically true that democratic decision-making is not always optimal. Disregarding the objective truth that good-looking, socially extroverted tall people with good hair have huge built-in advantages in any popular contest, even assuming perfectly rational voting behavior it is impossible to avoid sub-optimal voting results.
Of course, I meant democracy within reason. You shouldnt have to wait for a union concensus if you want to take a shit for example. What i'm referring to is the big motions within the workplace, such as the appropriation and operation of machinery. Changes to infrastructure, and other similar things which make a big impact to the lives of everyone.

FriendorFoe

28th November 2007, 20:23

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 28, 2007 07:20 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 28, 2007 07:20 pm)
Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)another question how would it be decided who is a "free-rider" and who is just bad at their jobs ?[/b]
a ''free rider'' is someone who is able but unwilling to provide a useful or positive means of work or service. This however, will be an extreme minority, because the state will make a point of ensuring that everyone has a job which they find rewarding, but also matches their talents. To this end, it will provide free education that in no way discriminates on the basis of class, or economic situation. This will provide the work training needed.

friend or [email protected]

If every one gets the same amount of "stuff" and you say that the "free-riders" would be excluded from the spoils of the peoples labour or "stuff", would that not mean that the "free-riders" would die because there is no other outlet to get food and shelter from ?
You would have to be fairly lazy for that to happen. If an ideal job, training or vocation that was relevant to your interests along with a dignified livliehood was merely a matter of consulting a careers advisor why on earth would you not bother? The only exception would be for the disabled, but hopefully the advancement of medical science will herald the end of their problems.

friend or foe

So managment would be a matter of popularity ?
I like to think of it as a matter of democracy. Why should democracy only be applied every 5 years when we get to choose who fucks us over for the next half decade? Why cant it be applied to most or all facets of our lives? [/b]
1) I have no skills and no real tallent, except for what I do now and that would be eliminated in a socialist society, dislike physical labour and do not deal well with other people, so what job am I going to do ? Earning money so that I can do the things that I do enjoy is the only reason I show up for work everyday, I see no incentive in the socialist model.

2) So death would be the ultimate punishment for not working. Not a great selling point.

3) Because a big part of democracy is that the majority is not always right and the minorities need to be protected from them.

Dr Mindbender

28th November 2007, 20:32

Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)
1) I have no skills and no real tallent, except for what I do now and that would be eliminated in a socialist society, dislike physical labour and do not deal well with other people, so what job am I going to do ? Earning money so that I can do the things that I do enjoy is the only reason I show up for work everyday, I see no incentive in the socialist model.[/b]
Why should you have to earn money to do the things you enjoy? Why cant your sources of enjoyment be turned into a job? Most people have an ideal career, the reason they get disillusioned or stop persuing those careers are extenuating circumstances created by capitalism. I refuse to believe you dont have an ideal job in mind. I sure as hell know I have one.

Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)
2) So death would be the ultimate punishment for not working. Not a great selling point.[/b]
Its not about death being a punishment. If you sit on your ass and do nothing under capitalism you will also die. You have to go and speak to someone in order to pick up your welfare cheque. Finding that afforementioned perfect job under technocratic socialism will require precisely the same effort.

friend or [email protected]

Not a great selling point.
You'd rather be co-erced into a degrading menial job with little or no hope of self development out of some perverse hope that you might one day join the management class and screw over your fellow colleagues?
Each to their own, as they say. :rolleyes: I hope most rational minded folk would laugh you out of town.

friend or foe

3) Because a big part of democracy is that the majority is not always right and the minorities need to be protected from them.
Yeah, like when the bosses are protected when they decide to sack a shitload of workers. :rolleyes:

pusher robot

28th November 2007, 20:41

via the automotive productive potential that is currently squandered under the existing status quo. Even under capitalism, we already have dish washers so this particular question is a no-brainer.

Who is going to give me the free dishwasher? And the soap it uses? And the copious amounts of water and electricity it consumes?

Most CEO's spend their dying breath doing their book-keeping.Source, or more fantasy? First of all, CEO's do not do "book-keeping" or anything approximating it. Second of all, they all seem to me to retire with plenty of life left.

I think it's rather pretentious of YOU to assume that people never get bored of doing the same thing, even if it's something they are interested in!

non-productive lifestyles are typically born of the alienation and social stagnation nurtured by the present, ruling ideology.Really! An interest in, say, motorsports is born of alienation and social stagnation? What peer-reviewed research is the basis of this unique perspective?

People are individualists by nature, by the admission of the capitalists so it stands to reason that the workforce will stand in equilibrium with this nature.I have no idea what you think you are saying here. How does a workforce stand? What is "this nature?" What does equilibrium have to do with anything, and just how does individuality bring about equilibrium?

No, but that lifestyle would only interest so many people.However many people it interests, as long as it's greater than zero, it's more than society needs. My question is what do you do if (as is likely) far more people are interested in acting than acting jobs needed.

Of course, I meant democracy within reason.That just shifts the argument to what is "reasonable."

FriendorFoe

28th November 2007, 20:59

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 28, 2007 08:31 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 28, 2007 08:31 pm)
Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)
1) I have no skills and no real tallent, except for what I do now and that would be eliminated in a socialist society, dislike physical labour and do not deal well with other people, so what job am I going to do ? Earning money so that I can do the things that I do enjoy is the only reason I show up for work everyday, I see no incentive in the socialist model.[/b]
Why should you have to earn money to do the things you enjoy? Why cant your sources of enjoyment be turned into a job? Most people have an ideal career, the reason they get disillusioned or stop persuing those careers are extenuating circumstances created by capitalism. I refuse to believe you dont have an ideal job in mind. I sure as hell know I have one.

Originally posted by friend or foe

2) So death would be the ultimate punishment for not working. Not a great selling point.
Its not about death being a punishment. If you sit on your ass and do nothing under capitalism you will also die. You have to go and speak to someone in order to pick up your welfare cheque. Finding that afforementioned perfect job under technocratic socialism will require precisely the same effort.

friend or [email protected]

Not a great selling point.
You'd rather be co-erced into a degrading menial job with little or no hope of self development out of some perverse hope that you might one day join the management class and screw over your fellow colleagues?
Each to their own, as they say. :rolleyes: I hope most rational minded folk would laugh you out of town.

friend or foe

3) Because a big part of democracy is that the majority is not always right and the minorities need to be protected from them.
Yeah, like when the bosses are protected when they decide to sack a shitload of workers. :rolleyes: [/b]
1) So I can sit around and play video games and read non fiction while eating top notch food, what is the name of this job ? I would quit my job and do my dream job in a second, but I do not think that it is a job.

2) So I would not have to work under Socialisim, I just have to go once a month and meet someone and tell them I do not like the jobs being offered and I would get an equal share ?

3) I do not understand this answer. Are you saying that even people who are bad at their jobs or work in jobs that are no longer needed would not be let go even if they posed a hazard to their fellow workers ?

Dr Mindbender

28th November 2007, 21:02

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
Who is going to give me the free dishwasher? And the soap it uses? And the copious amounts of water and electricity it consumes?[/b]
These items and more besides will be readilly available after they have been liberated from beourgiose misappropriation.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
Source, or more fantasy? First of all, CEO's do not do "book-keeping" or anything approximating it. Second of all, they all seem to me to retire with plenty of life left.
[/b]
I apologise, but their society and culture seems so far removed from mine i find it difficult to understand what their purpose is, let alone witness them do anything resembling 'work' in the first place. Since you're the convinced capitalist, perhaps you can enlighten me?

Originally posted by pusher robot

I think it's rather pretentious of YOU to assume that people never get bored of doing the same thing, even if it's something they are interested in!
Its better than co-ercing them into doing something they're NOT interested in! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by pusher robot

Really! An interest in, say, motorsports is born of alienation and social stagnation? What peer-reviewed research is the basis of this unique perspective?

Firstly, when you referred to 'counter-productive' pursuits I assumed you meant gangsterism, drugs and career criminality but you failed to specify what you meant.
Secondly motorsports per se isnt inherently 'counter-productive' since it's a source of entertainment for many people and i for one wouldnt want to deprive them of that no matter how boring i personally find it. In fact, the only thing that would change would be improved motor vehicles since an increased emphasis on science and technology would lead to better cars, and who knows, maybe even that elusive alternative to the 4 stroke cycle.

Originally posted by pusher robot

I have no idea what you think you are saying here. How does a workforce stand? What is "this nature?" What does equilibrium have to do with anything, and just how does individuality bring about equilibrium?
My argument is that the diverse nature of humans will create a reflective appropriation of equal numbers of workers per industry. By removing market factors,each industry will have an equal balance, simply because of the diverse range of aspirations of each person. No single career is more sought after than a broad range of professional roles. I'd be interested to see if you can provide scientific evidence to the contrary.

pusher [email protected]

However many people it interests, as long as it's greater than zero, it's more than society needs. My question is what do you do if (as is likely) far more people are interested in acting than acting jobs needed.
With the example of acting, the media has been consumed by the pursuit of the nuclear family 'deperate housewives' image, and trying to set social norms for the rest of us to conform to. This is why a upper limit has been set on the amount of people who can enter the acting world. However, a media that creates less of an onus on concentrating on single cultures, but also draws attention to other genres and cultures will require those extra people who got turned away. For the example of scientists, More will be needed in order to benefit from the collective brainpower and to limit the work needed per individual. Imagine a large workforce x times bigger than those existing, working to decode DNA for example.

pusher robot

That just shifts the argument to what is "reasonable
reasonable meaning involving factors which create a significant difference to our lives and working routines.

mikelepore

28th November 2007, 21:09

Do I get more "stuff" if I work harder then my co workers ?

I have no interest in seeing hourly incomes eliminated, ever. The kind of classless economic system I advocate would have workers compensated in proportion to their choice of total work hours, multipied by a factor to give more compensation for jobs that are more strenuous or uncomfortable.

"He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." - Marx, _Critique of the Gotha Programme_

Dr Mindbender

28th November 2007, 21:12

Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)
1) So I can sit around and play video games and read non fiction while eating top notch food, what is the name of this job ? I would quit my job and do my dream job in a second, but I do not think that it is a job.[/b]
Dont be visicious. Playing video games and reading are past-times not jobs. Clearly though you enjoy these areas, so presumably you'd enjoy being a video game maker or a non fiction writer. Let me put it another way. At school, did your teacher never discuss with you want to be when you 'grew up'? Think really hard...

Originally posted by friend or [email protected]

So I would not have to work under Socialisim, I just have to go once a month and meet someone and tell them I do not like the jobs being offered and I would get an equal share ?
I didnt say that, i said finding the role you want would require precisely the same effort. If you had a job you wanted as opposed to dreaded are you telling me you still wouldnt get out of bed?

friend or foe

3) I do not understand this answer. Are you saying that even people who are bad at their jobs or work in jobs that are no longer needed would not be let go even if they posed a hazard to their fellow workers
If someone doesnt have the necessary education to do a job, then of course it will foolish to let them do that role. Not only is about utilising the automotive potential not currently used, its also utilising the educational and training methods that are currently the preserve of the privileged.

pusher robot

28th November 2007, 22:34

My argument is that the diverse nature of humans will create a reflective appropriation of equal numbers of workers per industry. By removing market factors,each industry will have an equal balance, simply because of the diverse range of aspirations of each person. No single career is more sought after than a broad range of professional roles. I'd be interested to see if you can provide scientific evidence to the contrary.

What you say is just a logical non-sequitur. "Each industry will have the necessary people interested in it" simply does not follow from "People have differing interests." In any case, I'm not the one proposing radical departures from the status quo, so the burden of proof to demonstrate any such notion is on you, not me.

Playing video games and reading are past-times not jobs. Clearly though you enjoy these areas, so presumably you'd enjoy being a video game maker or a non fiction writer.
That's another logical non-sequitur. It does not follow that enjoying the consumption of something means a person is interested in the production of it. I am interested in eating hamburgers, because I enjoy it. I have absolutely no interest or desire to work in hamburger flipping or meat packing. There's no real connection between those interests!

I love going to amusement parks. Most people do! Why is it then that so many amusement park workers seem to get tired of going to the amusement park, pressing the buttons and giving the same spiel over and over again every day? Do all of these people coincidentally hate amusement parks?

Even granting he would enjoy those things, supposing he just simply doesn't have an aptitude for them and is incapable of producing video games or non-fiction writings of any value to anybody?

Furthermore, some jobs are just boring by nature! A nuclear engineer might spend years of difficult instruction just to get a job as an operations supervisor at a nuclear power facility. It's a job that is absolutely necessary in case anything goes wrong for obvious reasons, but terribly boring, as virtually nothing ever does go wrong. Is he supposed to work this job because he enjoys supervising the same simple, routine operations day after day after day?

Air traffic control manages to be both stressful and boring at the same time! Imagine micromanaging the precise movements of little blips for hours and hours, day after day, sitting in a little sunless bunker of a room monitoring radar blips; but you can't ever let your attention waver or thoughts wander because any mistake could costs millions of dollars and hundreds of lives. Who, other than certified sadists, would volunteer for this job when they could get the same benefits driving racecars or writing greeting cards or watching The Price is Right?

Dr Mindbender

29th November 2007, 00:14

in response, burger flipping, cleaning etc are not work areas that are massively demanding or which require substantial periods of study or drive, so of course they are going to be divorced from most right minded people's definitions of ideal work. Nuclear science is an entirely different kettlefish because it does take massive amounts of patience and study to get to a stage where you would be a competent nuclear technician. So does becoming a game designer. In order to become one of these, you have to 'want' to gain these roles. No-one 'wants' to work at McDonalds or a similar company because by definition their work is demeaning and requires little to no skill or passion. The other main difference between these 2 categories is that there is no reason why the first ones cannot be performed by automated means.

Oh and about your observations regarding tedium within technical industries, people do actually get satisfaction from the job content. Maybe those guys working in air traffic control towers are aircraft enthusiasts? Anyway as technology encroaches areas of work that humans used to partake more and more human workers will be able to withdraw and take up more appropriate roles as they see fit. The difference is they probably dont have some asshole middle management barking at them every other 10 minutes to 'work harder'.

Courses for horses, as they say.

Robert

29th November 2007, 01:22

the whims of the free market.

What you call "whims" include freedoms. Like the ones you like. People got tired of hula hoops and boomerangs in the 60's, which were before your time I suspect, they quit buying them, and so the people who enjoyed making hula hoops were out of work. That was unfortunate for them. But it resulted from what you call a whim, and what the people you want to "liberate" call freedom to do whatever they want. There are trade offs to be made.

Why is it then that so many amusement park workers seem to get tired of going to the amusement park?

Because: 1) there are so many dirty people there, and 2) because the revolution that will make these jobs more fun hasn't happened yet. Be patient.

Its better than co-ercing them into doing something they're NOT interested in!

The point was already made above (never refuted) that there may just possibly be more applicants for the job of quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys than are applicants for toilet bowl detail at Cowboys stadium. If there's no volunteers, either the free market under my system or the central committee under yours -- one or the other -- is going to put me or you -- one or the other -- on toilet detail. Let's just say I hope it ain't me. (Remember to whistle while you work)

These items and more besides will be readilly available

Soap? Are you serious? They are readily available now. It's in commie land that they're never available. At any rate, you still need someone to load the dishwasher. Any volunteers? It's loads of fun.

Why cant your sources of enjoyment be turned into a job?

Because no one will pay me to dress up like Stalin and play his character on Broadway. It's so unfair!

You shouldnt have to wait for a union concensus if you want to take a shit for example.

LOL! :D Ulster, you have got to take your show on the road. At any rate, we finally agree on something!

Os Cangaceiros

29th November 2007, 02:14

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 29, 2007 01:21 am

Because no one will pay me to dress up like Stalin and play his character on Broadway. It's so unfair!

Talk about a dream role....

Labor Shall Rule

29th November 2007, 03:07

If no one wants to work at the local amusement park, or at a fast food resturant, then there must not be much demand for it.

I would imagine the worker's cooperatives and local assemblies would find enjoyment in throwing festivals for their children, so they will be determined to keep a park running. There are carnival laborers; 'carnies' that find enjoyment in fufilling the task of running amusement parks. In my school district, students are awarded community service hours for working at the local zoo and amusement park, and they actually make up a majority (if not all) people that are working at the stands.

pusher robot

29th November 2007, 04:57

If no one wants to work at the local amusement park, or at a fast food resturant, then there must not be much demand for it.

You guys keep saying this over and over again but it is a logical non-sequitur. Nobody really wants to flip burgers. Do you conclude that the demand for burgers is low? This does not square with easily made observations of reality, where burgers sell by the billion.

Again, and I think for the last time, consumption of a thing and production of a thing are two entirely different things, and there is no logical reason why a person who enjoys one must therefore enjoy the other!

Maybe those guys working in air traffic control towers are aircraft enthusiasts?
Those are ground controllers. Air traffic controllers usually sit in a windowless bunker at an undisclosed location far from actual air traffic, and could literally spend their entire careers never seeing an aircraft other than at 30,000 feet.

In my school district, students are awarded community service hours for working at the local zoo and amusement park, and they actually make up a majority (if not all) people that are working at the stands. Well? How many of them make a career of it?

Labor Shall Rule

29th November 2007, 05:38

Well, once again, if burgers were demanded, they would have a choice of either continuing production to have them, or to cease production, and have no burgers at all. It is as simple as that.

pusher robot

29th November 2007, 05:44

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 29, 2007 05:37 am
Well, once again, if burgers were demanded, they would have a choice of either continuing production to have them, or to cease production, and have no burgers at all. It is as simple as that.
Or, they could, and I'm just throwing this out there, provide incentives to a third party to flip the burgers for them.

Kwisatz Haderach

29th November 2007, 07:19

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 29, 2007 06:56 am

If no one wants to work at the local amusement park, or at a fast food resturant, then there must not be much demand for it.

You guys keep saying this over and over again but it is a logical non-sequitur. Nobody really wants to flip burgers. Do you conclude that the demand for burgers is low? This does not square with easily made observations of reality, where burgers sell by the billion.

Again, and I think for the last time, consumption of a thing and production of a thing are two entirely different things, and there is no logical reason why a person who enjoys one must therefore enjoy the other!
The consumption of burgers provides a certain utility. The production of burgers also provides a certain utility (whether it is positive or negative is an open question).

In other words, all human activities provide a certain amount of enjoyment or displeasure. You seem to be assuming that consumption always provides enjoyment (which is reasonable to expect) while production always provides displeasure (which is not reasonable at all, but I'll accept it as a premise for the sake of the argument).

Now, if the compensation received by all workers is roughly equal, then people will naturally tend to do whatever jobs they find most enjoyable. You are worried that this will result in the underproduction of needed goods; but it will also result in an increase in leisure time. Don't forget that all people are at the same time producers and consumers. If they decide to produce less and consume less in order to have more leisure time, why is there anything wrong with that choice?

In other words, it may well be that a socialist society will produce less than a capitalist society under similar conditions, but the socialist society will provide its citizens will more leisure time and more enjoyable activities. I don't see the problem.

Kwisatz Haderach

29th November 2007, 07:28

And as a side note, I'd like to point out that all the hard and boring jobs discussed in this topic so far are not, in fact, the highest paid jobs under capitalism - not even close! Take burger-flipping for example. The capitalist argument is that burger-flipping is so boring that people need to be given a monetary incentive to take the job. But in fact, fast food workers are pretty much the lowest paid group of workers in all Western countries. So much for the monetary incentive.

To criticize socialism for not providing adequate compensation for hard labour or a boring work environment ignores the fact that such factors are not particularly important in determining wages under capitalism either.

High-skill jobs in particular (such as air traffic controller, nuclear engineer, or brain surgeon) are not subject to anything remotely close to a competitive market. The immense amount of training required for such jobs effectively results in something like a guild system.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

29th November 2007, 09:41

High-skill jobs in particular (such as air traffic controller, nuclear engineer, or brain surgeon) are not subject to anything remotely close to a competitive market. The immense amount of training required for such jobs effectively results in something like a guild system.

Great point. These jobs are always in demand, and the workers [especially air traffic controllers] are not allowed to strike because there wouldn't be work to replace them.

pusher robot

29th November 2007, 15:42

So much for the monetary incentive.

So, what, you think that burger-flippers are working for what reason exactly? Charity? Duty? They just really love flipping burgers?

Clearly, the monetary incentive is necessary to induce these people to flip burgers. That was my whole point. The reason the incentive is not as large as with other jobs is (a) burger flipping, while tedious, isn't all that bad, relative to other possible tasks, and (b) the pool of available burger flippers is really, really, large.

And of course, this works out to be a good thing for society. It's not in society's interest to waste a person's labor flipping burgers if they could be doing something more productive. Thus, the low compensation induces employees capable of more productive labor (which is most of them) to seek out higher-compensating jobs, which are more productive to society. This helps to ensure that the ranks of burger-flippers are filled with teenagers and people who simply couldn't work any other job, which is an ideal situation. And indeed, this is exactly what we observe happening in practice.

To criticize socialism for not providing adequate compensation for hard labour or a boring work environment
The criticism is not necessarily about compensation but incentive.

letsgetfree

29th November 2007, 18:19

delete

FriendorFoe

29th November 2007, 18:21

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 28, 2007 09:11 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 28, 2007 09:11 pm)
Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)
1) So I can sit around and play video games and read non fiction while eating top notch food, what is the name of this job ? I would quit my job and do my dream job in a second, but I do not think that it is a job.[/b]
Dont be visicious. Playing video games and reading are past-times not jobs. Clearly though you enjoy these areas, so presumably you'd enjoy being a video game maker or a non fiction writer. Let me put it another way. At school, did your teacher never discuss with you want to be when you 'grew up'? Think really hard...

friend or [email protected]

So I would not have to work under Socialisim, I just have to go once a month and meet someone and tell them I do not like the jobs being offered and I would get an equal share ?
I didnt say that, i said finding the role you want would require precisely the same effort. If you had a job you wanted as opposed to dreaded are you telling me you still wouldnt get out of bed?

friend or foe

3) I do not understand this answer. Are you saying that even people who are bad at their jobs or work in jobs that are no longer needed would not be let go even if they posed a hazard to their fellow workers
If someone doesnt have the necessary education to do a job, then of course it will foolish to let them do that role. Not only is about utilising the automotive potential not currently used, its also utilising the educational and training methods that are currently the preserve of the privileged. [/b]

1) I can not write nor spell so being an author is out and I would kill myself if I had to write computer code. The job that I wanted when I was a kid will not exsist in a few years and would not appear at all in a socalist society.

2) I am saying that for most people the ideal job is sitting at home watching T.V..

3) Where I live it costs around $3000 a year for a full load of classes and loans are easy to get so I do not think that education is the "preserve of the privileged".

Dr Mindbender

29th November 2007, 19:12

Originally posted by pusher robot

Those are ground controllers. Air traffic controllers usually sit in a windowless bunker at an undisclosed location far from actual air traffic, and could literally spend their entire careers never seeing an aircraft other than at 30,000 feet.

Well thats not always true. Before i was politically conscious I had been to air force bases with the cadets and some of those guys working in the ATC towers get some spectacular views, but thats another story.
The point i should have made was that any tedium experienced will be greatly reduced. With the influx of a greater number of people working in that particular industry, shift times will be reduced to a fraction of what they were under capitalism. A 10 hour working week? Sounds good to me!

Dr Mindbender

29th November 2007, 19:18

Originally posted by pusher robot
Those are ground controllers. Air traffic controllers usually sit in a windowless bunker at an undisclosed location far from actual air traffic, and could literally spend their entire careers never seeing an aircraft other than at 30,000 feet.
Well, in my experience thats not always the case. Before I became politically conscious, I had visited air force bases with the cadets and those guys working in the ATC towers get some damn nice views but thats another argument.
The point I should have made was, since there will be a much greater number of people entering each particular industry the tedium experienced will be greatly reduced by more people being available to cover, resulting in shift lengths becoming a fraction of what they were under capitalism.
A 10 hour working week? Sounds great to me!

EDIT: triple post -can an admin delete the last 2 for me? Thanks.

Dr Mindbender

29th November 2007, 19:24

Originally posted by pusher robot
Those are ground controllers. Air traffic controllers usually sit in a windowless bunker at an undisclosed location far from actual air traffic, and could literally spend their entire careers never seeing an aircraft other than at 30,000 feet.
Well, in my experience thats not always the case. Before I became politically conscious, I had visited air force bases with the cadets and those guys working in the ATC towers get some damn nice views but thats another argument.
The point I should have made was, since there will be a much greater number of people entering each particular industry the tedium experienced will be greatly reduced by more people being available to cover, resulting in shift lengths becoming a fraction of what they were under capitalism.
A 10 hour working week? Sounds great to me!

Dr Mindbender

30th November 2007, 01:12

Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)1) I can not write nor spell so being an author is out and I would kill myself if I had to write computer code. The job that I wanted when I was a kid will not exsist in a few years and would not appear at all in a socalist society.[/b]
The fact that you presently cant write or read computer code is irrelevant. I was merely using those vocations as possible examples. However my point is, under my envisaged ideaology you would have unfettered access to the means to obtain those skills, or for that matter, and job you did want. How do you know that your ideal job wont exist post-capitalism? Unless its a fascist dictator or a money hungry CEO (if you can call that work) then you won't have too many problems.

Originally posted by friend or [email protected]

2) I am saying that for most people the ideal job is sitting at home watching T.V..

Bullshit. The subconcious desire of every human being is a sense of purpose. The reason most people are in this mentality is the material conditioning of the ruling status quo has entrenched within the working class a sense of disillusionment and pointlessness towards aspiring to enriching jobs. How many people from privileged society sit around watching TV even though they could afford to? They don't do they? They participate in golf clubs, rub shoulders with professionals and generally keep themselves busy.

friend or foe

3) Where I live it costs around $3000 a year for a full load of classes and loans are easy to get so I do not think that education is the "preserve of the privileged".

Don't be so naive. Of course the higher education culture is dominated by the petit beourgioise air of 'holier-than-thouness' which is completely alien to those from disinfranchised poorer communities. Its small wonder then that few poorer kids pursue academic careers. Yes, loans are available but these provide no guarantee up the class ladder because not only of the debt incurred but also because of the fact that jobs are generally in short supply, even to graduates. Then there is the anti-education machismo that has been drilled into vulnerable working class youngsters, largely thanks to capitalist sponsored idiots from the gangster scene.

Robert

30th November 2007, 03:33

a money hungry CEO (if you can call that work)

I can call it work. It's work. It takes tremendous expenditures of mental energy to run IBM, Ford, the Bank of Scotland, and so on.

What do you call work?

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

30th November 2007, 04:58

Originally posted by pusher robot+November 29, 2007 05:43 am--> (pusher robot @ November 29, 2007 05:43 am)
Labor Shall [email protected] 29, 2007 05:37 am
Well, once again, if burgers were demanded, they would have a choice of either continuing production to have them, or to cease production, and have no burgers at all. It is as simple as that.
Or, they could, and I'm just throwing this out there, provide incentives to a third party to flip the burgers for them. [/b]
So in other words have someone who doesn't want to flip burgers, flipping burgers? Wonderful.

Robert

30th November 2007, 05:32

If the incentives Pusher offers me to flip his burgers for him are sufficient to persuade me to get me off the couch and go do it, I should be free to take him up on the offer. If you don't want to, stay home. That's not an outrage. That's freedom. An outrage would be a violent regime change that would result in interference in our right to cooperate for what we each independently perceive as mutually advantageous arrangements.

If you're worried about his exploiting me, relax. If there's a better deal to be made somewhere else, I'll make it.

What I can't tolerate is your telling me what to do with my energy, assuming I'm not hurting others.

It should make us all laugh, or cry maybe, that what the right sees as liberty the left wants to destroy in the name of ... what exactly I don't know. Liberty? Our own good?

Cmde. Slavyanski

30th November 2007, 08:25

All these people complaining about "fun" jobs forget one major thing- a major goal of Communist society is to, through the advancement of technology no longer restricted by profit motive and overproduction, drive down social labor times and ultimately lead to more leisure time. So yes people will still have to do "boring" jobs, but they will do far less work overall, and they will not face the kind of alienation that comes with working in today's society. You will always have to do work, it's part of human existence. The question is how much is really necessary, and who would you rather work for?

FriendorFoe

30th November 2007, 12:15

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 30, 2007 01:11 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 30, 2007 01:11 am)
Originally posted by friend or foe+--> (friend or foe)1) I can not write nor spell so being an author is out and I would kill myself if I had to write computer code. The job that I wanted when I was a kid will not exsist in a few years and would not appear at all in a socalist society.[/b]
The fact that you presently cant write or read computer code is irrelevant. I was merely using those vocations as possible examples. However my point is, under my envisaged ideaology you would have unfettered access to the means to obtain those skills, or for that matter, and job you did want. How do you know that your ideal job wont exist post-capitalism? Unless its a fascist dictator or a money hungry CEO (if you can call that work) then you won't have too many problems.

friend or [email protected]

2) I am saying that for most people the ideal job is sitting at home watching T.V..

Bullshit. The subconcious desire of every human being is a sense of purpose. The reason most people are in this mentality is the material conditioning of the ruling status quo has entrenched within the working class a sense of disillusionment and pointlessness towards aspiring to enriching jobs. How many people from privileged society sit around watching TV even though they could afford to? They don't do they? They participate in golf clubs, rub shoulders with professionals and generally keep themselves busy.

friend or foe

3) Where I live it costs around $3000 a year for a full load of classes and loans are easy to get so I do not think that education is the "preserve of the privileged".

Don't be so naive. Of course the higher education culture is dominated by the petit beourgioise air of 'holier-than-thouness' which is completely alien to those from disinfranchised poorer communities. Its small wonder then that few poorer kids pursue academic careers. Yes, loans are available but these provide no guarantee up the class ladder because not only of the debt incurred but also because of the fact that jobs are generally in short supply, even to graduates. Then there is the anti-education machismo that has been drilled into vulnerable working class youngsters, largely thanks to capitalist sponsored idiots from the gangster scene. [/b]
and how do you plan on deciding how many computer technicians you need vs mechanics vs lawyers, when theres no profits and no prices and no signalling whatsoever... besides arbitrary decree? i thought a worker was their to provide for society, isnt that what socialists believe? well maybe half the country want to be lawyers, you say they should be able to do what they want, but thats not necessarily what society needs. money allocates people to professions according to social demand. where is that mechanism in socialism?

the point of labor is eventually to provide for consumption not to work for the sake of enjoyment. how can you people promise that citizens can have any job they want, and at the same time any good they want for free. repeat that contradiction to yourself, dont it sound extraordinarily stupid

Green Dragon

30th November 2007, 13:32

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 29, 2007 07:17 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 29, 2007 07:17 pm)
pusher robot
Those are ground controllers. Air traffic controllers usually sit in a windowless bunker at an undisclosed location far from actual air traffic, and could literally spend their entire careers never seeing an aircraft other than at 30,000 feet.
Well, in my experience thats not always the case. Before I became politically conscious, I had visited air force bases with the cadets and those guys working in the ATC towers get some damn nice views but thats another argument.
The point I should have made was, since there will be a much greater number of people entering each particular industry the tedium experienced will be greatly reduced by more people being available to cover, resulting in shift lengths becoming a fraction of what they were under capitalism.
A 10 hour working week? Sounds great to me!

EDIT: triple post -can an admin delete the last 2 for me? Thanks. [/b]
More people coming into the workforce from where?

There are only so many people available. At some point, the industry runs out of available people willing to work.

And another thing, if all your labor is tied up into producing goods for today (and working ten hours per week or thereabouts) from where is the labor found to research and develop all these wonderful machines which ares supposed to take over production anyhow?

toater

30th November 2007, 15:09

its amazing how many economists are here...

Dr Mindbender

30th November 2007, 17:54

Originally posted by Robert the Great+November 30, 2007 03:32 am--> (Robert the Great @ November 30, 2007 03:32 am)
a money hungry CEO (if you can call that work)

I can call it work. It's work. It takes tremendous expenditures of mental energy to run IBM, Ford, the Bank of Scotland, and so on.

What do you call work? [/b]
going back an earlier argument, dont they hire accountants to do the 'brainy stuff' for them? I think you'll find most if not all of them do.

Originally posted by friend or [email protected]

and how do you plan on deciding how many computer technicians you need vs mechanics vs lawyers, when theres no profits and no prices and no signalling whatsoever... besides arbitrary decree? i thought a worker was their to provide for society, isnt that what socialists believe? well maybe half the country want to be lawyers, you say they should be able to do what they want, but thats not necessarily what society needs. money allocates people to professions according to social demand. where is that mechanism in socialism?
dont be fooled by conflicting models proposed by other posters here. A lot of people here would have menial jobs divided up amongst everyone rather than disposing of them entirely. What i'm suggesting is much more radical, by removing humans entirely from the production lines and call centres etc and replacing them with scientifically advanced machines and computers.
The allocation of work will be appropriated via the technical and creative aspirations of the person concerned. But as i said to pusher robot, since people are individual and have diverging interests by nature, this is what will keep the industry workforce quota in equilibrium.

friend or foe

the point of labor is eventually to provide for consumption not to work for the sake of enjoyment. how can you people promise that citizens can have any job they want, and at the same time any good they want for free. repeat that contradiction to yourself, dont it sound extraordinarily stupid
if that production is possible without the alienating and demeaning aspect of the involvement of human beings via technocratic socialism then what possible ethical and intelligent argument can there be for the defence of the ruling status quo?
This will be possible because capitalism fails to efficiently grasp the creative, automotive and productive potential at it's disposal. What sort of system sends physics graduates to work in a bank or with the example of one of my friends a history graduate to work in a bus depot? The free market is the biggest impedance to the scientific and cultural progress of the species. Unfortunately the self serving interests and the stubborn ignorance of the capitalists prevents them from seeing this or acting on it.

Dr Mindbender

30th November 2007, 18:48

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
More people coming into the workforce from where?[/b]
...Uh, the general public! :blink:

Originally posted by Green [email protected]

There are only so many people available. At some point, the industry runs out of available people willing to work.
Only because it is against the interests of the beourgioise to provide everyone with a free, fair and equal education. As a rule of thumb, people dont want to do shitty alienating jobs but the skills to obtain better ones arent easilly or readilly available.

Green Dragon

And another thing, if all your labor is tied up into producing goods for today (and working ten hours per week or thereabouts) from where is the labor found to research and develop all these wonderful machines which ares supposed to take over production anyhow?
..because human workers in factories will be replaced by machines, meaning people can concentrate on the task of engineering new technologies. So not only will these 'wonderful machines' be developed the task will be completed exponentially faster than it ever could be under capitalism.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st December 2007, 05:39

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 29, 2007 05:41 pm

So much for the monetary incentive.

So, what, you think that burger-flippers are working for what reason exactly? Charity? Duty? They just really love flipping burgers?

Clearly, the monetary incentive is necessary to induce these people to flip burgers. That was my whole point. The reason the incentive is not as large as with other jobs is (a) burger flipping, while tedious, isn't all that bad, relative to other possible tasks, and (b) the pool of available burger flippers is really, really, large.
You missed the point completely. In previous posts you had argued that it is necessary to pay people a premium in order to induce them to perform tedious and boring jobs that they wouldn't normally want to do. In other words, you were arguing that there would be a shortage of people willing to do boring jobs under socialism (or any other system with a mostly egalitarian compensation scheme).

Then I pointed out that the people who do tedious, boring jobs under capitalism - such as burger-flippers - are not paid a premium; in fact they are paid some of the lowest wages of all. If people are currently willing to perform boring jobs for below average wages, what makes you think that they wouldn't be willing to perform the same boring jobs under socialism for the equivalent of average wages?

Green Dragon

1st December 2007, 11:07

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 30, 2007 06:47 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 30, 2007 06:47 pm)
Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
More people coming into the workforce from where?[/b]
...Uh, the general public! :blink:

Green [email protected]

There are only so many people available. At some point, the industry runs out of available people willing to work.
Only because it is against the interests of the beourgioise to provide everyone with a free, fair and equal education. As a rule of thumb, people dont want to do shitty alienating jobs but the skills to obtain better ones arent easilly or readilly available.

Green Dragon

And another thing, if all your labor is tied up into producing goods for today (and working ten hours per week or thereabouts) from where is the labor found to research and develop all these wonderful machines which ares supposed to take over production anyhow?
..because human workers in factories will be replaced by machines, meaning people can concentrate on the task of engineering new technologies. So not only will these 'wonderful machines' be developed the task will be completed exponentially faster than it ever could be under capitalism. [/b]
1. Uh Ulster, there are only "X" number of people available to work at any given time. This has nothing to do with the "bougeoise" denying educational opportunities, or similiar such nonsense. It has to do with basic biology and laws of physics. You know. like it takes nine months to create a human being, it takes 18 years to get that baby ready to work (for unskilled jobs and of course longer for skilled jobs). A person who is in one place doing something, cannot at the same time be somewhere else doing something different. Technocracy or any other form of socialism isn't going to change that. And since it is considered desirable for the workers to work a ten hour workweek (or thereabouts) it means you need more people to the same amount of work, placing gretare stress and problems on some basic facts of science...

2. Ulster, sorry to dissapoint: But you will not wake up tomorrow with the machines ready to take over in a manner which you approve. Such development takes time, There will be successes. There will be failures.
But if your labor is all tied up into producing goods for CONTEMPORARY needs, and if your industry is designed to only produce to satisfy current demand (which is what you have said in the past (so as to avoid wastage)) from where do you get that labor and industrial capacity TODAY, to develop those machines for the FUTURE?

FriendorFoe

1st December 2007, 14:06

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 30, 2007 05:53 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 30, 2007 05:53 pm)
Originally posted by Robert the Great+November 30, 2007 03:32 am--> (Robert the Great @ November 30, 2007 03:32 am)
a money hungry CEO (if you can call that work)

I can call it work. It's work. It takes tremendous expenditures of mental energy to run IBM, Ford, the Bank of Scotland, and so on.

What do you call work? [/b]
going back an earlier argument, dont they hire accountants to do the 'brainy stuff' for them? I think you'll find most if not all of them do.

friend or [email protected]

and how do you plan on deciding how many computer technicians you need vs mechanics vs lawyers, when theres no profits and no prices and no signalling whatsoever... besides arbitrary decree? i thought a worker was their to provide for society, isnt that what socialists believe? well maybe half the country want to be lawyers, you say they should be able to do what they want, but thats not necessarily what society needs. money allocates people to professions according to social demand. where is that mechanism in socialism?
dont be fooled by conflicting models proposed by other posters here. A lot of people here would have menial jobs divided up amongst everyone rather than disposing of them entirely. What i'm suggesting is much more radical, by removing humans entirely from the production lines and call centres etc and replacing them with scientifically advanced machines and computers.
The allocation of work will be appropriated via the technical and creative aspirations of the person concerned. But as i said to pusher robot, since people are individual and have diverging interests by nature, this is what will keep the industry workforce quota in equilibrium.

friend or foe

the point of labor is eventually to provide for consumption not to work for the sake of enjoyment. how can you people promise that citizens can have any job they want, and at the same time any good they want for free. repeat that contradiction to yourself, dont it sound extraordinarily stupid
if that production is possible without the alienating and demeaning aspect of the involvement of human beings via technocratic socialism then what possible ethical and intelligent argument can there be for the defence of the ruling status quo?
This will be possible because capitalism fails to efficiently grasp the creative, automotive and productive potential at it's disposal. What sort of system sends physics graduates to work in a bank or with the example of one of my friends a history graduate to work in a bus depot? The free market is the biggest impedance to the scientific and cultural progress of the species. Unfortunately the self serving interests and the stubborn ignorance of the capitalists prevents them from seeing this or acting on it. [/b]
1. that doesnt answer my question. what mechanism allocates these resources according to social demand? what determines how many computers are used in producing fridges and how many in call centers. and where is the justification on efficiency grounds for mechanizing everything, when computers and advanced machines are scarce and need to be treated accorddingly?

2. again, arbitrary decisionmaking by you. markets at least attempt to to direct people to careers that are most needed. in your system, its just your opinion as to whats needed. thats the definition of a dictatorship.

Robert

1st December 2007, 15:00

thats the definition of a dictatorship

You're right as usual. but you and your interlocutor are like ships passing in the night. You'll never agree. He knows perfectly well what dictatorship is, but doesn't care. To make an omelette, one must break a few eggs, eh?

How else do you explain Mao, Pol, Fidel, and Josef? (None of them were socialists? Not even one? All were hijackers?) They were all hugely popular with certain segments of the populace, representatives of which post here every single day.

Labor Shall Rule

1st December 2007, 16:37

The fact is that markets will still exist, and the general costs of administration will still probably play its role in the process of production until the computerization and mechanization diminishes the role it plays. The consumer would still steadily receive products to satisfy their relative wants. The only difference is that the co-operative proceeds of labor, outside of the deductions that need to be paid to sustain the means of production, will be in the hands of the revolutionary workers.

Dr Mindbender

1st December 2007, 16:47

Originally posted by Green Dragon+--> (Green Dragon)
1. Uh Ulster, there are only "X" number of people available to work at any given time. This has nothing to do with the "bougeoise" denying educational opportunities, or similiar such nonsense. It has to do with basic biology and laws of physics. You know. like it takes nine months to create a human being, it takes 18 years to get that baby ready to work (for unskilled jobs and of course longer for skilled jobs). A person who is in one place doing something, cannot at the same time be somewhere else doing something different. Technocracy or any other form of socialism isn't going to change that. And since it is considered desirable for the workers to work a ten hour workweek (or thereabouts) it means you need more people to the same amount of work, placing gretare stress and problems on some basic facts of science...[/b]
The workforce quota would be determined by that x number of people, wanting to enter a given industry at that given time. Industry will become a servant of the people, not of the market. My point is it is a matter of utilising the squandered workforce that capitalism is prepared to leave to freeze to death on street corners, or to stagnate and stew in production lines and welfare cheque qeues.

Green Dragon

2. Ulster, sorry to dissapoint: But you will not wake up tomorrow with the machines ready to take over in a manner which you approve. Such development takes time, There will be successes. There will be failures.
But if your labor is all tied up into producing goods for CONTEMPORARY needs, and if your industry is designed to only produce to satisfy current demand (which is what you have said in the past (so as to avoid wastage)) from where do you get that labor and industrial capacity TODAY, to develop those machines for the FUTURE?
Yes, it may well take time so it will be phased in gradually. There may well be a transition period where the methods of labour appropriation proposed by traditional marxists will have to be utilised. But this is the keyword, and i stress keyword - it will be temporary.
By utilising the lost labour as i previously mentioned, and by amalgamating former members of the priveliged classes into the standard workforce the required shift times per person will be greatly reduced enabling the collective workforce to spend greater time concentrating on the machine projects that will eventually supercede them and pave the way for their future training and education, as well as their future generations.

pusher robot

2nd December 2007, 00:22

Then I pointed out that the people who do tedious, boring jobs under capitalism - such as burger-flippers - are not paid a premium

Yes, they are, because as I explained, for the people that flip burgers, their main alternative is to do nothing and get nothing. Something is always a premium over nothing, and so they flip burgers.

Dr Mindbender

2nd December 2007, 14:07

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 12:21 am

Then I pointed out that the people who do tedious, boring jobs under capitalism - such as burger-flippers - are not paid a premium

Yes, they are, because as I explained, for the people that flip burgers, their main alternative is to do nothing and get nothing. Something is always a premium over nothing, and so they flip burgers.
Doing nothing and getting enough = starving to death ,so that isnt an alternative, it's wage slavery.

The status quo makes it as impractical as possible for people to get the education or training to elevate themselves from the present situation, (via fees and the spiralling cost of living) which is why it's justification for preservation is invalid. Generally speaking, its only possible to become a manager of that burger outlet if the owner dies or retires, and since its only possible for 1 person to do so at a time everyone else has to slog their guts out in the rat race.

Robert

2nd December 2007, 16:06

s
impractical as possible for people to get the education or training to elevate themselves from the present situation,

Elaborate on this please, Ulster. Can a young man/woman in your country who studies and works hard not be admitted into university, regardless of his parentage, get loans and part time jobs, live frugally, but then graduate and get a well paying job?

Dr Mindbender

2nd December 2007, 16:45

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 02, 2007 04:05 pm
s
impractical as possible for people to get the education or training to elevate themselves from the present situation,

Elaborate on this please, Ulster. Can a young man/woman in your country who studies and works hard not be admitted into university, regardless of his parentage, get loans and part time jobs, live frugally, but then graduate and get a well paying job?
because studying usually incorporates having to compromise your livliehood, which in turn means you cant float the cost of living. Government policies like tuition fees, have either disuaded poorer people altogther or ensured that poorer students cant study without getting a part time job. Richer students on the other hand get to concentrate on their studies providing them with a greater and unequal leverage.

Robert

2nd December 2007, 18:41

But Ulster, even rich students in the USA, many of them anyway, get part time jobs while studying. Of course it's uneven, but I am hearing you say it can be done, correct?

Dr Mindbender

2nd December 2007, 20:22

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 02, 2007 06:40 pm
But Ulster, even rich students in the USA, many of them anyway, get part time jobs while studying. Of course it's uneven, but I am hearing you say it can be done, correct?
im guessing those rich students that do so, are looking either to bulk up their CV's (resumes in the US) or because mummy and daddy arent willing to fork out for them anymore (even though they could). For working class students (who are few and far between) running to mummy and daddy isnt even an option. Then, I can only speak from my experiences in the UK. I have been to university, but my financial situation made it hell. There were others of my socio economic background there, many of whom couldnt find employment per se let alone technical employment months after graduation. My middle class peers had no problems at all.

mikelepore

2nd December 2007, 21:16

The original post said:

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:48 pm
i know there is a faq section but i didnt get a clear answer from there.

No FAQ can answer the questions because the answer is: each movement has its own preferences about what the goal should be. That itself is the answer: there are an infinite number of possible futures, and when the working class choses which program to support then that will determine how the new system will operate. So the real question becomes one that wasn't expected -- the question becomes, "Out of the more than a hundred small movements that each claim, 'We are the one and only genuine proponent of the working class', how do they all differ?" Even if any one of them were to make a comparison chart to answer that, the other organizations would immediately say that the comparison chart is biased. Each person who attempted to answer the questions has replied by offering his or her own favorite interpretation.

pusher robot

2nd December 2007, 21:18

Doing nothing and getting enough = starving to death ,so that isnt an alternative, it's wage slavery.

Not necessarily. Capitalism allows you to keep the products of labor you do for yourself, so if you are capable of supporting yourself by your own hands, you are free to do so. It is only if you demand the products of the labor of others without offering anything in return that you may find it difficult to subsist.

Besides, we've established numerous times that a person couldn't simply be idle without consequences even under communism, so that if this situation is wage slavery under capitalism, then it's ordinary slavery under communism. You can't have it both ways!

Green Dragon

3rd December 2007, 01:40

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 01, 2007 04:46 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 01, 2007 04:46 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected]

1. Uh Ulster, there are only "X" number of people available to work at any given time. This has nothing to do with the "bougeoise" denying educational opportunities, or similiar such nonsense. It has to do with basic biology and laws of physics. You know. like it takes nine months to create a human being, it takes 18 years to get that baby ready to work (for unskilled jobs and of course longer for skilled jobs). A person who is in one place doing something, cannot at the same time be somewhere else doing something different. Technocracy or any other form of socialism isn't going to change that. And since it is considered desirable for the workers to work a ten hour workweek (or thereabouts) it means you need more people to the same amount of work, placing gretare stress and problems on some basic facts of science...
The workforce quota would be determined by that x number of people, wanting to enter a given industry at that given time. Industry will become a servant of the people, not of the market. My point is it is a matter of utilising the squandered workforce that capitalism is prepared to leave to freeze to death on street corners, or to stagnate and stew in production lines and welfare cheque qeues.

Green Dragon

2. Ulster, sorry to dissapoint: But you will not wake up tomorrow with the machines ready to take over in a manner which you approve. Such development takes time, There will be successes. There will be failures.
But if your labor is all tied up into producing goods for CONTEMPORARY needs, and if your industry is designed to only produce to satisfy current demand (which is what you have said in the past (so as to avoid wastage)) from where do you get that labor and industrial capacity TODAY, to develop those machines for the FUTURE?
Yes, it may well take time so it will be phased in gradually. There may well be a transition period where the methods of labour appropriation proposed by traditional marxists will have to be utilised. But this is the keyword, and i stress keyword - it will be temporary.
By utilising the lost labour as i previously mentioned, and by amalgamating former members of the priveliged classes into the standard workforce the required shift times per person will be greatly reduced enabling the collective workforce to spend greater time concentrating on the machine projects that will eventually supercede them and pave the way for their future training and education, as well as their future generations. [/b]
The situation you describe is NOT the industry becoming the servant of the people. It is, at best, the industry becoming the servant of those who wish to work there.

The problem at this point is that you have presented no efficient way of allocating labor between industries that may need people and industry which has too many. You are left at the arbitrary whims of people of where they want to work.
And this includes your labor for all these fantastic machines you rely upon.
Its a total crapshoot.

"Can't get theah from heah."

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd December 2007, 10:05

Originally posted by pusher robot+December 02, 2007 02:21 am--> (pusher robot @ December 02, 2007 02:21 am) Yes, they are, because as I explained, for the people that flip burgers, their main alternative is to do nothing and get nothing. Something is always a premium over nothing, and so they flip burgers. [/b]

pusher robot
Besides, we've established numerous times that a person couldn't simply be idle without consequences even under communism
Oh good, so they'd get a premium under communism too, according to your definition of "premium." Problem solved.

pusher robot

3rd December 2007, 21:44

Originally posted by Edric O+December 03, 2007 10:04 am--> (Edric O @ December 03, 2007 10:04 am)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:21 am
Yes, they are, because as I explained, for the people that flip burgers, their main alternative is to do nothing and get nothing. Something is always a premium over nothing, and so they flip burgers.

pusher robot
Besides, we've established numerous times that a person couldn't simply be idle without consequences even under communism
Oh good, so they'd get a premium under communism too, according to your definition of "premium." Problem solved. [/b]
No, because it could (and often) seems to be the case that the "consequences" of being idle in a communist society tend to be punishments, not withholding of premiums.

Dr Mindbender

4th December 2007, 18:55

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
Not necessarily. Capitalism allows you to keep the products of labor you do for yourself, so if you are capable of supporting yourself by your own hands, you are free to do so. It is only if you demand the products of the labor of others without offering anything in return that you may find it difficult to subsist.[/b]
The problem is the employer 'class' makes a point of paying a bare minimum in wages. So by the time you've paid your landlord, your groceries and your bills then any disposable income you've got left is pretty much negligible. So the argument that working hard always makes you free to support yourself is a fallacy. You're only free within the limits of how much production value the boss is willing to relinquish.

Originally posted by pusher robot+December 03, 2007 09:43 pm--> (pusher robot @ December 03, 2007 09:43 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 10:04 am

pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 02:21 am
Yes, they are, because as I explained, for the people that flip burgers, their main alternative is to do nothing and get nothing. Something is always a premium over nothing, and so they flip burgers.

pusher robot
Besides, we've established numerous times that a person couldn't simply be idle without consequences even under communism
Oh good, so they'd get a premium under communism too, according to your definition of "premium." Problem solved.
No, because it could (and often) seems to be the case that the "consequences" of being idle in a communist society tend to be punishments, not withholding of premiums. [/b]
if that assertion is based upon old stalinist models, then it is not based upon any genuine internationalist critique, or modern perspective.
Certainly not mine.

Stalinism was unable and unwilling to challenge the problem of global missapropriaton of goods and wealth, which is why the buick was passed to ordinary people.

Dr Mindbender

4th December 2007, 19:07

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 03, 2007 01:39 am

The problem at this point is that you have presented no efficient way of allocating labor between industries that may need people and industry which has too many. You are left at the arbitrary whims of people of where they want to work.
And this includes your labor for all these fantastic machines you rely upon.
Its a total crapshoot.

"Can't get theah from heah."
you're assuming the needs of industry will be the same post revolution as they are under the existing status quo. They wont be.
The reason is, that without different companies competing, often producing the same products the production requirements will radically change, as will the numbers needed to cover each means of production. The problem under capitalism it naively over-estimates that it will need certain (numbers of) products which then become unsellable, leading to massive overproduction and missappropriation. It is to cater for this lack of efficiency and resourcefullness that jobs are currently allocated.
So with a single state entity controlling each industry it will be able to appropriate jobs in proportional measure to those people affected and specifically interested in that field of work.

Green Dragon

6th December 2007, 00:36

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 04, 2007 07:06 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 04, 2007 07:06 pm)
Green [email protected] 03, 2007 01:39 am

The problem at this point is that you have presented no efficient way of allocating labor between industries that may need people and industry which has too many. You are left at the arbitrary whims of people of where they want to work.
And this includes your labor for all these fantastic machines you rely upon.
Its a total crapshoot.

"Can't get theah from heah."
you're assuming the needs of industry will be the same post revolution as they are under the existing status quo. They wont be.
The reason is, that without different companies competing, often producing the same products the production requirements will radically change, as will the numbers needed to cover each means of production. The problem under capitalism it naively over-estimates that it will need certain (numbers of) products which then become unsellable, leading to massive overproduction and missappropriation. It is to cater for this lack of efficiency and resourcefullness that jobs are currently allocated.
So with a single state entity controlling each industry it will be able to appropriate jobs in proportional measure to those people affected and specifically interested in that field of work. [/b]
No, Ulster. I am assuming that the PURPOSE of industry in the post revolution world will be the same as now- to produce those items which people need and want.
I don't see how or why this would be disputed.

yet you do, by insisting that industry is better at production when its labor pool decides what they wish to produce.
I suppose that labor pool could decide to build a given number of Unit X, for whatever arbitrary reason it decided. I fail to see how such allocation is ultimately beneficial to the people, or how it is more rationally allocated.

Green Dragon

6th December 2007, 00:39

[QUOTE=pusher robot]
Not necessarily. Capitalism allows you to keep the products of labor you do for yourself, so if you are capable of supporting yourself by your own hands, you are free to do so. It is only if you demand the products of the labor of others without offering anything in return that you may find it difficult to subsist.
The problem is the employer 'class' makes a point of paying a bare minimum in wages. So by the time you've paid your landlord, your groceries and your bills then any disposable income you've got left is pretty much negligible. So the argument that working hard always makes you free to support yourself is a fallacy. You're only free within the limits of how much production value the boss is willing to relinquish.

Ulster, if its wrong for the capitalist to "overproduce" and thus missallocate production, why is it wrong for that same capitalist to reduce costs to as low as yu are willing to work? Would not paying "more" than what your labor is worth be a missallocation of labor?

Robert

6th December 2007, 01:35

leading to massive overproduction

Ulster, tell us what happens to a company that "massively overproduces" anything for the free market?

I know that you know this.

jacobin1949

6th December 2007, 01:42

Under Communism there is MORE incentive to work. Since under capitalism a fraction of a worker's labor is taken away for profit, under communism a worker is given a direct share of the output of the work he puts in rather than a mere fraction of it.

Thus a worker directly "owns" his labor instead of giving it away and then having part of it given back to him.

Robert

6th December 2007, 21:45

Thus a worker directly "owns" his labor instead of giving it away and then having part of it given back to him

Half correct. He owns it now, so long as he remains free to take and leave whatever job he wants. He exchanges it for whatever he can get. If he doesn't like the offer, he's free to decline it or make a counter offer. So far.

Dr Mindbender

7th December 2007, 18:02

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 06, 2007 12:35 am

No, Ulster. I am assuming that the PURPOSE of industry in the post revolution world will be the same as now- to produce those items which people need and want.
I don't see how or why this would be disputed.

yet you do, by insisting that industry is better at production when its labor pool decides what they wish to produce.
I suppose that labor pool could decide to build a given number of Unit X, for whatever arbitrary reason it decided. I fail to see how such allocation is ultimately beneficial to the people, or how it is more rationally allocated.
this is going round in circles. The 'labour pool' and the consumers are the same group. Stop drawing this imaginary distinction!

the reason the habits of industry will change will be because you will no longer have competing companies producing the same sort of product! There will only be one manufacturer of television sets in much the same way there will only be one manufacturer of soap and toothpastes. All private enterprises who run these assume they will sell to their competitors customers which is why they always produce more than they need, rather than producing to a fixed number of people they know will use their goods.

Was that simple enough or do you want me to start again using small words and big letters?

Dr Mindbender

7th December 2007, 18:07

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 06, 2007 01:34 am

leading to massive overproduction

Ulster, tell us what happens to a company that "massively overproduces" anything for the free market?

I know that you know this.
I know what you're insinuating and the answer is not always. Be it individuals, small businesses or large companies, there are always mechanisms under capitalism for entities struggling cash wise to live another day to get into even bigger levels of financial shit, be it 'mergers' or loans.

The point is, even when those companies do die, there will always be a company A and company B, both producing product C at obtuse levels no one will never need.

Dr Mindbender

7th December 2007, 18:11

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 06, 2007 12:38 am
.

Ulster, if its wrong for the capitalist to "overproduce" and thus missallocate production, why is it wrong for that same capitalist to reduce costs to as low as yu are willing to work? Would not paying "more" than what your labor is worth be a missallocation of labor?
you're totally ignoring the fundamental grievance of the revolutionary left which is that all the profit gains by the capitalist is produced by his/her workers anyway.

The argument should be -what right does the capitalist have to help himself to the production value of his/her workers?

pusher robot

7th December 2007, 18:57

The argument should be -what right does the capitalist have to help himself to the production value of his/her workers?

The workers have agreed to allow it.

pusher robot

7th December 2007, 19:03

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 06:01 pm

this is going round in circles. The 'labour pool' and the consumers are the same group. Stop drawing this imaginary distinction!
Just because the same people are in both sets doesn't mean that individual people don't change their behavior depending which subset they happen to fall in.

If I am a brewer, I DON'T CARE about the intricacies of producing my television. When it comes to televisions, I am a consumer, and all I care about is that I want my damn television. If I don't have a TV, that's not my failure, it's a failure of the TV producers.

Likewise, the television producers DON'T CARE about the intricacies of beer brewing. When they go to their local pub, they are beer consumers and all they are concerned with is whether the tap flows or not. If the keg is empty, that's not their failure, it's a failure of the brewery.

The question being put to you is: if the brewers decide on beer production based on their own interests, and the TV producers vote on TV production based on their own interests, where are the interests of the beer-drinking TV producers and the TV-deprived brewers factored into the system?

Green Dragon

8th December 2007, 01:57

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 07, 2007 06:10 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 07, 2007 06:10 pm)
Green [email protected] 06, 2007 12:38 am
.

Ulster, if its wrong for the capitalist to "overproduce" and thus missallocate production, why is it wrong for that same capitalist to reduce costs to as low as yu are willing to work? Would not paying "more" than what your labor is worth be a missallocation of labor?
you're totally ignoring the fundamental grievance of the revolutionary left which is that all the profit gains by the capitalist is produced by his/her workers anyway.

The argument should be -what right does the capitalist have to help himself to the production value of his/her workers? [/b]
I know the grievance- the question still stands.

If it is wrong for the industry to produce more than it is needed, why is it okay for the costs in production to be greater than needed?

Dr Mindbender

8th December 2007, 16:36

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 07, 2007 06:56 pm

The argument should be -what right does the capitalist have to help himself to the production value of his/her workers?

The workers have agreed to allow it.
no, no no, as i've said before the alternative to declining the work contract is destitition and subsequent starvation. 'Agreement' and co-ercion are not, I repeat NOT the same thing!

Dr Mindbender

8th December 2007, 16:51

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
If I am a brewer, I DON'T CARE about the intricacies of producing my television. When it comes to televisions, I am a consumer, and all I care about is that I want my damn television. If I don't have a TV, that's not my failure, it's a failure of the TV producers.[/b]
Under the existing establishment, yes of course this is the case. However in a communist society where all industries have been nationalised, the intricities of one industry have an effect on all, owing to the fact that they are operated by the same body. Also, brewers, and everyone else for that matter should care nonetheless about the overproduction we have at the moment because it is a root cause of the imminent environmental catastrophe. Already rubbish tips are filling up with skyscrapers of unwanted or unsellable television sets! It's that very 'i'm alright jack' attitude that is getting the human species nowhere.

Originally posted by pusher [email protected]

Likewise, the television producers DON'T CARE about the intricacies of beer brewing. When they go to their local pub, they are beer consumers and all they are concerned with is whether the tap flows or not. If the keg is empty, that's not their failure, it's a failure of the brewery.
See above.

pusher robot

The question being put to you is: if the brewers decide on beer production based on their own interests, and the TV producers vote on TV production based on their own interests, where are the interests of the beer-drinking TV producers and the TV-deprived brewers factored into the system?
the brewers themselves will not specifically decide on beer production. Of course they will be involved in the decision making, however It will be the consensus of all workers, the same going for the other industries. Since [technocratic] socialism/communism will utilise the labour being left to stagnate at the moment to its full potential, working shift periods will be minimised to a fraction of what they where under capitalism. This will give the workers more time do other things, including to participate in the affairs of state, to discuss matters including resource appropriation among other things like simply spending more time with their families.

Dr Mindbender

8th December 2007, 16:55

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 08, 2007 01:56 am--> (Green Dragon @ December 08, 2007 01:56 am)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 06:10 pm

Green [email protected] 06, 2007 12:38 am
.

Ulster, if its wrong for the capitalist to "overproduce" and thus missallocate production, why is it wrong for that same capitalist to reduce costs to as low as yu are willing to work? Would not paying "more" than what your labor is worth be a missallocation of labor?
you're totally ignoring the fundamental grievance of the revolutionary left which is that all the profit gains by the capitalist is produced by his/her workers anyway.

The argument should be -what right does the capitalist have to help himself to the production value of his/her workers?
I know the grievance- the question still stands.

If it is wrong for the industry to produce more than it is needed, why is it okay for the costs in production to be greater than needed? [/b]
if by cost you mean financial, it would be an arbitrary quantity in a society run on the basis of equal goods for all- for labour, therefore no concern of the workers.

The burden of justification rests firmly on the shoulders of the ruling society, so please stop trying to pass the buick.

Green Dragon

9th December 2007, 21:26

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 04:54 pm
if by cost you mean financial, it would be an arbitrary quantity in a society run on the basis of equal goods for all- for labour, therefore no concern of the workers.

The burden of justification rests firmly on the shoulders of the ruling society, so please stop trying to pass the buick.
By "cost" I mean "cost."

When you produce an item, there are costs involved. To use the favored example of beer, this product requires component parts of water, alcohol, barley, hops, bottles, fuel, land, machinery LABOR and time, to be a finished product. The cost of producing beer means those parts of production cannot be used to produce anything else. It means that the water used for beer cannot be shipped to the carwash; the bottles cannot be shipped to the soft drink workers; the electricity cannot be used to power the hospital; the labor cannot be used to clean the streets.

And of course those component parts of beer are some other workers FINISHED products, which in turn require their own component parts, which in turn are some other workers FINISHED products, which in turn require their own component parts...
What you are doing is simply looking at the problem from when the item is available to the consumer, the finished product, and not the steps in between.

So to say workers will not have to worry about "cost" cannot be taken seriously. If cost is no object, then there is simply no way for the community to produce "just" enough because the community will have no way of determining if what they are voting to produce makes any sense.

I know you will say that sense comes about in a vote in the council. But that vote, to say build 1000 TV's is not the end of it. The TY needs its own component parts, which can be used elsewhere, and if focused on TV's, CANNOT be used elsewhere.
The voters in the commitee need a base of knowledge guiding their decisions.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 14:28

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 09, 2007 09:25 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 09, 2007 09:25 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 04:54 pm
if by cost you mean financial, it would be an arbitrary quantity in a society run on the basis of equal goods for all- for labour, therefore no concern of the workers.

The burden of justification rests firmly on the shoulders of the ruling society, so please stop trying to pass the buick.
By "cost" I mean "cost."

When you produce an item, there are costs involved. To use the favored example of beer, this product requires component parts of water, alcohol, barley, hops, bottles, fuel, land, machinery LABOR and time, to be a finished product. The cost of producing beer means those parts of production cannot be used to produce anything else. It means that the water used for beer cannot be shipped to the carwash; the bottles cannot be shipped to the soft drink workers; the electricity cannot be used to power the hospital; the labor cannot be used to clean the streets.

And of course those component parts of beer are some other workers FINISHED products, which in turn require their own component parts, which in turn are some other workers FINISHED products, which in turn require their own component parts...
What you are doing is simply looking at the problem from when the item is available to the consumer, the finished product, and not the steps in between.

So to say workers will not have to worry about "cost" cannot be taken seriously. If cost is no object, then there is simply no way for the community to produce "just" enough because the community will have no way of determining if what they are voting to produce makes any sense.

I know you will say that sense comes about in a vote in the council. But that vote, to say build 1000 TV's is not the end of it. The TY needs its own component parts, which can be used elsewhere, and if focused on TV's, CANNOT be used elsewhere.
The voters in the commitee need a base of knowledge guiding their decisions. [/b]
Most of the rebukes you offer are applicable mainly to the existing system. Yes, at the moment, water is something that can not be easilly salvaged when it has gone into a particular service or product primarilly because of the frankly unnecessary and copius amounts that are used in carwashing, not to mention that the filtration technology needed to claim the water back is not widely or readilly used or sometimes not available. Structure your society around the pursuit of science and knowledge rather than the pursuit of profit, and well it becomes a different kettlefish. As for your example regarding electronic parts, we know that the recycling means at our disposal are grossly underused.

Green Dragon

10th December 2007, 14:50

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:27 pm
Most of the rebukes you offer are applicable mainly to the existing system. Yes, at the moment, water is something that can not be easilly salvaged when it has gone into a particular service or product primarilly because of the frankly unnecessary and copius amounts that are used in carwashing, not to mention that the filtration technology needed to claim the water back is not widely or readilly used or sometimes not available. Structure your society around the pursuit of science and knowledge rather than the pursuit of profit, and well it becomes a different kettlefish. As for your example regarding electronic parts, we know that the recycling means at our disposal are grossly underused.
They are applicable to any system. Even a technocracy.

Build water filtration systems that recycles water at the carwash. Fine. But that technology involves a cost as well, because it needs labor, raw materials ect to be constructed itself. Is not using those materials on something else worth the cost in building the water filtration system? i don't know, and neither does a technocracy. Because it has nothing by which to measure that cost, other than a guess, which is nothing but pure arbitrariness.

Go to school and study physics. Maybe the community needs more trained physicists. But guess what? That means the community has one fewer person available to be a car mechanic. Is that cost worth it? Most likely. How does the community measure this? Capitalism has a way. Socialism? Not even the socialists seem to know.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 15:13

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 10, 2007 02:49 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 10, 2007 02:49 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 02:27 pm
Most of the rebukes you offer are applicable mainly to the existing system. Yes, at the moment, water is something that can not be easilly salvaged when it has gone into a particular service or product primarilly because of the frankly unnecessary and copius amounts that are used in carwashing, not to mention that the filtration technology needed to claim the water back is not widely or readilly used or sometimes not available. Structure your society around the pursuit of science and knowledge rather than the pursuit of profit, and well it becomes a different kettlefish. As for your example regarding electronic parts, we know that the recycling means at our disposal are grossly underused.
They are applicable to any system. Even a technocracy.

Build water filtration systems that recycles water at the carwash. Fine. But that technology involves a cost as well, because it needs labor, raw materials ect to be constructed itself. Is not using those materials on something else worth the cost in building the water filtration system? i don't know, and neither does a technocracy. Because it has nothing by which to measure that cost, other than a guess, which is nothing but pure arbitrariness.

Go to school and study physics. Maybe the community needs more trained physicists. But guess what? That means the community has one fewer person available to be a car mechanic. Is that cost worth it? Most likely. How does the community measure this? Capitalism has a way. Socialism? Not even the socialists seem to know. [/b]
id tend to disagree with your reply to the water filtration, because it is then amalgamated into the water system as a whole so it becomes a utility which is essential. We cant survive without water, electricity etc so the importance is greater than any other facet the resources could otherwise be applied to.

Yes, physicists and car mechanics may be needed in varying measures, but guess what? Theres a pool of people/potential workers out there which the current system simply isnt using. There is no scarcity, its all an illusion designed to make us part with more money for goods and services.

pusher robot

10th December 2007, 15:13

Most of the rebukes you offer are applicable mainly to the existing system.

They're always applicable, and the sooner you realize this and address it, the better off you will be. No amount of conservation is going to eliminate the existence of material, labor, and opportunity costs.

Why aren't recycling and reclamation used more than they already are? Because the COSTS in energy, labor, and other resources outweighs the energy, labor, and other resources it would save. Do you see what I mean yet? How is a socialist society going to decide what materials to recycle? Popularity? For example, you can recycle paper - but it uses a lot of water. You can recycle glass - but it uses a lot of energy. Does it make sense to recycle paper or glass? How can you answer this question without knowing (a) how much water and energy are needed elsewhere and (b) the value of the resources needed to make these products new?

the brewers themselves will not specifically decide on beer production. Of course they will be involved in the decision making, however It will be the consensus of all workers, the same going for the other industries.

First of all, this runs contrary to all the rhetoric that is spouted about workers controlling their own workplaces. Apparently you are actually talking about workers being slaves to the democratic majority, so that if the majority votes to produce beer at a level that requires brewers to work 18 hour days, then the brewers are just going to have to work 18 hour days.

Second of all, are you serious? There are hundreds of thousands of industries minimum. To propose that the operation of every industry will have to be voted on by "all the workers" is ludicrous. Assuming a mere 100,000 industries, that's 274 decisions on industry operation every day of the year. In an 8-hour work day, that's almost one decision every minute and a half, without breaks! Even assuming that workers wanted to have this decision-making responsibility - which they don't - it would be impossible to make any kind of informed voting decisions with such a tiny amount of time available to decide just the production levels of any industry. And of course, dare I point out that having spent 8 hours of every day deciding on the production levels of every industry, no other work was done by any of the workers, rendering the voted-upon targets total fantasy?

pusher robot

10th December 2007, 15:17

id tend to disagree with your reply to the water filtration, because it is then amalgamated into the water system as a whole so it becomes a utility which is essential. We cant survive without water, electricity etc so the importance is greater than any other facet the resources could otherwise be applied to.

The question is not, "do we reclaim water or go thirsty," it's "do we reclaim water or get it elsewhere?" In order to decide rationally upon "reclamation" or "elsewhere" we need to know the costs of each. Where I live, on the Great Lakes, it would make no sense to reclaim water at great expense when we can just draw it out of a gigantic lake of fresh water. In arid coastal areas, producing fresh water is far more costly than sucking it out of a lake, and then reclamation becomes more sensible.

Green Dragon

10th December 2007, 15:39

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 03:12 pm

Yes, physicists and car mechanics may be needed in varying measures, but guess what? Theres a pool of people/potential workers out there which the current system simply isnt using. There is no scarcity, its all an illusion designed to make us part with more money for goods and services.
But what advantage of that is to the community? You have repeatedly stated that in technocracy people will work where they want. Given this, you cannot possibly conclude that your communuty will have enough physicists or mechanics. In fact, there is no way to know one way or the other. All you can safely say is that you hope that your community will have enough physicists and car mechanics.

And you have to know, because once the current system is gone, those unused workers are supposedly working, and you have to be able to know if what they are doing makes sense.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 15:48

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)They're always applicable, and the sooner you realize this and address it, the better off you will be. No amount of conservation is going to eliminate the existence of material, labor, and opportunity costs.
[/b]
I was referring specifically to Green Dragon's point about 'material costs'. Those concerned will be reimbursed via their share in the social spoils. I'm not sure what you meant by 'opportunity costs'. Clearly this is where our definitions get confused.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
Why aren't recycling and reclamation used more than they already are? Because the COSTS in energy, labor, and other resources outweighs the energy, labor, and other resources it would save. Do you see what I mean yet? How is a socialist society going to decide what materials to recycle? Popularity? For example, you can recycle paper - but it uses a lot of water. You can recycle glass - but it uses a lot of energy. Does it make sense to recycle paper or glass? How can you answer this question without knowing (a) how much water and energy are needed elsewhere and (b) the value of the resources needed to make these products new?
[/b]
I think its fairly easy to say what areas of recycling should be prioritised. While paper and glass are extremely versatile, they clearly arent needed to the same extent as water or energy sources.

Originally posted by pusher robot

First of all, this runs contrary to all the rhetoric that is spouted about workers controlling their own workplaces. Apparently you are actually talking about workers being slaves to the democratic majority, so that if the majority votes to produce beer at a level that requires brewers to work 18 hour days, then the brewers are just going to have to work 18 hour days.
Well, technocracy, classical marxism and anarchism arent the same thing. The old school marxists want everyone to participate in manual work regardless of their education, while the anarchists want no state interference at all.
Since all industries would be owned by the state, and since the people own the state all industries are effectively owned by all people regardless of their vocation so clearly a scientist should have some say to the resources put into the arts and vice versa.
The difference is, each industry will have its own internal political decisions, to be debated by internal unions within that given industry. No rational minded person would want to work 18 hours a day so it is next to certain such a motion would not be carried forward democratically.

pusher [email protected]

Second of all, are you serious? There are hundreds of thousands of industries minimum. To propose that the operation of every industry will have to be voted on by "all the workers" is ludicrous. Assuming a mere 100,000 industries, that's 274 decisions on industry operation every day of the year. In an 8-hour work day, that's almost one decision every minute and a half, without breaks! Even assuming that workers wanted to have this decision-making responsibility - which they don't - it would be impossible to make any kind of informed voting decisions with such a tiny amount of time available to decide just the production levels of any industry. And of course, dare I point out that having spent 8 hours of every day deciding on the production levels of every industry, no other work was done by any of the workers, rendering the voted-upon targets total fantasy?
As I said before, there would be multiple levels of influence a given person would have on a particular industry. There would be decisions to be made at both external and internal levels. The input of those externally could be something as simple as a tick-box survey (taking 5 mins of his time and even less time to be scanned by a computer) while internal politics would be debated by the respective union.

pusher robot

The question is not, "do we reclaim water or go thirsty," it's "do we reclaim water or get it elsewhere?" In order to decide rationally upon "reclamation" or "elsewhere" we need to know the costs of each. Where I live, on the Great Lakes, it would make no sense to reclaim water at great expense when we can just draw it out of a gigantic lake of fresh water. In arid coastal areas, producing fresh water is far more costly than sucking it out of a lake, and then reclamation becomes more sensible.
You're very fortunate to live in an area where fresh water is readilly available. I somewhat suspect though that the reason people have chosen to work and set up their habitat around areas which are more arid is stem from socio-economic factors that would probably not carry influence post-capitalism. Unfortunately it isnt feasible to transport the water great discernable distances so of course purification processes like desalination have to be utilised. Hopefully, when R&D is given greater onus it will become easier and more widespread than it is at the moment.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 16:00

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 10, 2007 03:38 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 10, 2007 03:38 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 03:12 pm

Yes, physicists and car mechanics may be needed in varying measures, but guess what? Theres a pool of people/potential workers out there which the current system simply isnt using. There is no scarcity, its all an illusion designed to make us part with more money for goods and services.
But what advantage of that is to the community? You have repeatedly stated that in technocracy people will work where they want. Given this, you cannot possibly conclude that your communuty will have enough physicists or mechanics. In fact, there is no way to know one way or the other. All you can safely say is that you hope that your community will have enough physicists and car mechanics.

And you have to know, because once the current system is gone, those unused workers are supposedly working, and you have to be able to know if what they are doing makes sense. [/b]
Society will forge itself around what people are interested in. Even under capitalism, people tend to spend less time worrying about niche appliances that are not really well catered for by particular industry. If someone wakes up one day and thinks ''ooh I've got an idea for an invention'' he can discuss it with his colleages at work the next day, then they can get to work on and maybe even set up a new industry around it. Its about spawning that sort of creativity rather than him thinking ''aw shit, ive got a great idea but i dont have enough start up capital so i'll just forget about it and head back to the factory tomorrow''.
The biggest difference is that the free market determines what industries succeed via the most prominent profit margin as opposed to wether or not that particular idea is actually better or not.

Green Dragon

10th December 2007, 16:14

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 03:59 pm
Society will forge itself around what people are interested in. Even under capitalism, people tend to spend less time worrying about niche appliances that are not really well catered for by particular industry. If someone wakes up one day and thinks ''ooh I've got an idea for an invention'' he can discuss it with his colleages at work the next day, then they can get to work on and maybe even set up a new industry around it. Its about spawning that sort of creativity rather than him thinking ''aw shit, ive got a great idea but i dont have enough start up capital so i'll just forget about it and head back to the factory tomorrow''.
The biggest difference is that the free market determines what industries succeed via the most prominent profit margin as opposed to wether or not that particular idea is actually better or not.
Society already forms itself around what people are interested. A "niche" item is an item that people may like, may need, but the costs involved do not justify its aquisition.

And if someone wakes up with a new idea for an invention, why are you assuming that that invention is:
1. Useful to the community.'
2. Desired by the community.
You are right away willing to plow the resources of the community right into the idea. Its a cost (those resources cant be used elsewhere if they are sunk into the new idea) and a "risk" (since there is no guarantee the new idea will pan out), meaning those resources were wasted. the cost was that the resources that were sunk into a failed idea was not used elsewhere. How do you judge whether the cost was worth it. So far it seems to be based upon what YOU can see, what is YOUR particular opinionj on the matter. Which means others will have differing views. Which means your system rests upon pure arbitrariness.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 16:31

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 10, 2007 04:13 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 10, 2007 04:13 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 03:59 pm
Society will forge itself around what people are interested in. Even under capitalism, people tend to spend less time worrying about niche appliances that are not really well catered for by particular industry. If someone wakes up one day and thinks ''ooh I've got an idea for an invention'' he can discuss it with his colleages at work the next day, then they can get to work on and maybe even set up a new industry around it. Its about spawning that sort of creativity rather than him thinking ''aw shit, ive got a great idea but i dont have enough start up capital so i'll just forget about it and head back to the factory tomorrow''.
The biggest difference is that the free market determines what industries succeed via the most prominent profit margin as opposed to wether or not that particular idea is actually better or not.
Society already forms itself around what people are interested. A "niche" item is an item that people may like, may need, but the costs involved do not justify its aquisition.

And if someone wakes up with a new idea for an invention, why are you assuming that that invention is:
1. Useful to the community.'
2. Desired by the community.
You are right away willing to plow the resources of the community right into the idea. Its a cost (those resources cant be used elsewhere if they are sunk into the new idea) and a "risk" (since there is no guarantee the new idea will pan out), meaning those resources were wasted. the cost was that the resources that were sunk into a failed idea was not used elsewhere. How do you judge whether the cost was worth it. So far it seems to be based upon what YOU can see, what is YOUR particular opinionj on the matter. Which means others will have differing views. Which means your system rests upon pure arbitrariness. [/b]
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?

pusher robot

10th December 2007, 16:55

I think its fairly easy to say what areas of recycling should be prioritised.

I doubt it's nearly as easy as you think, especially if you are simply acting on determinations already made under a market-based system.

I was referring specifically to Green Dragon's point about 'material costs'. Those concerned will be reimbursed via their share in the social spoils. I'm not sure what you meant by 'opportunity costs'. Clearly this is where our definitions get confused.

There are no "social spoils" if the spoils are less valuable than the resources consumed in making them. That's the whole point. Opportunity cost simply means that even if something is not "consumed" - like, say, a piece of machinery - the fact that you are using it for one purpose means you cannot be simultaneously using it for another purpose. Using that piece of machinery for one thing "costs" you the "opportunity" to use it for something else.

No rational minded person would want to work 18 hours a day so it is next to certain such a motion would not be carried forward democratically.

Well humor me with an example, because it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.

Let's suppose that the majority of the population votes to produce beer at a very high level, such that the brewers would have to work 18 hour days to brew that much beer. What happens? Do they simply refuse to meet the democratically chosen target, rendering the decision of the majority illusory?

There would be decisions to be made at both external and internal levels. The input of those externally could be something as simple as a tick-box survey (taking 5 mins of his time and even less time to be scanned by a computer) while internal politics would be debated by the respective union.
You're not addressing my point that most people cannot afford to spend any time worrying about most industries, or else nothing will get done.

Unfortunately it isnt feasible to transport the water great discernable distances

It isn't? Why not? If we have to burn 50 gallons of diesel fuel to truck in 2,000 gallons of fresh water from a springhead, aren't we better off than if we burn 200 gallons of diesel fuel to desalinate 4,000 gallons of water? You may answer that it is obviously so, and we don't need markets to figure out a water/diesl ratio. But what if it's burning 50 gallons of diesel or 200 cubic feet of natural gas? Or consuming a million cubic meters of concrete to build an aqueduct? Now how do you decide which is the best alternative without the existence of markets?

Hopefully, when R&D is given greater onus it will become easier and more widespread than it is at the moment.I am not prepared to gamble my future on your hopes.

pusher robot

10th December 2007, 17:02

obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies.

Which would make it obviously impossible to proceed with an invention that would upset existing workers' interests. Again, you are making an unfounded assumption that people will vote the community's interests instead of their own interests.

Do you really expect the buggy-whip factory workers to vote in favor of funding some new-fangled horseless carriage with their own "spoils?"

Green Dragon

10th December 2007, 17:04

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 04:30 pm
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?
The consensus of the "democratic bodies" simply refers to the process. Presumably (hopefully, perhaps), the "democratic bodies" will make an informed decision. Which requires a base of accepted knowledge, which the electorate can debate about. Such as whether the cost of shipping water to an arid desert is more prohibitive than building a super advanced water recycling factory.

Simply because the workers have a consensus on a course of action does not meant the action makes any rational sense.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 17:14

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
I doubt it's nearly as easy as you think, especially if you are simply acting on determinations already made under a market-based system.[/b]
Of course it is, as i've already explained there are essential and non-essential amenities.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)

There are no "social spoils" if the spoils are less valuable than the resources consumed in making them. That's the whole point. Opportunity cost simply means that even if something is not "consumed" - like, say, a piece of machinery - the fact that you are using it for one purpose means you cannot be simultaneously using it for another purpose. Using that piece of machinery for one thing "costs" you the "opportunity" to use it for something else.[/b]
it depends how you guage value really. That really depends on the ruling ideaology, because something 'valuable' under capitalism isnt necessarilly going to be valuable after it.

Originally posted by pusher robot

Well humor me with an example, because it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.
I was thinking along the lines of appropriation and operation of workplace amenities and machinery. If someone has the skills necessary and want to move to a different job, then a vote can be carried by the respective union.

Originally posted by pusher robot

Let's suppose that the majority of the population votes to produce beer at a very high level, such that the brewers would have to work 18 hour days to brew that much beer. What happens? Do they simply refuse to meet the democratically chosen target, rendering the decision of the majority illusory?
You're assuming that the pre-revolution employee figure would remain static, which it wouldnt. The pool of missapropriated workers and unemployed/homeless could be trained and utilised to cover the new shift pattern. Once the technocratic research had reached a level where humans could be replaced entirely, then people can be withdrawn from the production line and shorter shifts can be implemented with greater time inbetween.

Originally posted by pusher robot

You're not addressing my point that most people cannot afford to spend any time worrying about most industries, or else nothing will get done.
Thats because they're forced to work 40 hour a week jobs to make ends meet. Remove unemployment, more workers become available, shift times go down and more free time per worker is available.
The reason more is not done about employment at the moment is because having a pool of unemployed desperate people on constant standby is a handy thing for the capitalists to have because it means they can be used to cross picket lines (via employment agencies) and to keep down wages.

pusher [email protected]

It isn't? Why not? If we have to burn 50 gallons of diesel fuel to truck in 2,000 gallons of fresh water from a springhead, aren't we better off than if we burn 200 gallons of diesel fuel to desalinate 4,000 gallons of water? You may answer that it is obviously so, and we don't need markets to figure out a water/diesl ratio. But what if it's burning 50 gallons of diesel or 200 cubic feet of natural gas? Or consuming a million cubic meters of concrete to build an aqueduct? Now how do you decide which is the best alternative without the existence of markets?

If building on site purification means near local water bodies isnt practical, then i fail to see the practicality of repeated truck journeys (itself an environmental liability) or excessive amounts of metal tubing needed to excavate water from said lake to community x. The desalination plants arent the only purification means, nor do they have to be diesel, they can utilise a renewable resource.

pusher robot

I am not prepared to gamble my future on your hopes.
the moon landing was based on hopes, yet america was willing to commit millions if not billions of dollars on it.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 17:23

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 10, 2007 05:03 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 10, 2007 05:03 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 04:30 pm
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?
The consensus of the "democratic bodies" simply refers to the process. Presumably (hopefully, perhaps), the "democratic bodies" will make an informed decision. Which requires a base of accepted knowledge, which the electorate can debate about. Such as whether the cost of shipping water to an arid desert is more prohibitive than building a super advanced water recycling factory.

Simply because the workers have a consensus on a course of action does not meant the action makes any rational sense. [/b]
if you were to put the consensus to the average workforce at the moment then probably not, but thats probably because most of them havent had the benefit of a system which places a high priority on education.

Lynx

10th December 2007, 17:57

Interesting debate, but you are confusing the method - communism or technocracy?
Technocracy bases 'cost' on energy consumption and resource conversion. There is no LTV. Energy credits are allocated equally to each citizen. I have not read about any differentiation based on type of employment or number of hours worked. In other words, no paychecks.
Technocracy is concerned about providing needed functions to society. It is not concerned about insuring that workers receive the full value of their labour.
Technocracy will look for ways to maximize energy efficiency. Our standard of living is tied to energy efficiency. Less = more.
Technocracy is about solving problems. Not subjectively, as in capitalism, but objectively.

pusher robot

10th December 2007, 18:04

Of course it is, as i've already explained there are essential and non-essential amenities.

What does being "essential" have to do with it? Nothing! You can't possibly think it would be a good idea to consume 100 kilowatt hours reclaiming water if it would only cost 10 kilowatt hours to pump it out of the ground, everything else being equal.

it depends how you guage value really. That really depends on the ruling ideaology, because something 'valuable' under capitalism isnt necessarilly going to be valuable after it.

"Value" is "utility to people." If I don't want something, it has no value to me. The more I want something, the more valuable it is. Value in the general is simply the summed totals of everybody's utility.

You're assuming that the pre-revolution employee figure would remain static, which it wouldnt.

I assumed no such thing! I assumed that (a) however many brewers there are, there are that many, and (b) the majority votes for more beer in such quantity that it could not be satisfied without the brewers - however many there are - working long hours.

Thats because they're forced to work 40 hour a week jobs to make ends meet. Remove unemployment, more workers become available, shift times go down and more free time per worker is available.
I already showed you the calculations that demonstrate decision-making on the level you are talking about would easily be a full-time occupation.

The reason more is not done about employment at the moment is because having a pool of unemployed desperate people on constant standby is a handy thing for the capitalists to have because it means they can be used to cross picket lines (via employment agencies) and to keep down wages.
No, the reason that more is not done is that - at least in the U.S. - the only people who are unemployed are those who are unwilling or unable to work. Since we live in a free society, we respect the choice of the unwilling, and the unable there's not much we can do about.

If building on site purification means near local water bodies isnt practical, then i fail to see the practicality of repeated truck journeys (itself an environmental liability) or excessive amounts of metal tubing needed to excavate water from said lake to community x.
This isn't rocket science. If you burn less fuel trucking the water in than desalinating it, then trucking is more practical, everything else being equal. I suspect the problem you have is that you have no method for figuring out if something is practical or not. Instead, you're just guessing.

The desalination plants arent the only purification means, nor do they have to be diesel, they can utilise a renewable resource.
*SIGH*
This is going nowhere because I am talking about generalities and you insist on focusing on specifics. I am trying to get you to articulate a method by which we can take a goal - say, "fresh water" - and from a huge selection of possible means to accomplish that goal, select the one that provides the most benefit for the resources it consumes. Do we truck in the water? Pump it out of the ground? Build an aqueduct? Desalinate it? Move the hell away? If we desalinate, what do we use as an energy source? Oil? Gas? Nuclear? Wind? Solar? Hydro? Geothermal? There are thousands of permutations to these possible means. You can't possibly know that there is one "right" method, nor can you reasonably expect large numbers of people to know or care what the best method is.

Dr Mindbender

10th December 2007, 19:30

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)What does being "essential" have to do with it? Nothing! You can't possibly think it would be a good idea to consume 100 kilowatt hours reclaiming water if it would only cost 10 kilowatt hours to pump it out of the ground, everything else being equal.[/b]
What does essentiality have to do with it? Clearly the most important amentities must recieve priority! In any case the amount of KWh would depend on the technology used.

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)
"Value" is "utility to people." If I don't want something, it has no value to me. The more I want something, the more valuable it is. Value in the general is simply the summed totals of everybody's utility.[/b]
Not always. If you read Naomi Klein's No Logo she explains how 'value' in the capitalist sense has become synonomous with brand name. For example, in the UK McDonalds can get away with charging US$10 for a meal despite the fact it has the nutritional value of a roll of sellotape. Levi's jeans are extortionate despite the fact that the materials, time and labour involved barely amount to a snippet of the total production cost. This is why you need to be clear when you use the 'v' word.

Originally posted by pusher robot

I assumed no such thing! I assumed that (a) however many brewers there are, there are that many, and (b) the majority votes for more beer in such quantity that it could not be satisfied without the brewers - however many there are - working long hours.
You didnt make that clear, it looked like you were second guessing that the present day scenario resources would be present in my view.

pusher [email protected]

No, the reason that more is not done is that - at least in the U.S. - the only people who are unemployed are those who are unwilling or unable to work. Since we live in a free society, we respect the choice of the unwilling, and the unable there's not much we can do about.
I very much doubt that even a discernable figure of americans want to wallow in a state of self pity and hopelessness. I would guess the likliehood is that the jobs arent simply being offered in sufficient numbers, or the means and qualifications in which to acquire the jobs arent easilly accessible to those born into a state of socio-economic disadvantage.

pusher robot

This is going nowhere because I am talking about generalities and you insist on focusing on specifics. I am trying to get you to articulate a method by which we can take a goal - say, "fresh water" - and from a huge selection of possible means to accomplish that goal, select the one that provides the most benefit for the resources it consumes. Do we truck in the water? Pump it out of the ground? Build an aqueduct? Desalinate it? Move the hell away? If we desalinate, what do we use as an energy source? Oil? Gas? Nuclear? Wind? Solar? Hydro? Geothermal? There are thousands of permutations to these possible means. You can't possibly know that there is one "right" method, nor can you reasonably expect large numbers of people to know or care what the best method is.
yes, there are thousands of permutations but there are probably countless better alternatives that havent been uncovered yet because of the stubborn hard-headedness that is the allegiance between oil companies and neo-liberal goverments. The electric car is already available and will a single capitalist state endorse it? No! The solution is utilising a combination of all available renewable resources that you mentioned until a better method such as nuclear fusion can be called upon. Other alternatives to desalination, particularly electrolysis could be used to seperate impurities from water.

Red Puppy

11th December 2007, 03:25

TLDR, haven't read the whole thread but allow me to go ahead and say this. To those arguing that their favored job is to sit at home and watch TV, you are already a burden to society today and in no way advance anything, but only continue to degrade not only for yourself and others where you could be doing productive work that you may or may not enjoy to earn your living.

As far as I know, socialism didn't promise to make the unproductive burdens in society suddenly and magically productive.

pusher robot

11th December 2007, 03:51

As far as I know, socialism didn't promise to make the unproductive burdens in society suddenly and magically productive.

No, but it does promise to make the unproductive into bigger burdens than they already are.

Red Puppy

11th December 2007, 04:19

QUOTE
As far as I know, socialism didn't promise to make the unproductive burdens in society suddenly and magically productive.

No, but it does promise to make the unproductive into bigger burdens than they already are.

You make a good point, but you also have to realize there is no such thing as perfect. So, the unproductive become more unproductive? A small price to pay for such changes that will benefit the nation, the world in a way that makes the possible burdens seems minuscule.

Dean

11th December 2007, 04:30

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 03:50 am

As far as I know, socialism didn't promise to make the unproductive burdens in society suddenly and magically productive.

No, but it does promise to make the unproductive into bigger burdens than they already are.
Yeah, like the bureaucracy...

oh wait.

Well, the management, at least.

oops.

The stock market? no.
Realtors?
Bankers?
Prisons? The judicial system? Lawyers? Advertisors? Market researchers? The meat industry?

Tell me how these thigns would be inflated in cost and energy requirement, rather than deflated in a socialized economy. If we can strip all this bullshit down we'll have more than a few hundred kilowatt hours to reclaim water which would otherwise harm the environment.

Red Puppy

11th December 2007, 05:07

Well put, Comrade Dean. :D

Dr Mindbender

11th December 2007, 19:24

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11, 2007 03:24 am
TLDR, haven't read the whole thread but allow me to go ahead and say this. To those arguing that their favored job is to sit at home and watch TV, you are already a burden to society today and in no way advance anything, but only continue to degrade not only for yourself and others where you could be doing productive work that you may or may not enjoy to earn your living.

As far as I know, socialism didn't promise to make the unproductive burdens in society suddenly and magically productive.
there are extenuating reasons why people become 'unproductive'. More often than not, the skills and aspirations of the people concerned are alienated from the market of demand which is why they slump into a state of stagnation. For example British cities like Glasgow, Hull and Belfast never really recovered from the closure of the shipyards (which were mainstay sources of employment during WW2 and the early cold war) and subsequent unemployment levels because the means to retrain those people were not readilly available which is why they ended up on the welfare state for extended time periods.

pusher robot

11th December 2007, 20:27

Tell me how these thigns would be inflated in cost and energy requirement, rather than deflated in a socialized economy.

None of the things you listed are unproductive - except prisons, so far as the inmates. They just happen to be productive at producing things which you don't like. In a capitalist society, however, their products actually do have value and their production generates wealth.

When I said "unproductive," I meant it literally. People who consume resources without creating anything to anybody of greater value than those resources.

pusher robot

11th December 2007, 20:34

So, the unproductive become more unproductive?

Not only that, but they consume more resources generated by the actually productive than they would have otherwise. It empowers them to exploit the productive.

Red Puppy

11th December 2007, 21:02

Well, I don't have enough knowledge in the way of socialism as a whole, (still new and learning,) to answer you from that standpoint, but I'll try to answer you from my own. When I say this, I don't speak for the Marxist community, just of my own accord and opinion. In that case, take for example in Jamestown, where John Smith (who saved Jamestown) was famous for saying, "You don't work, you don't eat."

That should be initiative enough to get someone to go to a job, even if it is not a very desired one. One who doesn't work doesn't deserve to profit from it in any way, especially if they are leeching off of those who work their asses off.

pusher robot

11th December 2007, 22:02

One who doesn't work doesn't deserve to profit from it in any way, especially if they are leeching off of those who work their asses off.

I agree. But many here don't. For one thing, it renders the complaints about "wage slavery" under capitalism completely hypocritical. For another, it means that all the rhetoric about workers choosing the nature of their labor is a lot of hot air - if in fact workers must do something useful to eat, then that means they are limited only to work jobs that are wanted or needed by society.

At least under capitalism, a worker has the opportunity to accumulate some wealth, or be gifted some wealth from a friendly patron who has some accumulated wealth, or even appeal for donations on the street corner, that he might eventually support the unproductive things he would rather do with his life without leeching off of others. Under your view of communism, a worker is locked into working only useful jobs forever.

Red Puppy

11th December 2007, 22:30

At least under capitalism, a worker has the opportunity to accumulate some wealth, or be gifted some wealth from a friendly patron who has some accumulated wealth, or even appeal for donations on the street corner, that he might eventually support the unproductive things he would rather do with his life without leeching off of others. Under your view of communism, a worker is locked into working only useful jobs forever.

This may be true, and once more, I am a newbie here, so my Socialism vs Capitalism may be flawed...

However, I disagree with this statement:

appeal for donations on the street corner, that he might eventually support the unproductive things he would rather do with his life without leeching off of others.

I take it, by 'appeal for donations on the street corner,' you mean begging. That is still leeching off of those who work to support their lazy self, even if those people are kind (read: stupid) enough to pass off their hard-earned money to someone who just doesn't want to work.

be gifted some wealth from a friendly patron who has some accumulated wealth

Furthermore, this even is a kind of leeching, though it is voluntarily decided upon by said patron, they are allowing the person to leech off of them out of them and not doing anything but encouraging this counter-productive attitude and furthering the degradation of society in whole with their misplaced kindness--kindness that could be spent on someone who cannot work instead of someone who simply wont.

If I'm correct, this shouldn't be possible under communism regardless, as the proletariat should not have an accumulated wealth, since there is no need for it. I'm going to go ahead and say I'm no genius, so I bet someone who wants to watch TV all day could participate in some form of work. Maybe in the days of old, they wouldn't, but now when the internet is a powerful and invaluable resource there is no excuse. Online journalist, TV show reviewer, director, hell, think of the possibilities.

Lynx

12th December 2007, 00:44

RevSkeptic

12th December 2007, 09:20

Unproductive in a capitalist society (or according to the American 'work ethic') means being on welfare. Welfare recipients are being supported by the state, and the hardworking American taxpayer doesn't like that.

This has a lot more to do with people not liking hard work.

Unless you're wealthy like Paris Hilton, you will be asked to get off your duff and find a job to support yourself.

Sure, but what is it that is a physical limitation on providing for people who do not work and what is purely psychological reasons for those working not willing to provide for the idle?

Dean

12th December 2007, 09:40

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 08:26 pm
When I said "unproductive," I meant it literally. People who consume resources without creating anything to anybody of greater value than those resources.
Then your argument serves no purpose here. WE are concerned about how a new, better society based on human needs will function; we are hardly interested in the profit motive. For us, what is productive is what is beneficial for human beings; it may take more energy than it produces to save a life, in other words, but that life is certainly worth it. For us, that is wholly productive.

Green Dragon

12th December 2007, 12:53

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 10, 2007 05:22 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 10, 2007 05:22 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 05:03 pm

Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 04:30 pm
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?
The consensus of the "democratic bodies" simply refers to the process. Presumably (hopefully, perhaps), the "democratic bodies" will make an informed decision. Which requires a base of accepted knowledge, which the electorate can debate about. Such as whether the cost of shipping water to an arid desert is more prohibitive than building a super advanced water recycling factory.

Simply because the workers have a consensus on a course of action does not meant the action makes any rational sense.
if you were to put the consensus to the average workforce at the moment then probably not, but thats probably because most of them havent had the benefit of a system which places a high priority on education. [/b]
Education for what?

Green Dragon

12th December 2007, 13:00

Originally posted by Dean+December 12, 2007 09:39 am--> (Dean @ December 12, 2007 09:39 am)
pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 08:26 pm
When I said "unproductive," I meant it literally. People who consume resources without creating anything to anybody of greater value than those resources.
Then your argument serves no purpose here. WE are concerned about how a new, better society based on human needs will function; we are hardly interested in the profit motive. For us, what is productive is what is beneficial for human beings; it may take more energy than it produces to save a life, in other words, but that life is certainly worth it. For us, that is wholly productive. [/b]
As that is the concern by the revlefters, they show remarkable lack of interest. Only Ulster really bothers to actually try to explain and defend his ideas. The other responses are along the lines of "nobody knows the future. Therefore it is ridiculous to argue what the system will look like."

So, since you have chosen to reject that revleft argument:

Since cost of a good is of no, or little concern, how does the community determine whether the benefits of producing a good is worth the costs of its production?

pusher robot

12th December 2007, 15:09

I take it, by 'appeal for donations on the street corner,' you mean begging. That is still leeching off of those who work to support their lazy self, even if those people are kind (read: stupid) enough to pass off their hard-earned money to someone who just doesn't want to work.

I was referring more to street artists or musicians, though begging is also an appeal. But it's not leeching.

Why do we use the word "leech?" The leech is a parasite. It's an organism that survives by stealing from its host. The leech doesn't ask for a donation.

So I would say that even beggars are not leechers, because they always run the risk of people saying "no." Sometimes people will donate their money to beggars because it provides them a psychic benefit. Just look at all the mendicant orders.

I'm no genius, so I bet someone who wants to watch TV all day could participate in some form of work.

Well, sure, they could. The question is whether that work that they could produce is more valuable to society than the resources consumed in producing it, and most importantly, how do we determine whether it is or not?

Red Puppy

12th December 2007, 16:20

Why do we use the word "leech?" The leech is a parasite. It's an organism that survives by stealing from its host. The leech doesn't ask for a donation.

I use the word leech because they depend on those other people to support them while they do no work.

You make a good argument here:

Well, sure, they could. The question is whether that work that they could produce is more valuable to society than the resources consumed in producing it, and most importantly, how do we determine whether it is or not?

Personally, I'd rather gain information from someone wasting electricity just sitting around watching TV than nothing at all. I don't think I can answer your question well enough, maybe some of my comrades who are much more well versed can help?

Dr Mindbender

12th December 2007, 17:54

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 12, 2007 12:52 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 12, 2007 12:52 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 05:22 pm

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 05:03 pm

Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 04:30 pm
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?
The consensus of the "democratic bodies" simply refers to the process. Presumably (hopefully, perhaps), the "democratic bodies" will make an informed decision. Which requires a base of accepted knowledge, which the electorate can debate about. Such as whether the cost of shipping water to an arid desert is more prohibitive than building a super advanced water recycling factory.

Simply because the workers have a consensus on a course of action does not meant the action makes any rational sense.
if you were to put the consensus to the average workforce at the moment then probably not, but thats probably because most of them havent had the benefit of a system which places a high priority on education.
Education for what? [/b]
jees. specific education relevant to that given area of employment.

There is no smiley to represent my frustration right now.

Dean

13th December 2007, 03:17

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 12, 2007 12:59 pm
Since cost of a good is of no, or little concern, how does the community determine whether the benefits of producing a good is worth the costs of its production?
Cost of a good is not of little concern. it is only different from taht of a capitalist society; while a capiatlist might say "profit is my desired object," a socialist would say "human interest as a whole is my desired end." The difference is twofold: first, human interest in not quantifiable; it is forever changing, and respondign to those things which it produces. Secondly, human interest must be harnessed in a different manner than the desire for capital.

So, while a capitalist says that a centralized, managerial and money - driven market is appropriate, a socialist looks instead for that market which best serves humans in general. This leads to various interpretations of human interest (is a single life worth all of our economic resources? Is human interest judged best by equal input?) and that is a primary reason why socialists find it hard to answer questions on social structure under a socialist regime, or to agree on the terms of such.

As that is the concern by the revlefters, they show remarkable lack of interest. Only Ulster really bothers to actually try to explain and defend his ideas. The other responses are along the lines of "nobody knows the future. Therefore it is ridiculous to argue what the system will look like."

The fact is that most of us have pretty detailed or well - thought out ideas on the structure of revolutioanry society. It's just hard to commit oneself to explaining it without spending a myriad of time end energy to explain each nuance of the concept, and since societies which have never existed before are foreign to all onlookers, they are easy to criticise. Not having a disticnt idea on structure doesn't make one less of a revolutionary; after all, the movement is priamrily about liberation, and scientific theories on the evoluton of society are secondary. My morals won't change, but my ideas on how best to meet them may.

Lynx

13th December 2007, 06:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:19 am

Unproductive in a capitalist society (or according to the American 'work ethic') means being on welfare. Welfare recipients are being supported by the state, and the hardworking American taxpayer doesn't like that.
This has a lot more to do with people not liking hard work.
What do you mean? I'm pointing out a distinction that is made between the idle rich, who are given a free pass, and the poor, who are stigmatized for being on welfare. Of course, each person sees themselves as hardworking, and dislike paying taxes.

Unless you're wealthy like Paris Hilton, you will be asked to get off your duff and find a job to support yourself.
Sure, but what is it that is a physical limitation on providing for people who do not work and what is purely psychological reasons for those working not willing to provide for the idle?
Physical: that "wealth" falls below "cost"
Psychological: socio-economic conditioning (ie. social conditioning)

RevSkeptic

13th December 2007, 09:39

What do you mean? I'm pointing out a distinction that is made between the idle rich, who are given a free pass, and the poor, who are stigmatized for being on welfare. Of course, each person sees themselves as hardworking, and dislike paying taxes.

Not exactly, if you're really honest most people like the lifestyle of the idle rich otherwise television shows who shows off the lifestyles of the rich and famous and promises you the chance to become one of them by answering trivia questions wouldn't be watched by so many people.

The world is the way it is today because people are they way they are today. That is most are shortsighted, egotistical and lazy. Most people don't like the regular 8 hour day and 5 day week and would like to shave off as much time from work as possible like taking friday off early or taking paid sick days even if they're not actually sick if they can get away with it. And seriously, how many people play the lottery in dreams of striking it rich even if they have a regular job that supports a relatively comfortable (rich by world standard) North American middle class quality of life?

Of course in the time of economic problems this all suddenly changes. People as much as they like being taken care of and living a luxurious life or dream of living it would just as much like to find somebody or something to blame if the whole economic house of cards come tumbling down. But, who built this house of cards and who are it's willing participants who dreams of living the "bourgeois" life?

Further, being idle rich or hardworking poor seems to me to be two sides of the same coin because both existed from the beginning of civilization and both takes as much thoughtfulness, imagination, skill and foresight as the typical hunter/gatherer or the tribal chieftan. Of course the hardworking hunter or farmer would like to be the noble king or queen who takes a cut of the proceeds of the commoners in exchange for "protection" which is almost the same (but not quite) situation as present day wealthy Capitalists taking profit from the workers in exchange for "employment".

What really changed because it certainly wasn't the ruling class or the toiling class since their analogs are found in previous periods and previous systems and I'm willing to wager that if present bosses and unskilled workers were dumped into the past in the era of kings and peasants their mentality and attitudes would fit right into the classes of those days. The poor peasants would like to become royalty and royalty would have the same pompous, pretentious, attitude toward commoners as Capitalists now have toward workers, but so what? What is it that the typical members of these classes accomplish that changed the way we live from having to sow the ground with wooden ploughs for sustenance to having tractors, computers, television and telephones?

The way I see it, it was neither the downtrodden classes nor their overbearing masters that led the way to greater human luxury and ease of work. It no doubt did lead to rebellion when their pompous, greedy, self-important kings pressed too hard on them, but that was all it led to.

There is no substitute for education, but I would add that there is no substitute for wanting to be educated. How many people have adopted that attitude toward knowledge now? As opposed to wanting to join the membership of the idle rich and leave the hard thinking to the paid professional geeks and eggheads?

Physical: that "wealth" falls below "cost"

What is wealth and what is cost if something cost more or less depending on "market conditions", but the amount of paid out "wealth" and hence physical and labour resources were the same at the time of construction as it was during the time of sale? Wouldn't that make the seller a cheat if he sells it for more at the time of sale than at the time of construction? But, the system allows it so he isn't a cheat which then logically implies that this systems allows for legalize cheating because if looked upon in any rational, physical, empirical perspective cheating means the shortchanging of resources, but through legal trickery means it is defined as not cheating.

Psychological: socio-economic conditioning (ie. social conditioning)

But, suppose I work at something that I naturally find interesting and fascinating to do and it becomes as much of a hobby as it is work that fulfills a constructive goal. And, through this work I generate a surplus which feeds those not contributing to work. What would be the problem if they agree not to entirely consume the surplus I'm generating?

RevSkeptic

13th December 2007, 09:49

The ultimate question on whether or not Anarchism or Communism or whatever your label for utopia is realizable is if

there is a fundamental human need for creative work (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes)

Or do you think most people simply like to live like the rich guy and party all the way to the grave! :lol:

Robert

13th December 2007, 13:48

Not exactly, if you're really honest most people like the lifestyle of the idle rich otherwise television shows who shows off the lifestyles of the rich and famous and promises you the chance to become one of them by answering trivia questions wouldn't be watched by so many people.

I would add that there is no substitute for wanting to be educated. How many people have adopted that attitude toward knowledge now? As opposed to wanting to join the membership of the idle rich and leave the hard thinking to the paid professional geeks and eggheads?

Take a bow, Sire. Would you please run for President of the United States so that there will be someone on the ballot for whom I will enthusiastically pull the lever? You will promise in exchange, of course, to make me Ambassador to Switzerland.

Now ... where are my skis?

Lynx

13th December 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:38 am

What do you mean? I'm pointing out a distinction that is made between the idle rich, who are given a free pass, and the poor, who are stigmatized for being on welfare. Of course, each person sees themselves as hardworking, and dislike paying taxes.
Not exactly, if you're really honest most people like the lifestyle of the idle rich otherwise television shows who shows off the lifestyles of the rich and famous and promises you the chance to become one of them by answering trivia questions wouldn't be watched by so many people.
Agreed, although trivia shows are designed to appeal on several levels.

The world is the way it is today because people are they way they are today. That is most are shortsighted, egotistical and lazy. Most people don't like the regular 8 hour day and 5 day week and would like to shave off as much time from work as possible like taking friday off early or taking paid sick days even if they're not actually sick if they can get away with it. And seriously, how many people play the lottery in dreams of striking it rich even if they have a regular job that supports a relatively comfortable (rich by world standard) North American middle class quality of life?
Agreed, but it is important to examine why people are the way they are.

Of course in the time of economic problems this all suddenly changes. People as much as they like being taken care of and living a luxurious life or dream of living it would just as much like to find somebody or something to blame if the whole economic house of cards come tumbling down. But, who built this house of cards and who are it's willing participants who dreams of living the "bourgeois" life?
I am led to understand that it was built to deal with scarcity. Participants are in theory everyone, with arbitrary deterministic inputs being risk and luck.

Further, being idle rich or hardworking poor seems to me to be two sides of the same coin because both existed from the beginning of civilization and both takes as much thoughtfulness, imagination, skill and foresight as the typical hunter/gatherer or the tribal chieftan. Of course the hardworking hunter or farmer would like to be the noble king or queen who takes a cut of the proceeds of the commoners in exchange for "protection" which is almost the same (but not quite) situation as present day wealthy Capitalists taking profit from the workers in exchange for "employment".

What really changed because it certainly wasn't the ruling class or the toiling class since their analogs are found in previous periods and previous systems and I'm willing to wager that if present bosses and unskilled workers were dumped into the past in the era of kings and peasants their mentality and attitudes would fit right into the classes of those days. The poor peasants would like to become royalty and royalty would have the same pompous, pretentious, attitude toward commoners as Capitalists now have toward workers, but so what? What is it that the typical members of these classes accomplish that changed the way we live from having to sow the ground with wooden ploughs for sustenance to having tractors, computers, television and telephones?
The biological need for survival. A need to find more efficient ways of extracting energy from the environment. In a word, technology.

The way I see it, it was neither the downtrodden classes nor their overbearing masters that led the way to greater human luxury and ease of work. It no doubt did lead to rebellion when their pompous, greedy, self-important kings pressed too hard on them, but that was all it led to.

There is no substitute for education, but I would add that there is no substitute for wanting to be educated. How many people have adopted that attitude toward knowledge now? As opposed to wanting to join the membership of the idle rich and leave the hard thinking to the paid professional geeks and eggheads?
Some people on RevLeft are in or headed for college or university. One message is a better education = better income and more interesting, challenging employment. Some people do not interpret anything beyond better income.
Children have curiosity, and a desire to learn that is unconcerned with economic rationalizations. These traits are lost by the time they become adults. A few people, however, do retain their inquisitiveness.

Physical: that "wealth" falls below "cost"
What is wealth and what is cost if something cost more or less depending on "market conditions", but the amount of paid out "wealth" and hence physical and labour resources were the same at the time of construction as it was during the time of sale? Wouldn't that make the seller a cheat if he sells it for more at the time of sale than at the time of construction? But, the system allows it so he isn't a cheat which then logically implies that this systems allows for legalize cheating because if looked upon in any rational, physical, empirical perspective cheating means the shortchanging of resources, but through legal trickery means it is defined as not cheating.
Inequality in capitalism is accepted and encouraged.
The physical limit is the amount of goods and services produced vs. the amount of goods and services consumed. The latter cannot exceed the former, whether you look at it in capitalist terms or thermodynamically. In an equal distribution system, consumption is limited to the average per capita production of the system.

Psychological: socio-economic conditioning (ie. social conditioning)
But, suppose I work at something that I naturally find interesting and fascinating to do and it becomes as much of a hobby as it is work that fulfills a constructive goal. And, through this work I generate a surplus which feeds those not contributing to work. What would be the problem if they agree not to entirely consume the surplus I'm generating?
The problem is people have to overcome their economic conditioning. In this case, the perceived opportunity to benefit at your expense. Perhaps because people are payed as individuals, they find it unnatural to relinquish part of what they consider their surplus. Or perhaps it is because we recognize the benefits from our own efforts far more than we recognize benefits from collaborative effort.
We are dealing with underlying assumptions of human behavior and how they would play out within a different socio-economic system.
Robert the Great sees an opportunity to ski the Swiss Alps. In what way is he prioritizing his efforts?

Robert

13th December 2007, 23:49

Robert the Great sees an opportunity to ski the Swiss Alps. In what way is he prioritizing his efforts?

Why, I am doing it for my country, sir. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to be ambassador to Switzerland, as you will agree.

May as will be me.

Green Dragon

14th December 2007, 13:28

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 12, 2007 05:53 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 12, 2007 05:53 pm)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 12, 2007 12:52 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 05:22 pm

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 05:03 pm

Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 04:30 pm
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?
The consensus of the "democratic bodies" simply refers to the process. Presumably (hopefully, perhaps), the "democratic bodies" will make an informed decision. Which requires a base of accepted knowledge, which the electorate can debate about. Such as whether the cost of shipping water to an arid desert is more prohibitive than building a super advanced water recycling factory.

Simply because the workers have a consensus on a course of action does not meant the action makes any rational sense.
if you were to put the consensus to the average workforce at the moment then probably not, but thats probably because most of them havent had the benefit of a system which places a high priority on education.
Education for what?
jees. specific education relevant to that given area of employment.

There is no smiley to represent my frustration right now. [/b]
Being a skilled aeronautical engineer does not teach you whether the construction of certain types of airplanes, numbers of airplanes ect. are neeed by the community.

An entirely different sort of knowledge and skill is needed to make these determinations. What is that knowledge and skill?

Green Dragon

14th December 2007, 13:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:16 am
Cost of a good is not of little concern. it is only different from taht of a capitalist society; while a capiatlist might say "profit is my desired object," a socialist would say "human interest as a whole is my desired end." The difference is twofold: first, human interest in not quantifiable; it is forever changing, and respondign to those things which it produces. Secondly, human interest must be harnessed in a different manner than the desire for capital.

So, while a capitalist says that a centralized, managerial and money - driven market is appropriate, a socialist looks instead for that market which best serves humans in general. This leads to various interpretations of human interest (is a single life worth all of our economic resources? Is human interest judged best by equal input?) and that is a primary reason why socialists find it hard to answer questions on social structure under a socialist regime, or to agree on the terms of such.

As that is the concern by the revlefters, they show remarkable lack of interest. Only Ulster really bothers to actually try to explain and defend his ideas. The other responses are along the lines of "nobody knows the future. Therefore it is ridiculous to argue what the system will look like."

The fact is that most of us have pretty detailed or well - thought out ideas on the structure of revolutioanry society. It's just hard to commit oneself to explaining it without spending a myriad of time end energy to explain each nuance of the concept, and since societies which have never existed before are foreign to all onlookers, they are easy to criticise. Not having a disticnt idea on structure doesn't make one less of a revolutionary; after all, the movement is priamrily about liberation, and scientific theories on the evoluton of society are secondary. My morals won't change, but my ideas on how best to meet them may.
Fair enough. But since the socialist admits to not knowing how to judge whether the benefit of a product is worth its cost, is this not a rather major blow against socialism in general? If socialism cannot determine its rationale for production, how can a socialist conclude that its production will be superior to capitalism? This isn't a nuanced type of problem with which to deal.

The capitalist will argue that "profit" is the way to determine if the benefits of production are worth its costs (since a profit can only be accrued if the value of the finished product is greater than the value of its parts).

Lynx

14th December 2007, 16:49

The technocrat will argue that energy efficiency is the way to determine if the benefits of production are worth its costs (since higher energy efficiency in one area of production frees up energy for use in another).

Capitalists view cost as being necessary or avoidable. The market views it as an exchange. Communists, if my analysis is correct, view cost as a mitigated exchange.

Dean

14th December 2007, 23:29

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 14, 2007 01:35 pm
Fair enough. But since the socialist admits to not knowing how to judge whether the benefit of a product is worth its cost, is this not a rather major blow against socialism in general? If socialism cannot determine its rationale for production, how can a socialist conclude that its production will be superior to capitalism? This isn't a nuanced type of problem with which to deal.
One thing that is usually agreed upon is that there should be a democratic control of the means of production. This creates a cost definition as well as a means by which to make those economic decisions that managers make today. All these questions are just as aplicable to Capitalism during the feudal era, and I have no doubt that they were raised then. "If serfs don't own what they work with, what would compel them to work for it? If governemnts don't dictate managers, how will society manage itself?" These are all basically the same questions, applicable to capitalism, too. Nobody was saying "we will have a system of labor laws, corporate welfare and regulation and a stock market to make capitalism work" but that is exactly what endud up being necessary to perpetuate the system. I have no doubt there are unforseens eminent in socialism, especially in the management issue, but I won't pretend that not knowing them cancels out the reasoning for a socialist system.

The capitalist will argue that "profit" is the way to determine if the benefits of production are worth its costs (since a profit can only be accrued if the value of the finished product is greater than the value of its parts).
This is not true. Corporate welfare, monetary suport, and a slew of other things can create "false profit," or profit which takes a greater number of dollars to achieve than what it creates for its buyers. A great example is the stationing of military forces in areas with rich mineral and oil reserves. The purchase, maintenance, etc. of all the troops is very often more expensive than the actual profit. The difference is that the profit goes to large corporations and the upper class, whereas the taxes to support the troops come primarily from the middle and lower classes.

All profit in a capitalist economy is "unreal" because it is not concerning itself with human interest, but monetary gain. Socialism does not view labor as a profit issue - it views it as utility. It may be economically unreasonable to build water pipes for an underdevolped village in the phillipines, but the "profit" - less disease, greater standard of living for a village of people - is often considered more valuable than the 100$ it costs to build the pipes (actually I think it's cheaper than that). I won't get a profit from that money I spent, but I will gian a lot in the way of how I feel I am as a human being.

Dr Mindbender

14th December 2007, 23:38

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 14, 2007 01:27 pm--> (Green Dragon @ December 14, 2007 01:27 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 05:53 pm

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 12, 2007 12:52 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 05:22 pm

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 10, 2007 05:03 pm

Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 04:30 pm
obviously the dedication of resources will have to be channelled via the concesus of the respective democratic bodies. I should have mentioned that in my last post.
Better that though, than it simply slipping into obscurity for want of a lump sum of money. Who knows how many brainchilds mankind has lost to this?
The consensus of the "democratic bodies" simply refers to the process. Presumably (hopefully, perhaps), the "democratic bodies" will make an informed decision. Which requires a base of accepted knowledge, which the electorate can debate about. Such as whether the cost of shipping water to an arid desert is more prohibitive than building a super advanced water recycling factory.

Simply because the workers have a consensus on a course of action does not meant the action makes any rational sense.
if you were to put the consensus to the average workforce at the moment then probably not, but thats probably because most of them havent had the benefit of a system which places a high priority on education.
Education for what?
jees. specific education relevant to that given area of employment.

There is no smiley to represent my frustration right now.
Being a skilled aeronautical engineer does not teach you whether the construction of certain types of airplanes, numbers of airplanes ect. are neeed by the community.

An entirely different sort of knowledge and skill is needed to make these determinations. What is that knowledge and skill? [/b]
I'm not insinuating that any one person without knowledge of a particular industry should be able to make decisions that will make such a great impact on it's working practices. All workers should be able to make influences at a micro-level however. For example, lets take your airport analogy. A doctor working for a hospital is presented with a survey enquiring his travel habits. The likliehood is it would incorporate a checklist system asking questions regarding his preferred methods of travel. Data such as this would be collected from people across the board, enabling people in the civil aviation industry to make informed choices about how many aircraft and airports will be needed. The doctors union however, will have absolute control of what goes on in the hospital, regarding operation of hospital equipment and general treatment policy.

That isnt to say that a doctor shouldnt be able to acquire greater influence over a secondary industry if he so chooses. Id like to see a situation where, thanks to the increased use of educational means one could educate themselves to a level where they could participate in union meetings regarding other industries they may feel strongly about on more informed levels than before they had educated themselves about the issue. So in effect it would be encourging a 'fellowship' of ideas and influence. But since they're debating with experts they could be swiftly dismissed if they are talking bullshit!

pusher robot

15th December 2007, 01:11

The purchase, maintenance, etc. of all the troops is very often more expensive than the actual profit. The difference is that the profit goes to large corporations and the upper class, whereas the taxes to support the troops come primarily from the middle and lower classes.

That is demonstrably incorrect. Corporations and the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes.

It may be economically unreasonable to build water pipes for an underdevolped village in the phillipines, but the "profit" - less disease, greater standard of living for a village of people - is often considered more valuable than the 100$ it costs to build the pipes (actually I think it's cheaper than that). I won't get a profit from that money I spent, but I will gian a lot in the way of how I feel I am as a human being.

That gain is a profit. Not all profit is monetary, but it can be monetarily quantified. Capitalism already accounts for those kinds of profit. You buy a five dollar beer because it gives you more than five dollars of feeling-good type of value. That amount of value it gives you greater than the amount of value five dollars gives you is a non-monetary profit.

If what you say is true, then I presume you are in fact laying pipe in the phillipines at this very moment, correct? If not, why not?

Robert

15th December 2007, 01:18

the taxes to support the troops come primarily from the middle and lower classes.

What's your source for this? The poor pay very little income tax. I join your evident call for reduction of taxes on the middle class, but it appears to me the rich pay the most. Sales tax are regressive, but they don't fund the military. What are you talking about?

In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.
# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Who pays the taxes? (http://Who pays taxes in the USA

Lynx

15th December 2007, 01:44

You are linking % of population to % of income taxes paid. We already know that a minority of the population earn most of the income. Do the wealthy elite pay their share of taxes or not?

Oh, and what about their wealth? In Canada, we have capital gains tax.

Robert

15th December 2007, 01:56

Do the wealthy elite pay their share of taxes or not?

Huh?

Oh, and what about their wealth? In Canada, we have capital gains tax.

What about it? Interest on cash equivalents like money market funds and CD's are taxed as ordinary income.

If you're proposing that the rich simply have their wealth confiscated, which I suppose happens in every communist revolution, I understand you. Unfortunately.

Try to remember that many in the USA and in Canada too, I daresay, got rich by starting with nothing, working hard and living modestly. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." They create jobs for others and give heavily to charity. I respect them. If you do not, it's your loss and that of society as well, which would benefit were you to emulate their example. If you're young, it's not to late for you.

Lynx

15th December 2007, 02:47

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 14, 2007 09:55 pm

Do the wealthy elite pay their share of taxes or not?

Huh?

Oh, and what about their wealth? In Canada, we have capital gains tax.

What about it? Interest on cash equivalents like money market funds and CD's are taxed as ordinary income.
In Canada:
Interest, like earned income, is taxed at the full rate.
Dividend income is taxed at a lower rate.
If there is a large difference between your earned and non-earned income, you may be eligible for the alternative minimum tax.
Capital gains is a tax on the appreciation of capital property. Your primary residence is exempt however. One can also claim a capital loss, if property you own has depreciated.
Government collects most revenue from personal income tax. The GST and corporate tax account for a smaller %

If you're proposing that the rich simply have their wealth confiscated, which I suppose happens in every communist revolution, I understand you. Unfortunately.
I did not propose an inheritance tax. I might know some meritocrats who would.
Edit: In an earlier thought experiment I proposed a kind of reset capitalism, which did redistribute monetary 'wealth' at 'year end'.

Try to remember that many in the USA and in Canada too, I daresay, got rich by starting with nothing, working hard and living modestly. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." They create jobs for others and give heavily to charity. I respect them. If you do not, it's your loss and that of society as well, which would benefit were you to emulate their example. If you're young, it's not to late for you.
That's fine. Do they pay their fair share of tax? That share being a proportion of their wealth and income, not their % of the population.

Dean

15th December 2007, 03:21

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 15, 2007 01:10 am

The purchase, maintenance, etc. of all the troops is very often more expensive than the actual profit. The difference is that the profit goes to large corporations and the upper class, whereas the taxes to support the troops come primarily from the middle and lower classes.

That is demonstrably incorrect. Corporations and the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes.
Regardless, it is a fact that the oil being defended in Iraq is worth less than the cost of the troops deployment.

It may be economically unreasonable to build water pipes for an underdevolped village in the phillipines, but the "profit" - less disease, greater standard of living for a village of people - is often considered more valuable than the 100$ it costs to build the pipes (actually I think it's cheaper than that). I won't get a profit from that money I spent, but I will gian a lot in the way of how I feel I am as a human being.

That gain is a profit. Not all profit is monetary, but it can be monetarily quantified. Capitalism already accounts for those kinds of profit. You buy a five dollar beer because it gives you more than five dollars of feeling-good type of value. That amount of value it gives you greater than the amount of value five dollars gives you is a non-monetary profit.

In other words, every system is profit - oriented, because you define profit as distinctions in human value systems. So why even discuss it as if it meant anything for or against socialism or capitalism? WE all know that we try to utilize our energies for gain, regardless of the currency.

Also, I don't see how you can reasonably quantify a vast majority of things. What is it worth to cheat on your wife? What is it worth to live? What is the value of your freedom? These questions only have monetary or materially - equivalent meaning in regards to capitalism. Furthermore, the concept that all things have a given value and profit is the best goal implies that, given the right market conditions it would be rational to kill off all human life, including your own, so that some degree of value can be attained. It's really asinine to claim that everything has value and at the same time that things ought to be traded to maximize this value. It is basically a call for socialism when you promote such disgusting, nonsensical concepts.

If what you say is true, then I presume you are in fact laying pipe in the phillipines at this very moment, correct?
Incorrect.

If not, why not?
I don't have the necessary funds to move, due to our pay-to-play legal system.

Lynx

15th December 2007, 04:36

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 14, 2007 09:55 pm
Try to remember that many in the USA and in Canada too, I daresay, got rich by starting with nothing, working hard and living modestly. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." They create jobs for others and give heavily to charity. I respect them. If you do not, it's your loss and that of society as well, which would benefit were you to emulate their example. If you're young, it's not to late for you.
It's not that I don't respect them. If I were fortunate, I could become one of them and do the good you claim they do, perhaps without even realizing it. Maybe you could too. What's stopping us?

Advisory: am playing devil's advocate

RevSkeptic

15th December 2007, 08:53

Children have curiosity, and a desire to learn that is unconcerned with economic rationalizations. These traits are lost by the time they become adults. A few people, however, do retain their inquisitiveness.

Actually, no. Only certain children have natural curiosity and a desire to learn. They're the freaks and oddballs that get bullied by other kids that find it strange that these oddballs are in the library all the time reading books about the arts and sciences and not worrying about "important stuff" like the school sports teams and who's the most fashionable dresser.

This gets replicated for the most part in adulthood with these same kids worrying about popularity and social status chasing after that high social status managerial position so as to afford the more expensive social status symbols like luxury cars and mansions. The guy driving the hummer and ferrari is less concerned with the performance of said vehicle than whether or not that vehicle shows off his alpha-male status among the breeding age female primates who paint there faces and adorn their bodies with trinkets to attract said alpha males.

Looked at in this way the mass of humanity is no more than slightly more advanced apes who instead of using physical means (at least in the "civilized" wester world) of gaining their harem of females uses political means and money which is basically concentrated political power to attract their mates. It's all typical monkey behaviour.

How hard is it to finally admit that there is no one monolithic human species of inquisitive, goal-oriented, self defining humans, but rather that man itself is simply a means to an end, but not the end itself. Everything that you witness in the world from the failure of traditional Marxism to the inevitability of Capitalism to the success of mindless consumerism to the monkey behaviour of semi-ape humans geared toward mate attraction and successful procreation points to the fact that humanity in it's present state is an intermediate step toward something that fully breaks with monkey behavior and monkey justifications.

Robert

15th December 2007, 17:50

Do they pay their fair share of tax? That share being a proportion of their wealth and income, not their % of the population.

Are you kidding? Of course they pay progressively on their income, if that's what you mean. Whether that's "fair" is subjective. I think the government has it approximately right. Many on the left think it should be higher on the mistaken assumption that all rich people do is sit on their asses and let the money roll in (ask Ulster, he claims to know how this works). Many on the extreme left (like here) want money to disappear altogether, after which I have no idea how taxes will be paid. I do know that proponents of this idea are clinically insane.

Some arch conservative luminaries, Ben Stein, for example, propose that the rich (he included) pay a special surtax on top of their current income tax rates to increase pay for soldiers. Warren Buffett and Ross Perot are billionaires who share this sentiment. Others think that the rate should be lower on the theory that this will free up more disposable income to spend and invest in job-creating industries. I don't personally buy into that.

As for paying tax on their "wealth," I don't know what you mean. If you own a mansion, your property taxes are going to be based on the FMV of the property, so of course you pay more than the middle class homeowner. If you own a very small house, you pay virtually no property tax in most states. As for cash jut sitting in the bank, no, only the interest income it generates is taxed. When you die, the cash devolving on your heirs is taxed as an inheritance tax, but that's a
complicated subject.

But seriously, you understand how progressive tax tables work, right? (See links below). The current maximum rate is 35%, but this is only for the income you earn exceeding $174,850. The lowest bracket is 10%. We all, rich and poor, pay the same rate on the first amount up to $7,825 that we earn, and the same rate on the first $31,850 that we earn and so on as the able shows. But if you make no more than, say, $31,850, your rate does not exceed 15%, whereas the high earner's rate increases progressively up to 35%.

In the 50's in the USA, under a Republican president, the top marginal rate (for income over $400,000) was 92%.

Top U.S. marginal rates (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php)

progressive income tax rates in the USA (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)

Lynx

15th December 2007, 18:56

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 15, 2007 01:49 pm

Are you kidding? Of course they pay progressively on their income, if that's what you mean. Whether that's "fair" is subjective. I think the government has it approximately right.
Good, that answers my question. We have tax brackets in Canada too. An alternative is the flat tax.

Many on the left think it should be higher on the mistaken assumption that all rich people do is sit on their asses and let the money roll in (ask Ulster, he claims to know how this works).
Socialists would like to redistribute more from the wealthy to the poor. Communists want to change the system so that accumulation of wealth by the few is eliminated.

As for paying tax on their "wealth," I don't know what you mean. If you own a mansion, your property taxes are going to be based on the FMV of the property, so of course you pay more than the middle class homeowner. If you own a very small house, you pay virtually no property tax in most states. As for cash jut sitting in the bank, no, only the interest income it generates is taxed. When you die, the cash devolving on your heirs is taxed as an inheritance tax, but that's a complicated subject.
Yes, taxes are a complicated subject, so I'm asking if it is true that certain wealthy individuals and large corporations are able to get away with it (tax shelters, tax evasion). Ordinary workers have their taxes deducted from their paychecks, making that sort of thing more difficult.

Lynx

15th December 2007, 19:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:52 am

Children have curiosity, and a desire to learn that is unconcerned with economic rationalizations. These traits are lost by the time they become adults. A few people, however, do retain their inquisitiveness.

Actually, no. Only certain children have natural curiosity and a desire to learn. They're the freaks and oddballs that get bullied by other kids that find it strange that these oddballs are in the library all the time reading books about the arts and sciences and not worrying about "important stuff" like the school sports teams and who's the most fashionable dresser.
I must have gone to a high school that didn't fit the stereotype.

This gets replicated for the most part in adulthood with these same kids worrying about popularity and social status chasing after that high social status managerial position so as to afford the more expensive social status symbols like luxury cars and mansions. The guy driving the hummer and ferrari is less concerned with the performance of said vehicle than whether or not that vehicle shows off his alpha-male status among the breeding age female primates who paint there faces and adorn their bodies with trinkets to attract said alpha males.

Looked at in this way the mass of humanity is no more than slightly more advanced apes who instead of using physical means (at least in the "civilized" wester world) of gaining their harem of females uses political means and money which is basically concentrated political power to attract their mates. It's all typical monkey behaviour.
IMO more like the Bower Bird, but point taken!

How hard is it to finally admit that there is no one monolithic human species of inquisitive, goal-oriented, self defining humans, but rather that man itself is simply a means to an end, but not the end itself. Everything that you witness in the world from the failure of traditional Marxism to the inevitability of Capitalism to the success of mindless consumerism to the monkey behaviour of semi-ape humans geared toward mate attraction and successful procreation points to the fact that humanity in it's present state is an intermediate step toward something that fully breaks with monkey behavior and monkey justifications.
It's not hard for me, I believe in evolutionary psychology and EPM's.
It is not easy to overcome millions of years of evolution when it takes around 20,000 years for a mutation to propagate. Admitting to our evolutionary heritage would be an important step forward. I'm not in favor of placing humanity on a pedestal and saying: Oh look, look how different we are, how great we are!
Humans are easily manipulated and some are better than others at doing the manipulation. If you want to change society you can go the propaganda route or attempt to educate people towards critical thinking.

Robert

15th December 2007, 22:27

I'm asking if it is true that certain wealthy individuals and large corporations are able to get away with it (tax shelters, tax evasion). Ordinary workers have their taxes deducted from their paychecks, making that sort of thing more difficult.

Let me be completely candid and tell you that yes, it is possible for the very very rich to pay less as a percentage of income than you do. Warren Buffett has complained that he paid 17% last year whereas his secretary paid 30%.

Two things: first, the "17%" ignores the taxes paid by his corporations before he receives his salary from them.

Second, if he doesn't take a salary, he'll pay no "income tax" at all, and if he lives on interest from municipal bonds, he pays nothing at all to the federal government for that income (he does owe state tax, whatever that is in Nebraska).

Finally, his capital gains tax rate for securities sold after being held for over a year is only 15%.
So I think the answer is that once you become very rich and can afford to live off of capital gains and municipal bond income, then yes, you pay less. And I agree with Buffett that thatis pervese in many cases.

Again, don't forget that the company pays taxes, or passes the profits to shareholders who pay tax, on corporate profit before the owners get the income. Anyway you cut it, the very rich do very well.

The U.S. corporate tax rate is ranked as the second highest statutory rate among the OECD countries (the U.S. average rate of 39.3 ranks just behind Japan's 39.5 and well above the OECD average of 28.7).[13] However, the U.S also has the greatest number of corporate tax loopholes of any OECD member,[14] allowing many corporations to achieve a lower effective tax rate than the published rates.

Lynx

15th December 2007, 23:25

Allrighty :)
I hope you don't get the impression that taxes are a sore point amongst all leftists. As a taxpayer, I don't like 'em. I suppose nobody does. And given the corruption and waste in government, well..... why volunteer to give them more??

Dr Mindbender

15th December 2007, 23:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:24 pm
Allrighty :)
I hope you don't get the impression that taxes are a sore point amongst all leftists. As a taxpayer, I don't like 'em. I suppose nobody does. And given the corruption and waste in government, well..... why volunteer to give them more??
im not against taxes either- My beef is 2 major points:
-They expect poor people to pay such a high proportion of their earnings- Every week i have to pay the equivalent of both my utility and shopping bills. Tax the rich! :angry:
-The tax money the government gets is wasted on absolute shite, like the 'war' on 'terror' and the 2012 olympics (which will benefit no one outside south east england)

Robert

16th December 2007, 03:09

Ulster, don't you get quite a lot of social services in exchange for your taxes? You've been bragging about that health care system you have. Well, that's your tax dollars at work. You also have splendid parks, roads, secret service and a fine military. That's why so many from E. Europe and Africa emigrate there.

By the way, suppose you go to the doctor for a routine checkup because of your asthma. What does he charge for that one visit, and who pays it? Do you pay a percentage up front in cash and he bills the health service for the balance? Same question re: medication.

And don't complain about the war on terror. You have plenty of Islamic lunatics there in the UK, some of who were planning to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic, and others who tried to blow up those buses you take to the doctor on 21 July 2005.

God Save the Queen, sirrah!

RevSkeptic

16th December 2007, 05:18

Everybody wants more more more. Just look at the extreme example of consumerism in the US. Nobody needs 10 pairs of shoes, but why does a lot of women think it's their human right.

People are despicable, petty creatures that only learns through suffering.

Dr Mindbender

16th December 2007, 19:22

Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)
Ulster, don't you get quite a lot of social services in exchange for your taxes? You've been bragging about that health care system you have. Well, that's your tax dollars at work. You also have splendid parks, roads, secret service and a fine military. That's why so many from E. Europe and Africa emigrate there.[/b]

No, ive not been bragging about the health care system in its own right, my point is that the infrastructure is infinitely better than in nations where there are no state owned hospitals because although the treatment quality isnt on a par with private hospitals, at least anyone regardless of their circumstances can see a doctor 'on demand'. The lack of quality is a result of underinvestment and resources being directed towards the private sector.
I would much rather have the excessive amount of tax money being wasted on white elephants like the Iraq war and the 2012 games being put into the hospitals and schools.

Originally posted by Robert the great+--> (Robert the great)
By the way, suppose you go to the doctor for a routine checkup because of your asthma. What does he charge for that one visit, and who pays it? Do you pay a percentage up front in cash and he bills the health service for the balance? Same question re: medication.[/b]
My taxes pay the doctor's salary, and afterwards i usually have to pay about £6 per prescription (about US$12).
For some reason my tax money doesnt cover my medicine as well, I suppose they need that for paying for all those bombs they strap to the belly of tornado jets.

Originally posted by Robert the great

And don't complain about the war on terror. You have plenty of Islamic lunatics there in the UK, some of who were planning to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic, and others who tried to blow up those buses you take to the doctor on 21 July 2005.
Well, maybe if it wasnt for the shitty US/UK foreign policy and their unwavering support for israel it wouldnt be such an issue.
I seem to recall that none of the anti-war countries like Germany, France and Italy didnt suffer any Al-Quaeda bombings! :rolleyes:
...but thats for another thread. :rolleyes:

Robert the [email protected]

others who tried to blow up those buses you take to the doctor on 21 July 2005.
I usually walk everywhere, its much healthier.

Robert the great

God Save the Queen, sirrah!
I'll save her alright, save her from another 10 years on the throne! Wheres my grenades?!? :ph34r:

Robert

16th December 2007, 21:15

Germany has had its problems with terrorism in the 70's and they killed or captured them all. France is still plagued by it but has a very aggressive anti-terrorist program and some very tough commandos who make life hard for terrorists. Italy I don't know about.

But at any rate, I wouldn't let the demands homicidal lunatics dictate foreign policy.

Green Dragon

17th December 2007, 00:30

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+December 15, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ December 15, 2007 11:29 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:24 pm
Allrighty :)
I hope you don't get the impression that taxes are a sore point amongst all leftists. As a taxpayer, I don't like 'em. I suppose nobody does. And given the corruption and waste in government, well..... why volunteer to give them more??
im not against taxes either- My beef is 2 major points:
-They expect poor people to pay such a high proportion of their earnings- Every week i have to pay the equivalent of both my utility and shopping bills. Tax the rich! :angry:
-The tax money the government gets is wasted on absolute shite, like the 'war' on 'terror' and the 2012 olympics (which will benefit no one outside south east england) [/b]
1. Come to the USA and you will pay less taxes.

2. How do you know that no one outside of SE UK will benefit from the Olymics? What standards are you applying to make the determination? Won't the folks up in Glasgow benefit from the warm and fuzzy feeling of international brotherhood and goods sportsmanship?

Green Dragon

17th December 2007, 00:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:20 am

In other words, every system is profit - oriented, because you define profit as distinctions in human value systems. So why even discuss it as if it meant anything for or against socialism or capitalism? WE all know that we try to utilize our energies for gain, regardless of the currency.

Yes. The socialist community has to concern itself with whether its actions are profitable for the community. That is, it has to determine whether the action it takes will benefit it above and beyond the cost the community will suffer in the production.

The socialist system MUST have system which guides it when it makes determinations. Build a rail line?? Sure, why not. Build it where? Here, there. Socialism needs a set of knowledge where the workers of the community use to make these determinations. Otherwise, their actiions are nothing but simply arbitrary. And that does not benefit people.

Green Dragon

17th December 2007, 00:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:20 am

Also, I don't see how you can reasonably quantify a vast majority of things. What is it worth to cheat on your wife? What is it worth to live? What is the value of your freedom? These questions only have monetary or materially - equivalent meaning in regards to capitalism. Furthermore, the concept that all things have a given value and profit is the best goal implies that, given the right market conditions it would be rational to kill off all human life, including your own, so that some degree of value can be attained. It's really asinine to claim that everything has value and at the same time that things ought to be traded to maximize this value. It is basically a call for socialism when you promote such disgusting, nonsensical concepts.

Of course everything has a "value." Why produce anything if nobody desires the product? If nobody "values" it?

Dean

17th December 2007, 01:46

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 17, 2007 12:58 am--> (Green Dragon @ December 17, 2007 12:58 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 03:20 am

Also, I don't see how you can reasonably quantify a vast majority of things. What is it worth to cheat on your wife? What is it worth to live? What is the value of your freedom? These questions only have monetary or materially - equivalent meaning in regards to capitalism. Furthermore, the concept that all things have a given value and profit is the best goal implies that, given the right market conditions it would be rational to kill off all human life, including your own, so that some degree of value can be attained. It's really asinine to claim that everything has value and at the same time that things ought to be traded to maximize this value. It is basically a call for socialism when you promote such disgusting, nonsensical concepts.

Of course everything has a "value." Why produce anything if nobody desires the product? If nobody "values" it? [/b]
Value, yes. But not a quantifiable one which can be changed into currency.

For instance, how much money would it take for yo uto give up your freedom? Your life? Do these things have any realistic value in an economic system, or are they judged simply case - by case? You will notice that the value of an Iraqi's life is no doubt pretty dear to them; many of them have deserted the country to maintain it. Contrarily, our statesmen have little value for their lives; in fact, I doubt that the monetary equivalent of our economic gains there puts life at a greater worth than a couple thousand dollars a person, if that. So are these values reasonable? Should an economy suffer dearly to save one life, or are the lives of thousands worth a stable economy? I don't think there are reasonable answers to these questions, becasue their value is judged in totally different language.

People like Pusher Robot and some of the duller marxists here want to apply cold, inhuman values to moral and social issues which transcend such judgements. For instance, some here talk of purges as if the loss of human life is more a historical necessity than a harsh reality.The revolution is considered to be necessarily violent, despite the fact that we have seen peaceful shifts of power since Marx was around.

Dean

17th December 2007, 01:50

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 17, 2007 12:50 am--> (Green Dragon @ December 17, 2007 12:50 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 03:20 am

In other words, every system is profit - oriented, because you define profit as distinctions in human value systems. So why even discuss it as if it meant anything for or against socialism or capitalism? WE all know that we try to utilize our energies for gain, regardless of the currency.

Yes. The socialist community has to concern itself with whether its actions are profitable for the community. That is, it has to determine whether the action it takes will benefit it above and beyond the cost the community will suffer in the production.

The socialist system MUST have system which guides it when it makes determinations. Build a rail line?? Sure, why not. Build it where? Here, there. Socialism needs a set of knowledge where the workers of the community use to make these determinations. Otherwise, their actiions are nothing but simply arbitrary. And that does not benefit people. [/b]
What about hospitals? Without a complex insurace industry, which is not productive, it would not have profit except for its capability to maintain, support and benefit human life. Is that not useful for the community? If it is a "profit," how much is it worth? at what point does it become a loss, and thus "undesirable"? How much money is it worth to the community that I have the use of my legs? Can you really make that judgement in monetary terms? I have never seen a good argument for profit motive that is interested in the benefit of people. Really, when profit becomes a greater end than human interests - which are fluid and unquantifiable - it makes humans the objects of their labor, rather than the masters of it, as they should be.

pusher robot

18th December 2007, 20:02

What about hospitals? Without a complex insurace industry, which is not productive, it would not have profit except for its capability to maintain, support and benefit human life.

Your error is in calling this industry "not productive." It produces health care! That is its product. Profit is achieved in its ability to produce health care that is more valuable to people than the resources used up in producing that health care.

How much money is it worth to the community that I have the use of my legs? Can you really make that judgement in monetary terms?

The question should properly be, how much is it worth to you? And yes, it's done all the time. What is the alternative? Every medical procedure is infinitely valuable? Should an army of people labor round the clock to reduce the risk of infection from my tonsillectomy from .0001% to .00001%?

I have never seen a good argument for profit motive that is interested in the benefit of people.
By definition, profit is not achievable unless you are creating value for people in excess of the costs.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding some key concepts here.

Really, when profit becomes a greater end than human interests - which are fluid and unquantifiable - it makes humans the objects of their labor, rather than the masters of it, as they should be.

This is BS. You are basically saying that since people are irrational, our economics should be based on feelings, making any kind of logical reasoning irrelevant. I guess if that's your argument, then that's fine. But at least have the consistency to acknowledge that yours are religious beliefs.

luxemburg89

18th December 2007, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:16 pm
but who get's to gauge the workers productivity?
Well, hopefully, in a Socialist society we wouldn't sickeningly talk about human beings having 'productivity' as if they were some sort of fucking machine. I think it is a myth that some people work harder than others, I work no harder than anyone in the transport industry and they work no harder than me. People are intelligent enough to know that if no one works then society and civilisation will collapse but I don't think anyone should work harder in order to achieve anything else, it's pointless - as far as I am concerned everyone should work together to ensure that everyone has the best possible of everything, so that no incentive to work yourself half to death is necessary.

Dean

18th December 2007, 21:28

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 18, 2007 08:01 pm

What about hospitals? Without a complex insurace industry, which is not productive, it would not have profit except for its capability to maintain, support and benefit human life.

Your error is in calling this industry "not productive." It produces health care! That is its product. Profit is achieved in its ability to produce health care that is more valuable to people than the resources used up in producing that health care.
Insurace companies are not productive. They simply centralize wealth. I was not referring to the hospital industry; surely, insurance companies do not poduce healthcare, but rather provide means by which said healthcare can be regulated.

How much money is it worth to the community that I have the use of my legs? Can you really make that judgement in monetary terms?

The question should properly be, how much is it worth to you? And yes, it's done all the time. What is the alternative? Every medical procedure is infinitely valuable? Should an army of people labor round the clock to reduce the risk of infection from my tonsillectomy from .0001% to .00001%?
It depends on what the people want. I know that a select group of people running insurance agencies (and your wealth) should not dictate my access to a social good.

I have never seen a good argument for profit motive that is interested in the benefit of people.
By definition, profit is not achievable unless you are creating value for people in excess of the costs.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding some key concepts here.
Profit is interested in capital possession, not human benefit. If you didn't figure it out already, profit is not a very good thing, even for the person who profits. Meeting goals is important, constantly pushing humans harder so they can maximise profit and thus consumption is terrible for humans and society both.

Really, when profit becomes a greater end than human interests - which are fluid and unquantifiable - it makes humans the objects of their labor, rather than the masters of it, as they should be.

This is BS. You are basically saying that since people are irrational,
That humans don't primarily interest themselves in the gain of capital does not make them irration, but rather social. The fact that you equate unhindered growth of industry as a "rational" end shows how little you know of human interest.

our economics should be based on feelings,
yes, because the ends that people desire are based on feelings. What better way to base a means of producing an end except on the same compulsion that drives that end? If humans want roads, their desire for roads should drive the production of roads.

making any kind of logical reasoning irrelevant. I guess if that's your argument, then that's fine.
Logic is a part of emotion. And logic drives decision - making, so I don't see how it can be seperated from any economic system.

But at least have the consistency to acknowledge that yours are religious beliefs.
Hah! this is competely meaningless. Call it religious, mystic, Christian, Jewish, whatever, I really don't care. For one, I doubt you can properly define "religion" in a way that is concise and describes superstitious dogma and psycholgical / sociological reason, and I don't think you will be able to distinguish your ideas from mine in regards to any meaning you ascribe to it. Is it because I am talking about human emotion? Is it because I have faith in human rationality and our capability to run our own economy? Who knows? It must be religious! Believe it!

pusher robot

19th December 2007, 00:17

Insurace companies are not productive. They simply centralize wealth. I was not referring to the hospital industry; surely, insurance companies do not poduce healthcare, but rather provide means by which said healthcare can be regulated.

Insurance companies most certainly are productive. The product they create is risk management. If you don't see any value in that product, don't buy it.

It depends on what the people want.

I'm glad we agree - that's what I've been trying to say all along.

I know that a select group of people running insurance agencies (and your wealth) should not dictate my access to a social good.

Again, if you don't want insurance, then assume your own risks. Nobody's stopping you.

Meeting goals is important, constantly pushing humans harder so they can maximise profit and thus consumption is terrible for humans and society both.

So now it finally slips out - you're not really concerned with profits at all. It's consumption that you hate. But why should people choose to consume less? Especially if somebody else is doing the producing?

That humans don't primarily interest themselves in the gain of capital does not make them irration, but rather social. The fact that you equate unhindered growth of industry as a "rational" end shows how little you know of human interest.

That's not what I said at all and you know it. I'm simply arguing that human interests are not unknowable! They can be quantified and expressed and pursued by individuals.

What better way to base a means of producing an end except on the same compulsion that drives that end?
You say this like it's obvious, yet you've not even addressed the basic logical nonsequitur behind this reasoning: enjoyment of consumption is IRRELEVANT to enjoyment of production. It may be true that 100% of people enjoy consuming beer, but 0% enjoy it more than they dislike brewing. Your proposed means results in no beer production even though it would be socially beneficial to have beer.

If humans want roads, their desire for roads should drive the production of roads.

You are disqualified from using this argument as you are unwilling to explain HOW we assess the desire for roads in a way that accounts for all the other uses those resources could have.

Is it because I am talking about human emotion? Is it because I have faith in human rationality and our capability to run our own economy? Who knows? It must be religious! Believe it!

It's because you are arguing that we can't know how much people want one thing as opposed to another thing, supposedly because such desires are "fluid" and "unquantifiable." If we can't know what people want and how much they want it, then we might as well give up on the idea of economics and just produce whatever we feel like without regard to whether anybody wants it.

Which, I guess, is your argument. But it's a stupid argument for reasons that ought to be obvious to anybody.

Green Dragon

19th December 2007, 00:56

Originally posted by Dean+December 17, 2007 01:45 am--> (Dean @ December 17, 2007 01:45 am)
Originally posted by Green [email protected] 17, 2007 12:58 am

[email protected] 15, 2007 03:20 am

Also, I don't see how you can reasonably quantify a vast majority of things. What is it worth to cheat on your wife? What is it worth to live? What is the value of your freedom? These questions only have monetary or materially - equivalent meaning in regards to capitalism. Furthermore, the concept that all things have a given value and profit is the best goal implies that, given the right market conditions it would be rational to kill off all human life, including your own, so that some degree of value can be attained. It's really asinine to claim that everything has value and at the same time that things ought to be traded to maximize this value. It is basically a call for socialism when you promote such disgusting, nonsensical concepts.

Of course everything has a "value." Why produce anything if nobody desires the product? If nobody "values" it?
Value, yes. But not a quantifiable one which can be changed into currency.

For instance, how much money would it take for yo uto give up your freedom? Your life? Do these things have any realistic value in an economic system, or are they judged simply case - by case? You will notice that the value of an Iraqi's life is no doubt pretty dear to them; many of them have deserted the country to maintain it. Contrarily, our statesmen have little value for their lives; in fact, I doubt that the monetary equivalent of our economic gains there puts life at a greater worth than a couple thousand dollars a person, if that. So are these values reasonable? Should an economy suffer dearly to save one life, or are the lives of thousands worth a stable economy? I don't think there are reasonable answers to these questions, becasue their value is judged in totally different language.

People like Pusher Robot and some of the duller marxists here want to apply cold, inhuman values to moral and social issues which transcend such judgements. For instance, some here talk of purges as if the loss of human life is more a historical necessity than a harsh reality.The revolution is considered to be necessarily violent, despite the fact that we have seen peaceful shifts of power since Marx was around. [/b]
All issues are not a matter of life and death. Pusher is simply going along with the examples you give. The principles are the same, whether we talk about healthcare or sofas.

Green Dragon

19th December 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by luxemburg89+December 18, 2007 08:18 pm--> (luxemburg89 @ December 18, 2007 08:18 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 05:16 pm
but who get's to gauge the workers productivity?
Well, hopefully, in a Socialist society we wouldn't sickeningly talk about human beings having 'productivity' as if they were some sort of fucking machine. I think it is a myth that some people work harder than others, I work no harder than anyone in the transport industry and they work no harder than me. People are intelligent enough to know that if no one works then society and civilisation will collapse but I don't think anyone should work harder in order to achieve anything else, it's pointless - as far as I am concerned everyone should work together to ensure that everyone has the best possible of everything, so that no incentive to work yourself half to death is necessary. [/b]
Being "productive" is notjust working harder. Being productive is getting more NEEDED and WANTED things done, in a given period of time. If your community is unable to determine your work in the transport industrty serves any useful purpose whatsoever, whether in its entirety or in how the work ispresently being performed, the real myth is the socialist one which suggests this inability has no impact on the community. The reality is that it results in impoverishment and disaster for the communiy.

You work because where you do because someone, somewhere needs the product that you provide. That's it. There is no other purpose for the existence of your job. And if your community is unable to determine whether you are doing your job in the best possible way, thus providing that product in the best possible way, means you are not providing that product in the best possible way. Denying that the socialist community will have to grapple with this problem does not make the problem go away. Socialists have to face it as well.

Dean

20th December 2007, 02:24

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 12:16 am

Insurace companies are not productive. They simply centralize wealth. I was not referring to the hospital industry; surely, insurance companies do not poduce healthcare, but rather provide means by which said healthcare can be regulated.

Insurance companies most certainly are productive. The product they create is risk management. If you don't see any value in that product, don't buy it.
I see great value in it - but not when they are run as they are. The concept of a collection of people getting together and pooling money which should be used in emergencies is a great idea. But it should not be about profit, but - like you said - risk management. Too bad it's about the former when we live in a system which promotes profit above people.

It depends on what the people want.

I'm glad we agree - that's what I've been trying to say all along.

I know that a select group of people running insurance agencies (and your wealth) should not dictate my access to a social good.

Again, if you don't want insurance, then assume your own risks. Nobody's stopping you.
Then I
-Cannot drive
-cannot receive healthcare due to inflated prices
-cannot rent an apartment
-etc.

Meeting goals is important, constantly pushing humans harder so they can maximise profit and thus consumption is terrible for humans and society both.

So now it finally slips out - you're not really concerned with profits at all. It's consumption that you hate. But why should people choose to consume less? Especially if somebody else is doing the producing?
I don't hate consumption. I hate excessive consumption. And I hate excessive profit making. I support a system where luxuries are less common, needs are provided for and said luxuries are more sustaining, less fleeting.

That humans don't primarily interest themselves in the gain of capital does not make them irration, but rather social. The fact that you equate unhindered growth of industry as a "rational" end shows how little you know of human interest.

That's not what I said at all and you know it. I'm simply arguing that human interests are not unknowable! They can be quantified and expressed and pursued by individuals.
My love quotient for my fiancee is 38. My desire to have a pleasant life is equivalent to 35% of my given energies. the ratio of my hatred for capitalism to my love for communism is 4:5.

Wait - that sounds like bullshit to me. No, such things cannot be quantified. They cannot only be superficially quantified in an economic system, namely capitalism, and the results are ludicrous.

What better way to base a means of producing an end except on the same compulsion that drives that end?
You say this like it's obvious, yet you've not even addressed the basic logical nonsequitur behind this reasoning: enjoyment of consumption is IRRELEVANT to enjoyment of production. It may be true that 100% of people enjoy consuming beer, but 0% enjoy it more than they dislike brewing. Your proposed means results in no beer production even though it would be socially beneficial to have beer.
People have an inherant desire for productivity, since we are a laboring species, and our needs and wants drive our actions to such ends. The desire to brew beer comes from the desire to have it, just as the desire to get coffee is partly manifested in the desire to go to the store to purchase said coffee. This doesn't mean that any given person has to brew beer to drink it, but that they have to work to get it if they desire it - whether that means brewing, being there for a neighbor who does brew or simply being on good terms with those who have the most say in that industry.

If humans want roads, their desire for roads should drive the production of roads.

You are disqualified from using this argument as you are unwilling to explain HOW we assess the desire for roads in a way that accounts for all the other uses those resources could have.
You are disqualified from makng statements on human desires because you have failed to explain a coherant way in which human desires can be quantified.

Is it because I am talking about human emotion? Is it because I have faith in human rationality and our capability to run our own economy? Who knows? It must be religious! Believe it!

It's because you are arguing that we can't know how much people want one thing as opposed to another thing, supposedly because such desires are "fluid" and "unquantifiable." If we can't know what people want and how much they want it, then we might as well give up on the idea of economics and just produce whatever we feel like without regard to whether anybody wants it.
If a person leaps with joy on account of having a stereo but is ambivalent about drinking tea, I can assume that they like stereos but not tea. This isn't a quantification, and I think it's clear that I never claimed we couldn't harness human desire. I simply said that others cannot judge it; I know what I do and don't like, but when another person claims to nave the ability to quantify my desires, even roughly, its a joke. You can't tell me what I like and don't like, at least not in terms of monetary interest. The concerns are too fluid. Just because I don't spend money on charity but instead on paying the rent doesn't mean I feel that my housing is more important than others' ability to eat. It simpyl means that I'm struggling. I don't like a stereo system 300$ much versus an album 16$ much. I would give up the stereo sytem long before the album. Contrarily, I wouldn't pay 300 for an album. Also, I don't think having a 1 room apartment is worth 400$ a month. but I have no choice; it could be 5 or 6 hundred and I would stil buy it, because I need it.

Which, I guess, is your argument. But it's a stupid argument for reasons that ought to be obvious to anybody.
I think that it ought to be obvious that money doesn't mirror human emotion. It is the cornerstone of our society, and yet so many things transcend such distinctions. I find it amazing that you genuinely think that you can guage a person's desire by how much money they will spend on this or that.

Also, I don't think we should "simply produce whatever." Another thing I never said. I said that the people as a whole must control the production - therefore, the collective desires of all are met, not those with money, not those in given industries, not a ruling few. If you'd bother to read my posts rather than attacking them you might see that; I've repeated that too many times to remember.

Dean

20th December 2007, 02:31

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 19, 2007 12:55 am
All issues are not a matter of life and death. Pusher is simply going along with the examples you give. The principles are the same, whether we talk about healthcare or sofas.
So? it's a lot easier to explain how it is unreasonable to gauge the desire for life along monetary lines than it is to gauge desire for a sofa. It seems obvious that life is not something we judge primarily on monetary terms, and when we do it is never desirable. But sofas are a bit vaguer - I pay for a sofa, so maybe that's how much I want it? unfortunately for that argument, as I explained in my last response to pusher robot, my personal desire for a commodity is not measured in what percent or amount of money that I give away. That only reflects pricing, economic conditions, value of the dollar, etc.

There is no doubt that human desire often goes into the judgements on money. But I don't think those distinctions should in turn run our lives. we should directly run them, with no middlemen.

Dr Mindbender

20th December 2007, 20:24

Originally posted by Green dragon+--> (Green dragon)
1. Come to the USA and you will pay less taxes.[/b]
At what cost though? Inferior or non-existant public sector services. The solution is not to privatise services, but to retreive the payment from those according to their ability to do so.

Green dragon

2. How do you know that no one outside of SE UK will benefit from the Olymics? What standards are you applying to make the determination? Won't the folks up in Glasgow benefit from the warm and fuzzy feeling of international brotherhood and goods sportsmanship?
Firstly, no-one north of birmingham really gives a flying shit what happens in London, least of all those folks in scotland (that really stems from several thousand years of history but thats for another thread).
The reason no one outside that area will benefit is because the regeneration effort is being centralised in that area so poor old mrs smith in manchester has to pay so mrs jones in peckham's son can go to football training. To me theres a bittersweet irony there somewhere.

Dr Mindbender

20th December 2007, 20:33

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 16, 2007 09:14 pm
Germany has had its problems with terrorism in the 70's and they killed or captured them all. France is still plagued by it but has a very aggressive anti-terrorist program and some very tough commandos who make life hard for terrorists. Italy I don't know about.

But at any rate, I wouldn't let the demands homicidal lunatics dictate foreign policy.
what and youre saying that the UK, USA and spain have somehow been soft on terrorists? that is made of lulz. :lol: :lol:

The UK spent most of the 70's and 80's demonising the IRA while the US was stocking up for nuclear conflict. To say that Germany was some sort of anti-al quaeda power force during the 70's is bullshit when you consider that A- nearly half it was under soviet influence at that time while the NATO side had common interests with Bin Laden's mujahadeen when they fought the Russian invasion.

the shit didnt really hit the fan with the islamists until the first gulf war when the US and UK invaded (despite the fact they were already pissed off about the Palestine situation which had nothing to do with France or Germany).

pusher robot

20th December 2007, 20:58

(despite the fact they were already pissed off about the Palestine situation which had nothing to do with France or Germany).

Yes, I'm certain that the mass immigration of Jews into Israel in the 30's and 40's had nothing to do with Germany whatsoever. Nothing, nothing at all.

hajduk

20th December 2007, 20:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:48 pm
Do I get more "stuff" if I work harder then my co workers ?

How would we chose who the managers are ?

i know there is a faq section but i didnt get a clear answer from there.
answer is simple,you work or not,if you not then you are lasy bastard,if you work harder the others you are just god worker then others and you have right to make deicisons about god work but than not mean that you are better than others workers,that mean that you just do better work for your own community and make them done job well

Dean

21st December 2007, 00:03

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 08:57 pm

(despite the fact they were already pissed off about the Palestine situation which had nothing to do with France or Germany).

Yes, I'm certain that the mass immigration of Jews into Israel in the 30's and 40's had nothing to do with Germany whatsoever. Nothing, nothing at all.
Actually, German Jews emigrated with Zionist interests long before the thirties and forties, and it should also be noted that Hitler was an avid supporter of Zionism - because it would push the Jews away from the rest of "civilised" society, a mentality shared by Churchill. The emigration during the rise of powerful antisemitism is related to Israel and Germany as much as the U.S.'s refusal to take in Jewish refugees during the same period. Germany did not create Israel nor did it create a catalyst for its creaton; European antisemitism was looking for that "solution" for a long time, and the zionist movement within the Jewish community was a response to the feeling of being unwanted. Thankfully, most intellectual Jews recognized that militant Zionism was wrong - From Einstein to Chomsky and Fromm - and either embraced a saner emigrant movement (the first two) or outright disowned the concept of religious nationalism (Fromm).

I think France was also partly involved in Zionism, but I believe their role was smaller than the other European nations which helped form the movement and state.

Green Dragon

21st December 2007, 02:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:30 am

So? it's a lot easier to explain how it is unreasonable to gauge the desire for life along monetary lines than it is to gauge desire for a sofa. It seems obvious that life is not something we judge primarily on monetary terms, and when we do it is never desirable. But sofas are a bit vaguer - I pay for a sofa, so maybe that's how much I want it? unfortunately for that argument, as I explained in my last response to pusher robot, my personal desire for a commodity is not measured in what percent or amount of money that I give away. That only reflects pricing, economic conditions, value of the dollar, etc.

There is no doubt that human desire often goes into the judgements on money. But I don't think those distinctions should in turn run our lives. we should directly run them, with no middlemen. [/quote]
Certainly it is much easier to explain how unreasonable it is make decisions of life on financial concerns. The fixation on such extreme examples probably stems from an inability to explain how the socialist community makes its lesser important decisions.
Because the principles are the same. Hospitals receive tremendous amount of public funding to make up for the financial losses. But it needs to be recalled that that funding is based upon the rest of the community making a determination that the value of a good is greater than its cost. That is "profit" and is is how wealth is generated and how the community can ultimately support hospitals and the like.

And also how your determination of aquiring a sofa is made. The money you "give away" for the sofa does reflect how much you value the sofa. Its the best way to measure the value, however, for your desire of that sofa, against ayour desire for other things, versus someone else's desire for that sofa and other things.

I am not sure what the "middleman" comment is about, except it seems a rejection of stores (factory direct I guess is the objective). That is fine, and there are certainly capitalists who do this. However, they take a risk in doing so (the same risk that a socialsit community would take in the same circumstance). And that risk is that nobody wants their product. All that labor, and nothing to show for it. Ship it to the store, and at least your labor is paid for, regardless of whether anyone actually wants the product.

Dr Mindbender

22nd December 2007, 01:46

Dean

22nd December 2007, 23:36

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 21, 2007 02:30 am

So? it's a lot easier to explain how it is unreasonable to gauge the desire for life along monetary lines than it is to gauge desire for a sofa. It seems obvious that life is not something we judge primarily on monetary terms, and when we do it is never desirable. But sofas are a bit vaguer - I pay for a sofa, so maybe that's how much I want it? unfortunately for that argument, as I explained in my last response to pusher robot, my personal desire for a commodity is not measured in what percent or amount of money that I give away. That only reflects pricing, economic conditions, value of the dollar, etc.

There is no doubt that human desire often goes into the judgements on money. But I don't think those distinctions should in turn run our lives. we should directly run them, with no middlemen.
Certainly it is much easier to explain how unreasonable it is make decisions of life on financial concerns. The fixation on such extreme examples probably stems from an inability to explain how the socialist community makes its lesser important decisions. [/quote]
I have already explained this, anbd I won't repeat my explanation. Suffice it to say that capitalism also doesn't stipulate that profit will be the decision - making body for important decisions, and hardly explains how such decisions would be made.

Because the principles are the same. Hospitals receive tremendous amount of public funding to make up for the financial losses. But it needs to be recalled that that funding is based upon the rest of the community making a determination that the value of a good is greater than its cost. That is "profit" and is is how wealth is generated and how the community can ultimately support hospitals and the like.
I am talking about profit in reference to capital, monetary gain which can be gauged. The gain of someone's life or pleasure cannot be gauged except in very braod terminology, which in turn cannot at all dictate judgements on profits.

And also how your determination of aquiring a sofa is made. The money you "give away" for the sofa does reflect how much you value the sofa. Its the best way to measure the value, however, for your desire of that sofa, against ayour desire for other things, versus someone else's desire for that sofa and other things.
Really? If I have a house which I got for free and pay no debts at all on, and in turn pay 50$ for a sofa, do I desire the sofa more than a house? Is the sofa worth more than love or life, because it has a distinct monetary value while the others can be taken for free, and usually are?

I am not sure what the "middleman" comment is about, except it seems a rejection of stores (factory direct I guess is the objective). That is fine, and there are certainly capitalists who do this. However, they take a risk in doing so (the same risk that a socialsit community would take in the same circumstance). And that risk is that nobody wants their product. All that labor, and nothing to show for it. Ship it to the store, and at least your labor is paid for, regardless of whether anyone actually wants the product.
Stores are not inherantly bad. It is the creation, organization and maintenance of a system which encourages a huge overhead, repetitive purchases, faulty goods and above all cold possessions as more important than human contact that is bad. Middlemen dictating how society should govern its economic decisions - without the community dictating them itself, but rather having a management system created here by capital - is an undesirable middleman.

Green Dragon

23rd December 2007, 20:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:35 pm

So? it's a lot easier to explain how it is unreasonable to gauge the desire for life along monetary lines than it is to gauge desire for a sofa. It seems obvious that life is not something we judge primarily on monetary terms, and when we do it is never desirable. But sofas are a bit vaguer - I pay for a sofa, so maybe that's how much I want it? unfortunately for that argument, as I explained in my last response to pusher robot, my personal desire for a commodity is not measured in what percent or amount of money that I give away. That only reflects pricing, economic conditions, value of the dollar, etc.

There is no doubt that human desire often goes into the judgements on money. But I don't think those distinctions should in turn run our lives. we should directly run them, with no middlemen.
Certainly it is much easier to explain how unreasonable it is make decisions of life on financial concerns. The fixation on such extreme examples probably stems from an inability to explain how the socialist community makes its lesser important decisions.
I have already explained this, anbd I won't repeat my explanation. Suffice it to say that capitalism also doesn't stipulate that profit will be the decision - making body for important decisions, and hardly explains how such decisions would be made.

Because the principles are the same. Hospitals receive tremendous amount of public funding to make up for the financial losses. But it needs to be recalled that that funding is based upon the rest of the community making a determination that the value of a good is greater than its cost. That is "profit" and is is how wealth is generated and how the community can ultimately support hospitals and the like.
I am talking about profit in reference to capital, monetary gain which can be gauged. The gain of someone's life or pleasure cannot be gauged except in very braod terminology, which in turn cannot at all dictate judgements on profits.

And also how your determination of aquiring a sofa is made. The money you "give away" for the sofa does reflect how much you value the sofa. Its the best way to measure the value, however, for your desire of that sofa, against ayour desire for other things, versus someone else's desire for that sofa and other things.
Really? If I have a house which I got for free and pay no debts at all on, and in turn pay 50$ for a sofa, do I desire the sofa more than a house? Is the sofa worth more than love or life, because it has a distinct monetary value while the others can be taken for free, and usually are?

I am not sure what the "middleman" comment is about, except it seems a rejection of stores (factory direct I guess is the objective). That is fine, and there are certainly capitalists who do this. However, they take a risk in doing so (the same risk that a socialsit community would take in the same circumstance). And that risk is that nobody wants their product. All that labor, and nothing to show for it. Ship it to the store, and at least your labor is paid for, regardless of whether anyone actually wants the product.
Stores are not inherantly bad. It is the creation, organization and maintenance of a system which encourages a huge overhead, repetitive purchases, faulty goods and above all cold possessions as more important than human contact that is bad. Middlemen dictating how society should govern its economic decisions - without the community dictating them itself, but rather having a management system created here by capital - is an undesirable middleman. [/quote]
1. Okay. What does capitalism say will be the "decision-making body" for all those "important" decisions?

2. The individual can guage what is, and what is not pleasurable to himself. That same individual can guage how great one pleasure is to himself comapred to another pleasure.

3. The house of course has greater value. Because someone will be willing to pay more to you for your house than for your sofa. YOU may not judge it that way, but that is of your concern. You are free to sell the house for less than how much you are willing to sell your sofa.
As far as guaging "love" or "life" I suppose the value could be guaged- by the individual himself, and determinations made.

4. Let me get this straight: You are sitting at a computer, probably by yourself doing something that could only be done by a few 17 years ago, and now is fairly universal, complaining about people wanting possessions over "human contact? Is this correct?
Aside from its amusement value, that critique of capitalism would be more convincing if you could demonstrate how and why people living in a socialist community would not be as interested in possessions as peple ina capitalist community (which strikes me as a tough sell, because another critique of capitalism by socialism is the alleged "unequal" distribution of production in the capitalist community).

Dean

23rd December 2007, 22:33

Originally posted by Green [email protected] 23, 2007 08:11 pm
1. Okay. What does capitalism say will be the "decision-making body" for all those "important" decisions?
Centralized corporate and institutional structures. On a broader sense, the motive for caital. The former is what happens in such scenarios, whereas the latter is directly supported by capitalism.

2. The individual can guage what is, and what is not pleasurable to himself. That same individual can guage how great one pleasure is to himself comapred to another pleasure.
Sure. But not quantitatively, and he can't compare it to the desires of others. I may love something whereas another likes it, but my general apathy or social awkwardness may make it seem like I don't care for it, while the other has a much more bouncy, outgoing personality. It would appear that the other loves the thing while I don't, when the inverse can be true. But none of this can be put quantitatively into a social, monetary judgement, because society cannot gauge emtions effctively - only the individual can.

3. The house of course has greater value. Because someone will be willing to pay more to you for your house than for your sofa. YOU may not judge it that way, but that is of your concern. You are free to sell the house for less than how much you are willing to sell your sofa.
That's not the point. The point is that the monetary quantifications, which you said can measure desire, say that the house is worthless whereas the sofa is worth 50$. So here, money has failed entirely to measure the worth or desire for something.

As far as guaging "love" or "life" I suppose the value could be guaged- by the individual himself, and determinations made.
Yes, but is a billion dollars worth my life to me? I don't think any amount is, by nature of the fact that it is useless to me when I'm dead. the point is, again, that they are without distinct monetary value, but have a clear human value.

4. Let me get this straight: You are sitting at a computer, probably by yourself doing something that could only be done by a few 17 years ago, and now is fairly universal, complaining about people wanting possessions over "human contact? Is this correct?
Yes.

Aside from its amusement value, that critique of capitalism would be more convincing if you could demonstrate how and why people living in a socialist community would not be as interested in possessions as peple ina capitalist community (which strikes me as a tough sell, because another critique of capitalism by socialism is the alleged "unequal" distribution of production in the capitalist community).
Because the entire society would not be built to create people who are so alienated that they fear human contact. I have agoraphobia, and so does my brother. I am willing to bet my roommate does too. I have, and this is very common in industrialized societies, a distinct fear of human contact, and for me it comes from fear of disaproval, fear of aloneness, and fear of rejection. It seems contradictory, and it is, but that is what my conditions built into me. It is no surprise that leading industrialized nations liek Japan and the U.S. are also facing a huge "epidemic" of autism. This article might help you to understand this: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/neil_c..._me_to_you.html (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/neil_clark/2007/12/fromm_me_to_you.html)

Yes, I am a fucked up product of a society whose fucked up institutions are all to clear, and I am agaisnt the perpetuation of conditions which fuck people like me up.