What is this site about?

[~V~]

I spent a moderate amount of time surfing this site, but I have no idea what this site is about or the ideology that it represents. I have no idea what "leftist" ideology is. I think I have "right" ideology, but I am not sure.

About me:

I am a student of economics. I do not encompass any one school of economic thought, but I gravitate towards the Chicago and Austrian school. Politically, I can describe myself as a Classical Liberal/Moderate Libertarian who entertains Anarcho-Capitalist ideas.

I have little knowledge of Marxian ideology. My prepubescent understanding of Marx leads me to concur that he was a social philosopher and not an economist. I know I am probably committing sacrilege here, but I appreciate Marx for his partial refutation of classical economics and delving into the relationship of man and production. Marx was no Ricardo.

I like economics and socio-political discussion. I'll stick around and entertain conversation. Or I leave, if I am too "right" and deserve restriction: I don't like heated debates nor censorship. I am just curious what this forum is about and just saying hello.

Hello.

~V~

[#FF0000]

Leftist Ideology = Communism/socialism/anarchism (excluding Anarcho-Capitalsm).

So, yeah. That's what this entire forum's about.

[Marsella]

Whatever -isms some subscribe to on this forum, the one thing we all have in common is that we stand for the abolition of private property.

Our differences of opinion lay in how that is achieved, what is to take its place, and what society should/will look like after that is achieved.

Welcome anyway.

[~V~]

Whatever -isms some subscribe to on this forum, the one thing we all have in common is that we stand for the abolition of private property.

Do you mean private property or private means ownership over the means of production? If you are against private means of ownership, are you for worker collectives or state ownership?


Welcome anyway.

Thanks for the welcome.

[R_P_A_S]

Do you mean private property or private means ownership over the means of production? If you are against private means of ownership, are you for worker collectives or state ownership?


Thanks for the welcome.

well hmmm.. i guess during a transitional period the state will be the workers. and then no state at all.

worker collectives, production bases on our needs and to further our society not for profit but for people.

[~V~]

To let everyone know, I currently do not feel no need to travel outside this thread unless it is necessary to learn and not to espouse my ideologies. I welcome conversation. I am just asking questions and am here to learn. I am open minded, but simultaneously deeply opinionated.


well hmmm.. i guess during a transitional period the state will be the workers. and then no state at all.
It will be a communal ownership over the means of production? If I used to own a gas station, then I have to relinquish ownership to my employees? I have to split the profits and responsibilities in an equitable fashion?


worker collectives, production bases on our needs and to further our society not for profit but for people.

What is wrong with profit? Economic rent spurs innovation.

[R_P_A_S]

To let everyone know, I currently do not feel no need to travel outside this thread unless it is necessary to learn and not to espouse my ideologies. I welcome conversation. I am just asking questions and am here to learn. I am open minded, but simultaneously deeply opinionated.


It will be a communal ownership over the means of production? If I used to own a gas station, then I have to relinquish ownership to my employees? I have to split the profits and responsibilities in an equitable fashion?



What is wrong with profit? Economic rent spurs innovation.

hmm. damn i don't know where to start. we are either socialist or communist, OR Anarchist around here. you know? or you do now know what that entails?

[~V~]

I am not the biggest fan of collectivism, but I support anarcho-capitalist ideas (even though that is excluded as "leftist").

You can begin anywhere. Or someone can enlighten me between anarchy and Ancap.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think Ancap is impossible. Capitalism without a State? No social regulation? Every man for himself? That would be the negative connotation of anarchy: disorder. Btw, how would you disolve the State?

[~V~]

Hi Rakunin,

I think socialism can't exist without the state. Capitalism is individual and relies on personal property and does not require state, but socialism does.

I don't understand how every man for himself would negate anarchy. Every man of from himself does not negate voluntary transactions.

How would I dissolve the state? Excellent question and I look forward to additional input, since mine is incomplete. My answer is, that I do not know, but it does not require a revolution. I am may be grasping at straws, but my choices would be:

1. To become politically involved to promote limited government and less taxes and then promote the ideas of Ancap (perhaps hypocritical, but just my nascent thoughts).
2. To promoted the black market (agorism)

I would like to see the state abolished, but I am wary of collectivism.


Just my thoughts for now.

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't understand how every man for himself would negate anarchy. Every man of from himself does not negate voluntary transactions.

This answer tells me you don't believe that workers are exploited, am I right?

We both have a different view of the State. Here is for example a work I agree with: Lenin, in "State and Revolution", elaborated on the subject of the State and abolishing the State.

You tactical view on how to abolish the State looks similar to the tactics of the reformists who struggled for a parliamentary majority to transform capitalism (or the capitalist State) into socialism (or the socialist State).

The State however defends the class interests of the ruling class. In this case: the capitalists. The capitalists will not voluntary give up their interests.

[Jazzratt]

It is obvious that ~V~ is not a leftist and the subject of this thread makes it more suitable for Opposing Ideologies.

On the other hand I welcome ~V~ and hope ze stays a long time. We need fresh meat...I mean new faces in OI.

[Holden Caulfield]

the class struggle, education, to help create and fully form your views (something which is impossible if your views arent challenged) and to over all strive for a fairer society

[Dean]

Hi Rakunin,

I think socialism can't exist without the state. Capitalism is individual and relies on personal property and does not require state, but socialism does.

This is bullshit. any forced organization requires a state. Capitalism requires a state to maintain power in an imbalanced economic society. If not a "state," then corporate martial law, which is the same thing anyways.

The only society that doesn't require a state is a very egalitarian, decentralized communist structure. Any society that engenders inequality and therefore antagonisms will require force of some sort, which introduces a state structure.

You'd be correct to say that socialism in most forms cannot exist without a state. but the final end of socialism, which I hope is possible, is no state. Socialism inherantly destroys the relevance of the state by destroying inequality. Even if its final end is not possible, socialism itself is much nobler and positive than free-market dearth.

[Dr Mindbender]

Politically, I can describe myself as a Classical Liberal/Moderate Libertarian who entertains Anarcho-Capitalist ideas.

If you entertain capitalism of any description, you're going to get a lot of flak around here.

Just a friendly warning. ;)

[mikelepore]

What is wrong with profit?

Since you have studied some economics, you will understand the terms that you find if you go to marxists.org and read Marx's _Capital_, at least chapter 1 to get started.

But in a nutshell, the central problem is this --

An oversimplified example as an illustration. Suppose a capitalist hires $100 of someone's labor time, and instructs that labor to act upon a group of materials, energy, tool depreciation, etc., which is also worth $100. That's a $200 investment. Suppose that production step generates a product that gets sold for $600. That's a $400 profit.

Now the problem is to interpret what has just happened.

The capitalist explanation is that the capitalist being a genius has made it possible to invest $200 and get out of it a product that sells for $600. The fact that the capitalist is a genius, ambitious, a natural-born leader, etc., has created $400 worth of wealth.

The Marxian explanation is that the hired labor has generated $500 value-added, but the worker only got paid $100 for it. The worker was paid one-fifth of what he or she produced, and was robbed of the other four-fifths. The source of the employer's profit is the worker's unpaid portion of labor.

Why didn't the Marxian explanation include the capitalist's "great idea" as part of the source of the production of wealth? Because 99.9 percent of the time the capitalists are absentee owners who hire other people to do the thinking and planning. The capitalist's alleged "genius" was part of the labor that the workers have provided.

[pusher robot]

The capitalist explanation is that the capitalist being a genius has made it possible to invest $200 and get out of it a product that sells for $600.

Oh, come on. That's such a ridiculous straw man. What economics-literate capitalist says that? It doesn't take a genius to organize a profitable enterprise, it just takes initiative and willingness to endure risk. True, the capitalist gets that $400 worth of profit (not to be long-lived, by the way, in a competitive market.) But what if the product turns out to be a flop, something that's only worth $100? What if a competitor comes in with the same basic product for $400 and grabs all the customers away? Whose assets are depleted as a result? That same capitalist's.


99.9 percent of the time the capitalists are absentee owners who hire other people to do the thinking and planning. The capitalist's alleged "genius" was part of the labor that the workers have provided.

They still bear the risk.

You apparently don't actually understand capitalism at all.

[Comrade Phil]

Oh, come on. That's such a ridiculous straw man. What economics-literate capitalist says that? It doesn't take a genius to organize a profitable enterprise, it just takes initiative and willingness to endure risk. True, the capitalist gets that $400 worth of profit (not to be long-lived, by the way, in a competitive market.) But what if the product turns out to be a flop, something that's only worth $100? What if a competitor comes in with the same basic product for $400 and grabs all the customers away? Whose assets are depleted as a result? That same capitalist's.



They still bear the risk.

You apparently don't actually understand capitalism at all.

But how does taking this risk justify the unequal distribution of wealth between worker and capitalist? If a capitalist loses his/her assets due to a failed enterprise or stronger competition, he/she is subject to becoming part of the working class in order to survive. However, this is a position which his/her ex-employees already endure. The capitalist only risks losing his/her privileged position.

In addition, does not this "market risk" extend to the employees of the capitalist? By entering into an agreement to sell their labour, do not the workers take the risk of being laid-off should the capitalist's enterprise fail?

[Lynx]

But how does taking this risk justify the unequal distribution of wealth between worker and capitalist?
The relationship between employer and employee is a legal one. Property rights determine where profit goes, while respecting agreements between shareholders, creditors and workers. According to the law, worker-owned businesses are legal.
"They deserve it because they take the risk" is a moral argument.

[pusher robot]

But how does taking this risk justify the unequal distribution of wealth between worker and capitalist? If a capitalist loses his/her assets due to a failed enterprise or stronger competition, he/she is subject to becoming part of the working class in order to survive. However, this is a position which his/her ex-employees already endure. The capitalist only risks losing his/her privileged position.

One justification is the need to incentivize risk-taking.


In addition, does not this "market risk" extend to the employees of the capitalist? By entering into an agreement to sell their labour, do not the workers take the risk of being laid-off should the capitalist's enterprise fail?No, that's not really a "risk" because the employee doesn't lose anything by not being paid for labor they haven't done yet.

[Comrade Phil]

One justification is the need to incentivize risk-taking.
I do not fully understand your point. Could you possibly elaborate?


No, that's not really a "risk" because the employee doesn't lose anything by not being paid for labor they haven't done yet.

The workers lose their source of wealth. A capitalist who has failed will need to search for employment from another capitalist or embark on creating a new enterprise. The same circumstances arise for his/her former employees. By participating in a free-market enterprise, both capitalist and worker take the risk of losing their source of income, yet the capitalist is the only one rewarded for doing so.

[Dean]

No, that's not really a "risk" because the employee doesn't lose anything by not being paid for labor they haven't done yet.

You telling me that I don't risk my livelihood by choosing job A versus job B because one or the other has greater job security and lower turnover rate? Comrade Phil is very correct in saying that it is a source of wealth which is at stake. But it goes further than that: the worker is not just entering a contract with his employer. He is resigning himself to that position for said benefits, in lieu of his own recognition that he must work to live. You seem to think that one cannot undergo risks by choosing what one does with his or her time or labor, but that is wholly inaccurate.

[Dros]

it just takes initiative and willingness to endure risk.

You forgot the key thing: it takes CAPITAL! In case you haven't noticed, not very many people have this.

[mikelepore]

pusher robot:

me


The capitalist explanation is that the capitalist being a genius has made it possible to invest $200 and get out of it a product that sells for $600.

you


Oh, come on. That's such a ridiculous straw man. What economics-literate capitalist says that? It doesn't take a genius to organize a profitable enterprise, it just takes initiative and willingness to endure risk.

Of course I could have added additional clauses to my sentence, and said: the capitalist explanation is that the capitalist being a genius, being ambitious, taking initiative, enduring risk, being born with the name Rockefeller, and other disconnected mumbo-jumbo, is what produces wealth. It doesn't change my point. The point is that the capitalist model has idleness creating wealth, whereas the Marxian model has intrinsically productive activity creativity wealth.


True, the capitalist gets that $400 worth of profit (not to be long-lived, by the way, in a competitive market.) But what if the product turns out to be a flop, something that's only worth $100? What if a competitor comes in with the same basic product for $400 and grabs all the customers away? Whose assets are depleted as a result? That same capitalist's. They still bear the risk.

So if I pick your pocket and then take a drink from a bottle of poison, does that make me morally entitled to whatever I have extracted from your pocket? I have added risk to the process. You are correlating risk with with entitlement to what one can get away with appropriating. Suppose I steal your car and then drive very unsafely as I make off with it. I'm now assuming a risk, so does that make my possession of your car become justified?

Besides, the workers always endure greater risk than the capitalist. The worker is down to operating with weekly grocery and shelter funds. If the worker gets laid off at any time, the children may starve or become homeless. But if the capitalist lost everything, all of the wealth that he inherited from great-great-grandfather, he would just -- guess what -- have to go to work like everyone else, poor baby.

Then, the capitalist can't lose everything unless he really chooses to be reckless, because just one word "diversify" spoken to the stock broker removes that danger, a well-known wisdom that led to the invention of the index mutual fund and the balanced portfolio mutual fund.


You apparently don't actually understand capitalism at all.

The old "you have a different ethical criterion, therefore you don't understand how things work" trick.

[mikelepore]

"WASHINGTON, August 15, 2001 (Reuters) - An average of 16 U.S. workers were killed on the job each day last year, a decline of about two percent overall, but fatal injuries among Hispanic workers rose sharply, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Tuesday."

Ever notice that capitalists don't mean _this_ when they say the word "risk"?

Capitalists take something external to themselves, that is, some money, and send it somewhere, to various remote locations. Workers are required to inject their own minds and bodies into the production process. That fact tells a great deal about what "risk" means.

[FireFry]

social philosopher and not an economist

social philosophy is economics.

This is Marx's core foundation to the rest of his hypothetical and theoretical works. That people did things, the bourgoisie (property owners), the proletariat (wage laborers), and any body else... (nobility, peasants, clergy, etc...) ... because they received material benefit for their actions, which was the sum of history.

this is called; historical materialism.

There is another point that I would like to point out to new marxists, it is this;

the proletariat (wage laborers) > the bourgoisie

In terms of population, of course. And for this reason, along with the reason that the proletariat are always being exploited for their labor at a value less than the true value of their product, for a profit by the bourgoisie bosses and capitalists, they will ultimately overthrow the bourgoisie. Maybe not today, and maybe not tommorow, but within time, it will happen, and probably within our own countries within our own lifetimes.

This is why I find socialism or communism so exciting.

[pusher robot]

I do not fully understand your point. Could you possibly elaborate?

I mean that human progress is dependent on people embarking on enterprises whose outcome is uncertain. If we want people to actually do this, we need to provide a mechanism whereby they are rewarded for succeeding at these ventures commensurate with that venture's value to society.


The workers lose their source of wealth.No they don't. Their source of wealth is their labor-power, which is not diminished in any respect by the fact that one particular person doesn't wish to purchase it.



Comrade Phil is very correct in saying that it is a source of wealth which is at stake. But it goes further than that: the worker is not just entering a contract with his employer.The worker is not entering any contract at all, unless, of course, they negotiate a contract. But most do not.

You seem to think that one cannot undergo risks by choosing what one does with his or her time or labor, but that is wholly inaccurate.No, I don't think that. I think that the risks you speak of are the risks of working without a contract, which in fact employees are compensated for in the form of wages higher than contract wages.

The point is that the capitalist model has idleness creating wealth, whereas the Marxian model has intrinsically productive activity creativity wealth.Two points: (a) You haven't remotely demonstrated this. (b) If true, wouldn't this prove the superiority of the capitalist system, which can create wealth and increase leisure at the same time? If we can create wealth by being idle, why should we choose to create wealth by working hard?

You are correlating risk with with entitlement to what one can get away with appropriating.No, I'm not. You're the one who is bringing up appropriation. I'm correlating risk with distribution of surplus.

Besides, the workers always endure greater risk than the capitalist. The worker is down to operating with weekly grocery and shelter funds. If the worker gets laid off at any time, the children may starve or become homeless. But if the capitalist lost everything, all of the wealth that he inherited from great-great-grandfather, he would just -- guess what -- have to go to work like everyone else, poor baby.
I think it's strange that you assume that a failed capitalist would have no trouble finding a job, but a worker who is laid off could not.
I guess I also have to ask - what is the alternative? Are enterprises in your utopia destined only to ever increase in size, never to shrink? Is a worker's job never to be outmoded, unneeded, or unwanted? Are the productive workers to subsidize the unproductive ones, simply so that the unproductive ones have a job?

The old "you have a different ethical criterion, therefore you don't understand how things work" trick.There you go again. You just can't stop putting words in my mouth, can you?

[FireFry]

I mean that human progress is dependent on people embarking on enterprises whose outcome is uncertain.

This is true, we all know this, in order for steam engines to be a real possibility, somebody has to build a prototype.


If we want people to actually do this, we need to provide a mechanism whereby they are rewarded for succeeding at these ventures commensurate with that venture's value to society.

There are other ways to get to make people want to do this, than just compensation, especially with useless shit that provides no real value to the rest of society, especially society that earns wages. For example, collectivisation. If everybody understood that the survival of society was related to the survival of the individual then they would be motivated enough to work. If we dont have cars, we won't be able to move at all, so we need cars, so, assuming the worker was intelligent (and they are), they will be able to understand that it is neccesary to work. Much the same way it is neccesary to eat. But of course, cars are slightly less neccesary to the function of society than food, so, in a rational society, food production would be more important that car production. This isn't always so in a capitalist society, as priorities are determined by profits, not the human needs of individuals and groups.

That's just one argument for why communism is better for humans.

There are millions of others, but this is a big one. Okay, sure, if we were all machines and depended on a universal credit system of power usage and the better algorithms we had randomly produced the more electricity that I as a machine would get. And even then, eventually, a few machines will own 60 to 85% of all the electricity and all of the other machines would be simply slaves, or as the techies call it zombies. As those with the better algorithms simply are able to produce better and better algorithms while the zombies use all their meagre electricity to perform meagre calculations for the master machines. Unless of course, one zombie computer randomly determines a collectivist communist algorithm and class warfare ignites, then the master machines would ultimately crash.

Of course, this is totally different than human society, people don't think randomly and need to survive and are totally violent and irrational and emotional and far more unpredictable than machine society. But this just goes to show that the private hoarding of resources will always fail because it creates its own enemies.

Imagine if you were on an island, trapped with about 20 people, and imagine that somebody said "I own all these trees", and everybody else said "okay, why?" then he says "because I've got the gun" and "if you want to use the coconuts from these trees, you need to catch 20 fish for one coconut".

This is outrageous, the coconut trees have always been there and have always been in public hands. Just like the coal and the steel and the oil in the earth has always been there and has always been in publically available, until Shell claims it because they've got the biggest security force (the US military) and that anybody who opposes them gets a bullet to the head, so you've got to respect their property rights. :lol:

Capitalism is the highest stage of savagery. Of course, a few capitalists might spend some time researching a basic product for production, then they'll halt research once the product is finished and go straight to producing the cheapest and most attractive version, spend maybe a third of their budget on advertisement, and spend maybe 1/6th of it on wages, and the other 1/2 of their budget would go to research, either way, the proletariat, the people, lose.

So what benefit does compensating individuals for research and production hold for proletarian society? The society that makes up most of the population? Between zip and very little.

Hence, pusher robot's philosophy is at best, a clever ruse.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=FireFry;1052688]This is true, we all know this, in order for steam engines to be a real possibility, somebody has to build a prototype.



Yep, and somebody has to take a chance that the resurces used in building this prototype are best used on the prototype and not some other venture or need. The communist proposes to expose all the workers to the risk of diverting resources to an unknown venture. The capitalist proposes to limit the risk to a few people. Who is being the more heartless,the more cruel, the more reckless, here??

[Green Dragon]

[

quote=FireFry;1052688]
Imagine if you were on an island, trapped with about 20 people, and imagine that somebody said "I own all these trees", and everybody else said "okay, why?" then he says "because I've got the gun" and "if you want to use the coconuts from these trees, you need to catch 20 fish for one coconut".

This is outrageous, the coconut trees have always been there and have always been in public hands. Just like the coal and the steel and the oil in the earth has always been there and has always been in publically available, until Shell claims it because they've got the biggest security force (the US military) and that anybody who opposes them gets a bullet to the head, so you've got to respect their property rights. :lol:


Most likely, those twenty castaways would simply forego coconuts, and the coconut horder would have no fish.
Of course, the coconuts would be of little value to the gun toting castaway (as it would be to the rest of the castaways) if the coconuts could not be used. It would make little sense for all 20 castaways to spend their time harvesting coconuts, as it would mean they have no fish. The reason why the other castaways would consent to the claims of the gun toter is if he proved to be particularly adept at harvesting coconuts, not because he had a gun. And a civilized and intelligent community would support the efforts of that coconut harvester becaue it would recognise that he, by becoming proficient at the skill of coconut harvesting, benefits the community by allowing the community to develop other skills for survival. So yep, like the coconut example, an intelligent community creates systems which allows those who are skilled and trained at tasks to focus on thoser tasks so as to benefit all. Which is why Shell oil is pumping oil that has always been there and which no one else has previously had the skill or ability to do.



Capitalism is the highest stage of savagery. Of course, a few capitalists might spend some time researching a basic product for production, then they'll halt research once the product is finished and go straight to producing the cheapest and most attractive version,

Why should they continue researching the most expensive version? i suppose our coconut harvester could first research a system of automatic levers and hydraulics to get him to the tops of trees, before the community even has had any coconuts, but why? How does he know people even want to eat coconuts? maybe its better to start small, by taking a risk and perhaps simply by climbing trees to see if anyone wants the item, then if demand exists, move to more sophisticated , riskier, methods.

And why do you want ugly versions of some item?

[MT5678]

Playing with the coconut-fish analogy, if things went as Green Dragon stated, everyone would die of unvaried nutritional content.

Anyways, people don't acquiesce because some guy with power turns out also to have skill. Business owners and venture capitalists have power. Do they and they alone have some innate skill that we must give in to? Rubbish. Just as the fish harvesters could match the coconut grower if not dterred by the guns, democratically appointed leaders of industries can match and supersede venture capitalists easily.


Yep, and somebody has to take a chance that the resurces used in building this prototype are best used on the prototype and not some other venture or need. The communist proposes to expose all the workers to the risk of diverting resources to an unknown venture. The capitalist proposes to limit the risk to a few people. Who is being the more heartless,the more cruel, the more reckless, here??

Strawman argument. Some random communist doesn't force workers to venture into the unknown. Especially if the random dude is democratically elected, as is the plan. Besides, the entire population is tied to the boom-and-bust cycles of capitalism, which are inherently risky.

[mikelepore]

The point is that the capitalist model has idleness creating wealth, whereas the Marxian model has intrinsically productive activity creativity wealth.

From the way pusherrobot interpreted what I meant by the above sentence, I see that misspoke there when I chose the word "has".

In any system, it can't be actual that idleness produces wealth. It's merely the premise of the capitalist model, the explanation that we are asked to believe, that idleness produces wealth. The justification for retaining capitalism is an explanation that isn't plausible.

It's impossible to have any economy in which wealth is generated by picking someone else's pocket. Someone has to plant the seeds, dig the ore, assemble the appliances, drive the railroads, heal the sick, teach the children how to read, in short: perform productive work.

The capitalist model offers the implausible theory that the most productive task is when a ruler performs the utterly trivial and useless act of issuing the memo, "Go to it, get it done, and let me know how it turned out." For doing that, the capitalist may receive a thousand times as much income as the person who planted, carted, assembled, etc. Most of the reward is given to a purely parasitic role.

How did it come about that those who merely swap money from one pocket to another are those who live in vast opulence, while those who actually perform necessary productive tasks are forever doomed to financial insecurity? There is only one possible explanation: the member of the working class are paid wages that represent a small fraction of the wealth that they produce. Marxian economics explains the laws of mechanics of that process.

The "risk" borne by the capitalist "entrepeneur" is nothing but the risk borne by the pickpocket and the pirate -- the risk associated with extracting for oneself the wealth that someone else has produced.

Because it is the role of the parasite that is rewarded, a notable result is that producing wealth and owning wealth are negatively correlated. Some of the earlier philosophers of capitalist society saw things move in this direction. John Stuart Mill observed in 1865 in his _Principles of Political Economy_ how absurd it is "... that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour -- the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life."

That's exactly the direction that capitalism has taken ever since, the continuous fracturing of the people into a few who own wealth but don't produce it and the many who produce wealth but don't own it.

To ponder the many social implications of that basic truth is my recommendation to the original poster who asked what this site is about.

[mikelepore]

Are enterprises in your utopia destined only to ever increase in size, never to shrink? Is a worker's job never to be outmoded, unneeded, or unwanted? Are the productive workers to subsidize the unproductive ones, simply so that the unproductive ones have a job?

That's an excellent question.

In answering all "how would it be done" questions, all socialists are speaking for themselves. The following is my own opinion.

I advocate a system in which all workplaces will be departments of a single global organization, and industries would not be separate financial entitles. There would be no income and outgo associated with individual industries or workplaces.

Several results follow from this premise. For example, one result is that industries wouldn't have to buy buildings, machinery, supplies or energy from other industries. Interdepartment transfer would take the place of that. No longer would the management of any workplace ever have to worry about "can we afford to switch over to using the nonpolluting method", "can we afford to add the proposed safety feature to this product", "will the school be able to afford new books", etc.

Your question is along those lines. Layoffs and involuntary unemployment would become unnecessary because all career changes would be the much simpler action of transferring to another department.

Of course, in any economic system there is overhead involved when production has to respond in a finite time to the measurement that consumers have stopped buying a product that is no longer popular. There are advantages to spreading such costs as globally as possible. It's an extension of the same advantage that society today acquires when many people have fire insurance. No one has to get financially wiped out.

I would prefer a considerable amount of the workers' self-management process to be decentralized, both local and department level, but I'm in favor of a high degree of centralization in the funding of all workplaces, with one inventory for all the goods.

[Cybercide]

And why do you want ugly versions of some item?
why should the workers waste effort just so the capitalist can sell it for more profit?

[Green Dragon]

Just as the fish harvesters could match the coconut grower if not dterred by the guns,


What of being deterred by their own interest, or lack thereof? Or the coconut growers fear of the ocean? Or the fisherman's love of the sea? Knowledge and skill are irrelevent? Great, apparently locksmiths are just as qualified as doctor's to prescribe medicines, in your ideal socialist community.




Strawman argument. Some random communist doesn't force workers to venture into the unknown. Especially if the random dude is democratically elected, as is the plan. Besides, the entire population is tied to the boom-and-bust cycles of capitalism, which are inherently risky.

Well, if the community elects that communist dude and approve the plan by a 100% margin, I suppose what there might be some merit in that rebuttal. Otherwise the problem for the communist/socialist in such circumstances are legion:

1. Are the workers who voted against the plan for a risky venture absolved from taking the risk? If so, are they then denied from reaping any of its benefits of a successful risk? But if they are not, are they not in fact being forced into the "unknown?"
2. Are workers who supported a failed risky venture entitled to compensation from the workers who did not attempt that foolhardy venture?
3. Are the workers who decide to take a risky venture entitledto have a greater say in the operation of the industry than those who lost the vote? If they are, how does that support the concept of democracy? If not, how does THAT support the concept of democracy?

[Green Dragon]

why should the workers waste effort just so the capitalist can sell it for more profit?

How could their labor be wasted? Somebody wants the product.

[pusher robot]

How could their labor be wasted? Somebody wants the product.

Tsk, tsk. You're not using proper commie-logic, which states that production is based on "need," not silly things like wants. So if you "want" a new hot tub, that's too bad, because I "need" a new car. Very simple, you see.

[Dr Mindbender]

Tsk, tsk. You're not using proper commie-logic, which states that production is based on "need," not silly things like wants. So if you "want" a new hot tub, that's too bad, because I "need" a new car. Very simple, you see.
untrue, because under communism there would be no purpose of mantaining the illusions of scarcity prevailant under capitalism. So he could have his hot tub, and you can have your car all at once.

[FireFry]

also, another rebuttal against the capitalist determinism that wants always determine the product and the benefit of the laborors consider this;

property is force. It isn't theft, it's force. It's forcing exclusive ownership of an individual item, or an item that could benefit the public, through violence or aggression.

Look at all the bourgois revolutions in the last 300 years. Look at all the repressed strikes and worker actions in the last 300 years. Look at the raw force that western imperialist nations have used to control and manipulate foreign states. It's nuts.

[Dean]

No they don't. Their source of wealth is their labor-power, which is not diminished in any respect by the fact that one particular person doesn't wish to purchase it.
No, their source of wealth is the conglomeration of their labor capabilities and an economic structure purchasing that labor. If I have plenty of physical capabilities, but no one will hire me, I have no source of wealth. If I may be hired, but have not sought out a job, I still have no source of wealth. I may have a potential source of wealth, but that is not the point. One takes a risk of losing a job and subsequently their source of wealth by choosing jobs which do not have a guarantee of employment - which none have, anyways.


The worker is not entering any contract at all, unless, of course, they negotiate a contract. But most do not.
Yes, they do. It is an oral contract. When I wen't to the shop, the owner sat me down and asked me questions based on my qualifications, and we agreed upon a wage based on them. If, after working the next two weeks (at which time a paycheck or deposit was guaranteed due by the owner) I had not received a paycheck, he would be in breach of that agreement. If I went to a judge with sufficient evidence of this agreement, he would consider it legally binding. Not all contracts are paper, after all.


No, I don't think that. I think that the risks you speak of are the risks of working without a contract, which in fact employees are compensated for in the form of wages higher than contract wages.
The risks still apply. If I have a contract to write 3 articles by said date, for which I'll get paid for on delivery, I run the risk of not securing future contracts.

[Green Dragon]

untrue, because under communism there would be no purpose of mantaining the illusions of scarcity prevailant under capitalism. So he could have his hot tub, and you can have your car all at once.


Yes, under communism there would be no "illusion" of scarcity. It would be an observable fact.

[Dr Mindbender]

Yes, under communism there would be no "illusion" of scarcity. It would be an observable fact.
more substance and less strawmen please.

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=FireFry;1053617]also, another rebuttal against the capitalist determinism that wants always determine the product and the benefit of the laborors


The efforts of the capitalists are always blunted by the desires of the people as consumers and workers. You don't like the product the capitalist is peddling? Don't buy it.

[Dr Mindbender]

[


The efforts of the capitalists are always blunted by the desires of the people as consumers and workers. You don't like the product the capitalist is peddling? Don't buy it.

A nice idea in theory but what if-

The capitalist runs a monopoly on an essential utility like water or electricity (as is the case here in the 6 counties)

or the alternative brands are too expensive for ordinary households? ''Tough shit,'' I hear you say?
Well thank you!

[Green Dragon]

The capitalist runs a monopoly on an essential utility like water or electricity (as is the case here in the 6 counties)


I has been my long understanding that the socialist judges competition to be ruinous to resources and an inefficient way of allocation. Do you now claim the contrary?



or the alternative brands are too expensive for ordinary households? ''Tough shit,'' I hear you say?


Then buy the alternative. That is why it exists.

[Dr Mindbender]

I has been my long understanding that the socialist judges competition to be ruinous to resources and an inefficient way of allocation. Do you now claim the contrary?

You are taking me out of context. Private ownership is never the best solution. Whenever a industry (take electricity for example) is state owned, the prices vary depending upon the governing party. If i dont like my electricity bill, i can simply vote out the ruling party. A capitalist controlled industry has no such mechanism to fear because it is not democratically elected, and whenever it is in control of monopoly things become worse because it has free reign to increase my electricity bill to whatever the fuck it wants.



Then buy the alternative. That is why it exists.
That pretty much defeats the point of trying to avoid the inferior version. :rolleyes:

[FireFry]

I think most communists agree that the more an industry is dispersed, the lower the prices are and hence, the more the consumer, the proletarian individual, benefits. In ideal capitalism, everybody would be street vendors selling bananas that they picked themselves from the same crop.

Of course, if basic assumptions hold true, capitalism works. But those basic assumptions are never true, hence, the people should publically own everything, and they will, one day.

[Green Dragon]

Whenever a industry (take electricity for example) is state owned, the prices vary depending upon the governing party. If i dont like my electricity bill, i can simply vote out the ruling party.

he situation you describe is more the result of bribery (of you) and corruption by the political parties than on any sound decision making.


A capitalist controlled industry has no such mechanism to fear because it is not democratically elected,

It has a worse fear- that you cease purchasing that product, or go to a competitor. The capitalist has to WORK to get your support, and is responsible if he fails. The politician simply has to promise you cheap prices and hope enough people fall for the demagoguery, take credit for any success, and blame any problems on someone else.





That pretty much defeats the point of trying to avoid the inferior version. :rolleyes:


Then buy the superior version. I do not understand what this complaint of yours is about.

[Green Dragon]

I think most communists agree that the more an industry is dispersed, the lower the prices are and hence, the more the consumer, the proletarian individual, benefits.

Perhaps. The down side would be the impact of costs associalted with transportation to and from the disperesed industries.



In ideal capitalism, everybody would be street vendors selling bananas that they picked themselves from the same crop.


IF the banana workers were willing to assume the risk of banana production in such a manner. But ideal capitalism recognises that people have different skills and talents and simply knowing how to grow and care for bananas does not mean a knowledge of selling and shipping the product to market.

[Dr Mindbender]

he situation you describe is more the result of bribery (of you) and corruption by the political parties than on any sound decision making.
Not at all. The cost of my bills is merely one factor out of many culminating in my overall judgement of who should be running the country and the workplaces.




It has a worse fear- that you cease purchasing that product, or go to a competitor. The capitalist has to WORK to get your support, and is responsible if he fails. The politician simply has to promise you cheap prices and hope enough people fall for the demagoguery, take credit for any success, and blame any problems on someone else.

That depends on the situation. If it has a monopoly, then of course such a fear is null and void. On the other hand, a capitalist body of the highest prominence generally has the purchasing power to simply 'buy' it's rivals rather than compete with them.





Then buy the superior version. I do not understand what this complaint of yours is about.
I will explain this again, please read it over again until you understand before posting a reply.
As a convinced capitalist, I'm sure you understand the effect of demand. If a prominent capitalist produces a shitty half assed product, then often is the case that the demand for rival products increases as does their price.What you clearly dont appreciate however, is that lower income people are often alienated by the market because their spending power falls outside the asking price of the said product.

When this is the case, they have no option but to purchase the inferior (cheaper) version, especially so, if we're talking about an essential commodity like water, electricity or gas.
Comprende?

[Green Dragon]

Not at all. The cost of my bills is merely one factor out of many culminating in my overall judgement of who should be running the country and the workplaces.


Okay, attempted bribery then.




That depends on the situation. If it has a monopoly, then of course such a fear is null and void. On the other hand, a capitalist body of the highest prominence generally has the purchasing power to simply 'buy' it's rivals rather than compete with them.


Monopolies generally don't exist anyways. I do not understand the rest as the object of the socialist is to "buy out" (at the very minimum) the capitalist anyhow and install its own monopoly. The subsequent claim that then one can "democratically" vote to to lower (how many would vote to raise?) prices is based upon that misunderstanding of capitalism by the socialist. You haven't solved anything by taking that course of action.




As a convinced capitalist, I'm sure you understand the effect of demand. If a prominent capitalist produces a shitty half assed product, then often is the case that the demand for rival products increases as does their price.

Yes, and at some point that capitalist improves quality, or ceases production of that product.



What you clearly dont appreciate however, is that lower income people are often alienated by the market because their spending power falls outside the asking price of the said product.


Then they buy the other product. What you not understanding is that this type of problem exists for the socialist community. A higher quality product has higher quality ingredients, componenet parts whatever, than a lower quality product. Since those component parts are somebody else's product, they also consist of higher quality componenet parts. And so on.
Now, the socialist community can certainly aim for producing only high quality products. BUT, the downside of that is that such products tend to require the use of more resources, than lower quality products. So now the socialist community is using more resources to produce the same amount of the product. Which means those resources are not available for other products.



When this is the case, they have no option but to purchase the inferior (cheaper) version, especially so, if we're talking about an essential commodity like water, electricity or gas.


Water is water, electricity is electricity. In the USA, water and electric companies are either state, or heavily regulated (some states have privatised such utilities, such as gas, electric and telephone). In the case of water, there is generally only one pipeline, and everyone gets the same. New York City has about the best water in the USA and this is true whether one lives atop Trump tower or in some slum in Browsville.

[pusher robot]

Yes, they do. It is an oral contract. When I wen't to the shop, the owner sat me down and asked me questions based on my qualifications, and we agreed upon a wage based on them. If, after working the next two weeks (at which time a paycheck or deposit was guaranteed due by the owner) I had not received a paycheck, he would be in breach of that agreement. If I went to a judge with sufficient evidence of this agreement, he would consider it legally binding. Not all contracts are paper, after all.

Let me highlight the important words in your post:

If, after working the next two weeks (at which time a paycheck or deposit was guaranteed due by the owner) I had not received a paycheck, he would be in breach of that agreement.

Technically, there was no contract, but you are correct that the courts will apply the principle of quantum meruit and award you your wages anyways.

However.

You do NOT have a contract for work that you haven't done yet. If after working those two weeks, the shopkeeper told you that he didn't like your face and didn't want you to work for him anymore, he can do that unless you have made a specific agreement for a term of work to be done in the future.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

V,

We believe anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron because its practical application necessitates a State and would likely spur violence due to conflicts over property "rights." Private protection agencies would essentially turn into states in their own rights, and differences between two PPA would entail open warfare. If there's an issue between two clients from different PPAs about something to do with (let's say) intellectual property, are they going to contact a private court when one could simply defeat the other in a gun fight? And if one has that ability, why not just take geographical dominance since PPAs can be run top-down?

Whereas all forms of left-anarchism (including anarcho-communism) that I'm aware of protect the individual from dominance not only from above, but if necessary from others -- pending they cut association.

[~V~]

It is obvious that ~V~ is not a leftist and the subject of this thread makes it more suitable for Opposing Ideologies.

On the other hand I welcome ~V~ and hope ze stays a long time. We need fresh meat...I mean new faces in OI.

Thanks for your welcome. I just signed on after a few days, and now I have a lot to answer for. Bear with me.

[~V~]

This is bullshit. any forced organization requires a state. Capitalism requires a state to maintain power in an imbalanced economic society. If not a "state," then corporate martial law, which is the same thing anyways.


Capitalism is the private means of ownership. It does not need a "state", but socialism does. Socialism cannot evolve without a state.


The only society that doesn't require a state is a very egalitarian, decentralized communist structure. Any society that engenders inequality and therefore antagonisms will require force of some sort, which introduces a state structure.

Is this the same "state" that will enforce engender equalities?


You'd be correct to say that socialism in most forms cannot exist without a state. but the final end of socialism, which I hope is possible, is no state. Socialism inherantly destroys the relevance of the state by destroying inequality. Even if its final end is not possible, socialism itself is much nobler and positive than free-market dearth.

Socialism cannot exist without the state. Period.

[~V~]

An oversimplified example as an illustration. Suppose a capitalist hires $100 of someone's labor time, and instructs that labor to act upon a group of materials, energy, tool depreciation, etc., which is also worth $100. That's a $200 investment. Suppose that production step generates a product that gets sold for $600. That's a $400 profit.

Isn't the LTV dead? I don't need an example of it, but economic theory refutes the LTV rather than marginalism. I admit that both theories have their flaws and strengths.


Now the problem is to interpret what has just happened.

The capitalist explanation is that the capitalist being a genius has made it possible to invest $200 and get out of it a product that sells for $600. The fact that the capitalist is a genius, ambitious, a natural-born leader, etc., has created $400 worth of wealth.

The Marxian explanation is that the hired labor has generated $500 value-added, but the worker only got paid $100 for it. The worker was paid one-fifth of what he or she produced, and was robbed of the other four-fifths. The source of the employer's profit is the worker's unpaid portion of labor.

What about economic rent?


Why didn't the Marxian explanation include the capitalist's "great idea" as part of the source of the production of wealth? Because 99.9 percent of the time the capitalists are absentee owners who hire other people to do the thinking and planning. The capitalist's alleged "genius" was part of the labor that the workers have provided.

Can't these "thinkers" and "planners" become entrepreneurs? Capitalism offers you to compete. If you are a better "thinker" and "planner", then you succeed. You do not need the state.

[Tower of Bebel]

Capitalism is the private means of ownership. It does not need a "state", but socialism does. Socialism cannot evolve without a state.

Why? Why? Why? You wont persuade us by connecting your definition of capitalism with: "it does not need a "state"." Would you be persuaded when I would say communism doesn't need a state "because communists are cool."?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Capitalism is the private means of ownership. It does not need a "state", but socialism does. Socialism cannot evolve without a state.



Is this the same "state" that will enforce engender equalities?



Socialism cannot exist without the state. Period.

If capitalism does not require a state, then why do people with guns and prisons have to threaten me when I choose to download what I want onto my computer?

Or how does one protect property rights in general? Other than paper enforced by a state apparatus [cops, guns, prisons], how does one recognize ownership of two stores a thousand miles away?

What if we workers decide that land belongs to everyone and overthrow the Wal-Mart?

Primitive communism existed thousands of years without a state.

[pusher robot]

Or how does one protect property rights in general? Other than paper enforced by a state apparatus [cops, guns, prisons], how does one recognize ownership of two stores a thousand miles away?


Well, don't communists have to answer the same question as to every other right other than property rights? Or is it your position that there are no rights?

I personally believe that capitalism is possible without a state because self-interest will motivate people to defend their property from expropriation, but it is not optimal because it is unlikely to yield a generally-accepted infrastructure for peaceful resolution of disagreements.

[Dr Mindbender]

I personally believe that capitalism is possible without a state because self-interest will motivate people to defend their property from expropriation, but it is not optimal because it is unlikely to yield a generally-accepted infrastructure for peaceful resolution of disagreements.
I would tend to disagree with that, capitalism almost needs to suckle to the state's teat, like a needy infant. Without a state to protect those who are most vulnerable due to the class system, there will be no surviving workers to produce for capitalism.

I cant see the capitalist class performing all their own automation work, somehow unless you want to apply the technocratic method of a robot workforce which so many of you have been so quick to ridicule myself and my technocratic comrades for.

[Tower of Bebel]

Well, don't communists have to answer the same question as to every other right other than property rights? Or is it your position that there are no rights?

I personally believe that capitalism is possible without a state because self-interest will motivate people to defend their property from expropriation, but it is not optimal because it is unlikely to yield a generally-accepted infrastructure for peaceful resolution of disagreements.

And can self-interest be the basis for a state?

[Dr Mindbender]

without a state there can be no army, or police to protect the ruling ideaology.

Unless you privatise them, but that creates a dichotomy about capitalism having the democratic moral high ground. In an anarcho-capitalist society who decides what the laws are?

[pusher robot]

I would tend to disagree with that, capitalism almost needs to suckle to the state's teat, like a needy infant. Without a state to protect those who are most vulnerable due to the class system, there will be no surviving workers to produce for capitalism.

Even accepting your Marxian class-based analysis, that doesn't make any sense because it's obviously not in the self-interest of the capitalists. According to your favored mode of analysis, we ought to expect the capitalists to do just enough to keep the workers working, and no more. After all, even slave-owners knew enough to keep their slaves alive and able to work.



And can self-interest be the basis for a state?

Yes, anything else would be irrational.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Dr Mindbender]

Even accepting your Marxian class-based analysis, that doesn't make any sense because it's obviously not in the self-interest of the capitalists. According to your favored mode of analysis, we ought to expect the capitalists to do just enough to keep the workers working, and no more. After all, even slave-owners knew enough to keep their slaves alive and able to work.

Under state-monitored capitalism, there are laws in place to ensure that employers provide some albeit limited measures to ensure the well being of their staff. We have not the capitalists themselves or the 'goodness of their hearts' to thank for this, but the numerous victories won by trade unionism and the forces of social progression.

There was no onus on the slave owners to ensure the lives of their slaves, and indeed, many were worked to death as a result of their owners negligence. Under anarcho-capitalism, there still will be no perojitive on the part of the employers to ensure workers and the outcome will be similar to that of the slave trade.

[pusher robot]

Under state-monitored capitalism, there are laws in place to ensure that employers provide some albeit limited measures to ensure the well being of their staff. We have not the capitalists themselves or the 'goodness of their hearts' to thank for this, but the numerous victories won by trade unionism and the forces of social progression.

There was no onus on the slave owners to ensure the lives of their slaves, and indeed, many were worked to death as a result of their owners negligence. Under anarcho-capitalism, there still will be no perojitive on the part of the employers to ensure workers and the outcome will be similar to that of the slave trade.

Why? Your argument doesn't make any sense and you haven't addressed by point at all. Why do you assume the capitalists would work against their own self interests? Furthermore, why wouldn't the workers just quit?

[Dr Mindbender]

Why? Your argument doesn't make any sense and you haven't addressed by point at all. Why do you assume the capitalists would work against their own self interests? Furthermore, why wouldn't the workers just quit?
Under capitalism, the priority is profit. Im sure you can understand therefore, that maximising the safety and conditions of the workers is costly and eats into profit so from the perspective of the capitalist, best avoided, where possible. If workers are lost, then it's tough shit for them. They are easily replaced arent they?

[Dean]

Capitalism is the private means of ownership. It does not need a "state", but socialism does. Socialism cannot evolve without a state.
I already know you think this, but I don't know why, because you refuse to give any argument further than that.




Is this the same "state" that will enforce engender equalities?
Gender equality is an inherant, human tendancy, like all egalitarianism. It is society which tells us who should have more or less, and why. So, with the absence of a state structure - that is, any authoritarian or centrist structure - such inequalities would cease to exist.




Socialism cannot exist without the state. Period.
Socialism cannot exist with a state. Period.

[mikelepore]

Reply to ~V~

Thank you for responding to my earlier post.


Isn't the LTV dead? I don't need an example of it, but economic theory refutes the LTV rather than marginalism. I admit that both theories have their flaws and strengths.

Professional and academic economists today have the job of finding ways to theoretically justify the capitalist class, much like the ancient priest whose job it was to explain the rightfulness of the rule of the emperor, or the way prosecuting and defense attorneys have the job of finding ways to support one position or the other. It's no surprise that these partisan advocates known as the economists will report that they know of some great refutations of Karl Marx.

As to marginal utility according to Jevons et al., first, it is a tautology. It reduces to saying "the amount that people are willing to pay for a commodity is determined by what they are willing to pay." Being a circular statement, it lacks any explanatory power. It is also a psychological characterization of actors, whereas market behaviors are external facts.

Secondly, what is to be explained ultimately? It is not the primary goal of Marxian economics to explain how the price of iron ore or soy beans was establshed. The goal is to explain demographics: What are the signficant population groups, are what relationships do they have to one another? What's going in the engine that makes a certain proportion of wealth flow toward one demographic group while another group receives a noticably different magnitude? What are wages and profits in essence, not in terms of how the annual report quantifies them, but in terms of sociological power arrangements?

Finally, it's almost universal that people who recite and write refutations of Marxian economics misstate what the theory says. People usually begin by incorrecting paraphrasing what the theory says, and then they refute their own straw men. If you can refute the LTV, I will be interested to follow along, but if it should happen that the refutation relies on a misstatement of the theory, I can't be too surprised at what I have seen a thousand times before.


What about economic rent?

I'm getting old and I don't even remember now what it means. If you can explain it to me, please use simple terms.


Can't these "thinkers" and "planners" become entrepreneurs? Capitalism offers you to compete. If you are a better "thinker" and "planner", then you succeed.

Sure they can. Out of every thousand or ten thousand ambitious workers who set out to become a tycoon, one or two will succeed.

It has no effect on class status, just as the occasional escape of a slave had no effect on the continued existence of slavery.

To cite such escapes from wage slavery, one might as well have said of chattel slavery: "What's wrong with the institution? Frederick Douglass found a way to get out, so why don't you?"


You do not need the state.

What point are you making about the state?

It is the arbitrator of conflicts. Merchant versus customer, landlord versus tenant, one political party versus another, corporations fighting over trade marks, etc. Millions of words are needed in the volumes of the law books to cover the variety of conflicts that must arise in a competitive society. Everyone wants to prey on everyone else, and the channels for them to do so are systematically provided. This requires mediation and a lot of overhead. That process is the state.

In performing that role, the state is molded into an agency to uphold class relations, frequently doing that with "impartiality" as its chief cruelty; as Anatole France observed, the law "forbids the rich as well as the poor ... to steal bread."

[pusher robot]

Under capitalism, the priority is profit. Im sure you can understand therefore, that maximising the safety and conditions of the workers is costly and eats into profit so from the perspective of the capitalist, best avoided, where possible. If workers are lost, then it's tough shit for them. They are easily replaced arent they?

It is pointless to argue with you. You are incapable or unwilling to make a coherent point.

YOU SAID:

Without a state to protect those who are most vulnerable due to the class system, there will be no surviving workers to produce for capitalism.

Now you say:

If workers are lost, then it's tough shit for them. They are easily replaced arent they?

So you apparently believe that workers are easily replaced, but none will survive. This is obviously contradictory and futile to try to respond to.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

I don't know where some of you people work, but I had to sign a contract for every job I ever had back in the States, and I signed a contract for my job in the Czech Republic, and I have signed several for jobs in Russia.

I have seen some excellent debates in this thread, and I would like to point out something about risk. Risk does not have some kind of inherent benefit to society. Furthermore, who can take the kinds of "risks" capitalists take is determine by one's social class. As someone already pointed out, the willingness to take risk means nothing in and of itself- you have to have capital, something to risk.

[mikelepore]

Me too - a contract for every job I've ever had.

They were all one-sided definitions of legal burdens, with this format: a list of things the employee must do, a list of things the employee may not do, a list of things the employer may do, and a list of things the employer doesn't have to do. There was no mention of anything the employee may do, anything the employee doesn' t have to do, anything the employer must do, or anything the employer may not do. I hope it's clear by what I mean when I call that "one-sided."

I've never encountered any negotiation being permitted, unless you want to call "either sign this or get out" a kind of negotiation. (And baldness is a hair color, and all the other jokes....)

I've never encountered the salary being indicated on a contract. That was always communicated verbally. Also, no negotiation there either, just "either say you'll take it or get out."

However, I have heard that famous movie and sports stars are allowed to negotiate. I'm not one.

[Volderbeek]

It doesn't take a genius to organize a profitable enterprise, it just takes initiative and willingness to endure risk.

That may be the romantic ideal of theirs, but in the real existing world those risks are socialized while profits are privatized. IOW, they literally rob the workers.

You need to read some Chomsky.

[Volderbeek]

Tsk, tsk. You're not using proper commie-logic, which states that production is based on "need," not silly things like wants. So if you "want" a new hot tub, that's too bad, because I "need" a new car. Very simple, you see.

This is exactly the problem with capitalism. It creates unlimited wants by divorcing them from reciprocity (consumerism), and thus creating an artificial scarcity which is used to justify robbing workers (maintaining competitiveness as it's called). The huge amounts of individual debt in the US is evidence of this.

[kromando33]

The idea that the bourgeois 'create' capital is one of the most successful lies by the bourgeois, most modern social-democrats believe this and think the role government is to 'distribute' the wealth created by the bourgeois, what they fail to see if that the workers create the capital for next to nothing, and then the bourgeois take all the profits, it's basically day-light robbery on a daily basis.

[Holden Caulfield]

What do you think about Chavez using oil money to help build hospitals, and schools then? (i just wonder im not arguing for once)

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Me too - a contract for every job I've ever had.

They were all one-sided definitions of legal burdens, with this format: a list of things the employee must do, a list of things the employee may not do, a list of things the employer may do, and a list of things the employer doesn't have to do. There was no mention of anything the employee may do, anything the employee doesn' t have to do, anything the employer must do, or anything the employer may not do. I hope it's clear by what I mean when I call that "one-sided."

I've never encountered any negotiation being permitted, unless you want to call "either sign this or get out" a kind of negotiation. (And baldness is a hair color, and all the other jokes....)

I've never encountered the salary being indicated on a contract. That was always communicated verbally. Also, no negotiation there either, just "either say you'll take it or get out."

However, I have heard that famous movie and sports stars are allowed to negotiate. I'm not one.


Bingo, the contract is a sham. It's basically a token to give the whole thing an air of legitimacy, much like bourgeois elections. I too can say that none of these contracts I have signed were negotiable.

[Lynx]

If you ask forestry workers who are required to be independent contractors by their employers, they might say conditions were better when they were employees.

[Dean]

Bingo, the contract is a sham. It's basically a token to give the whole thing an air of legitimacy, much like bourgeois elections. I too can say that none of these contracts I have signed were negotiable.

And did any of the contracts guarantee any job security at all?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

And did any of the contracts guarantee any job security at all?

In Arizona no, because it is a 'right to (not)work' state. In Europe there are some stipulations as to hiring and firing, but the problem is that it has more to do with just giving notice.

[pusher robot]

In Arizona no, because it is a 'right to (not)work' state. In Europe there are some stipulations as to hiring and firing, but the problem is that it has more to do with just giving notice.

That has nothing to do with the ability to contract a job for a certain length of time. It's just not something that's commonly done, outside of professional sports.

[Lynx]

Seeking contract work is something employers do, when it will save them money. In Quebec, the notorious construction industry rules have prompted some workers to become contractors (or entrepreneurs), otherwise they would never be able to legally find employment.

[Dean]

That has nothing to do with the ability to contract a job for a certain length of time. It's just not something that's commonly done, outside of professional sports.
Yes it does. it disallows the companies and workers to enter into a contract which stipulates that all workers must be given similar oppurtunities to benefits. Which weakens the right of contracts, for one, but also the likelihood that a union will be able to insure a stable contract - based relationship between the company and the workers.

[pusher robot]

Yes it does. it disallows the companies and workers to enter into a contract which stipulates that all workers must be given similar oppurtunities to benefits. Which weakens the right of contracts, for one, but also the likelihood that a union will be able to insure a stable contract - based relationship between the company and the workers.

No it doesn't. You responded by saying "yes it does" and then went on to describe something else. Yes, "right to work" prevents you from negotiating other people's contracts. I never said that it didn't.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

That has nothing to do with the ability to contract a job for a certain length of time. It's just not something that's commonly done, outside of professional sports.

And WHY do you think that it is not "commonly" done?

[pusher robot]

And WHY do you think that it is not "commonly" done?

Two reasons: First, because most workers want to be able to walk away from the job whenever they want, which you cannot do if you are contractually obliged to perform the job. Second, because wages under contract are often somewhat lower than not.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Two reasons: First, because most workers want to be able to walk away from the job whenever they want, which you cannot do if you are contractually obliged to perform the job..

Yes, there's nothing I like more than being able to quit my job so I can live in poverty. Also, why do you think there are lower wages with contract jobs that do offer security? HINT: these things are related.

[Dean]

No it doesn't. You responded by saying "yes it does" and then went on to describe something else. Yes, "right to work" prevents you from negotiating other people's contracts. I never said that it didn't.
The contracts affected by right to work are collectively bargained, and as such are not "other peoples'." They are the object of the bargaining parties. Right to work stipulates that a company cannot agree to unionize all workers who join the company, but that the company must give the same contractually stipulated benefits and opurtunities to all of the workers. This directly affects the ability of the workers to have a contract at all, for one, and it also weakens the power of any such contracts.

[pusher robot]

The contracts affected by right to work are collectively bargained, and as such are not "other peoples'." They are the object of the bargaining parties. Right to work stipulates that a company cannot agree to unionize all workers who join the company, but that the company must give the same contractually stipulated benefits and opurtunities to all of the workers. This directly affects the ability of the workers to have a contract at all, for one, and it also weakens the power of any such contracts.

You're wrong again. "Right to work" does nothing to prohibit collective bargaining, so long as the bargain only applies to the collective. It's only when the collective tries to lock out non-members of the collective that they run afoul of "right to work" laws.

Of course this weakens the power of the collective, because they can no longer strongarm people into joining it; but if people freely choose not to be a part of the collective, that should tell you something about the collective's actual utility.

[Dean]

You're wrong again. "Right to work" does nothing to prohibit collective bargaining, so long as the bargain only applies to the collective. It's only when the collective tries to lock out non-members of the collective that they run afoul of "right to work" laws.

Of course this weakens the power of the collective, because they can no longer strongarm people into joining it; but if people freely choose not to be a part of the collective, that should tell you something about the collective's actual utility.

So, you support capitalism and the cornerstone of capitalism - the right to contractual agreement - except when certain stipulations help labor movements.

I love how free market activity is considered so holy until it can actually be used to help workers. Very nice.

It should be noted that the collective doesn't try to lock out, but to include more people, when unionization stipulates an arbitrary membership. Why don't you just argue that those who support right-to-work legislation should "get another job"? oh wait, that's becasue the only people who support it are those who need a law against their own actions (contractual agreement for companies) so they can't collectively bargain that issue.

[flyingpants]

This thread does a very poor job of explaining socialism to the thread-starter.

Socialists believe that capitalism is not very different from slavery. Instead of being bought and sold, you have the right to choose which master you serve. You must sell hours of your life, just to survive - a sort of self-managing slave.

Now, under these circumstances, how can a contract possibly be formed between worker and boss? It can't happen. Supposedly, in a trade or contract, everyone gets something out of it. In this situation, the capitalist gets a little more profit, and the worker gets to work, instead of starving and becoming homeless.



On an island, one man owns 99% of the bananas and he keeps them in a giant banana-locker.
You say, "Hey man, can I have a banana?"
He says, "No. I can't just give it to you for free.. Bananas don't grow on trees, you know."
You: "But I'm really, really hungry.. and you've got so many."
Banana man: "If I'm going to give you a banana, I expect to get something in return. That's how things should work, you know. Otherwise it's just charity, and charity is like slavery or something."
You: "Yeah, I know.. but I haven't eaten all day."
Banana man: "Well, look, why don't you build me a house, and I'll give you a banana."

Soon, the Banana man has employed all of the islanders to do various tasks. People have begun stealing from the Banana man; so he hires people to guard the bananas, to beat and throw rocks at the thieves. Eventually, the islanders realise they are being exploited, and organize to overthrow the Banana man. There are varying ideas about how to do this. Eventually the islanders storm the banana building, fight the banana guards, and overthrow the banana man, and distribute the bananas freely among all the islanders. It turns out that bananas do grow on trees, after all.


Without even going into Marx's labor theory of value, or dialectics, or anything like that, you should easily be able to see how workers are exploited. Obviously following from that, is the need to create a new society and overthrow capitalism.

[Tungsten]

This is bullshit. any forced organization requires a state. Capitalism requires a state to maintain power in an imbalanced economic society. If not a "state," then corporate martial law, which is the same thing anyways.

The only society that doesn't require a state is a very egalitarian,
That's a wild and unfounded assertion. How do you know it will be so? Inequality is natural- the result of many people doing their own thing as individuals and groups, and some being more sucessful at living than others. Equality can only be guaranteed if everyone is made to do exactly the same thing, or if some sort of levelling force is applied afterwards.


Even if its final end is not possible, socialism itself is much nobler and positive than free-market dearth.
Much more absurd and utopian too, evidenly.

[Dean]

That's a wild and unfounded assertion. How do you know it will be so?
Because compelling or arbitrary inequality always leads to class war or some sort of violence.


Inequality is natural- the result of many people doing their own thing as individuals and groups, and some being more sucessful at living than others.
How does being more successful at living imply inequality? Or does success, for you, equate specifically to economic power?


Equality can only be guaranteed if everyone is made to do exactly the same thing, or if some sort of levelling force is applied afterwards.
That doesn't guarantee equality; it guarantees the opposite, because a levelling force or people being "made to do exactly the same thing" requires a power structure, which in turn needs or is a state. The only thing that guarantees equality is a stable, free egalitarian social organization.


Much more absurd and utopian too, evidenly.
Not evident, but apparent, and only to you.

[Tungsten]

But how does taking this risk justify the unequal distribution of wealth between worker and capitalist?
Justify? For what and to whom?

In addition, does not this "market risk" extend to the employees of the capitalist? By entering into an agreement to sell their labour, do not the workers take the risk of being laid-off should the capitalist's enterprise fail?
If we take the labour theory of value to it's logical conclusion, if the enterprise fails, it's the workers' fault for not generating enough wealth.

The workers lose their source of wealth.
I thought the workers were the source of all wealth. What happened?


There are other ways to get to make people want to do this, than just compensation, especially with useless shit that provides no real value to the rest of society, especially society that earns wages.
I see authoritarianism poking through here. If it's useless, then why do they buy it? Or perhaps you mean you see what you don't happen to value as useless. Other people might think differently.

This isn't always so in a capitalist society, as priorities are determined by profits, not the human needs of individuals and groups.
Which are presumably going to be determined by yourself.

Of course, this is totally different than human society, people don't think randomly and need to survive and are totally violent and irrational and emotional and far more unpredictable than machine society. But this just goes to show that the private hoarding of resources will always fail because it creates its own enemies.
How does what you've just said prove that? Non sequitur.

Imagine if you were on an island, trapped with about 20 people, and imagine that somebody said "I own all these trees", and everybody else said "okay, why?" then he says "because I've got the gun" and "if you want to use the coconuts from these trees, you need to catch 20 fish for one coconut".
...followed by a completely false anology.

This is outrageous, the coconut trees have always been there and have always been in public hands. Just like the coal and the steel and the oil in the earth has always been there and has always been in publically available,
Publicly available a mile underground? Drilling and refining oil isn't quite the same as picking fruit off a tree. It needs a massive investment in infrastructure, labour and technology. None of which have always been publically available.

until Shell claims it because they've got the biggest security force (the US military) and that anybody who opposes them gets a bullet to the head, so you've got to respect their property rights. :lol:
Oil wan't drilled with guns last time I checked.

Am I to assume that your labour is also publicly available and your right to direct it to your own ends is invalid too?

So what benefit does compensating individuals for research and production hold for proletarian society? The society that makes up most of the population? Between zip and very little.
I don't understand what you're saying. You mean the average proletarian has recieved almost no benefit from research and production?

Do you ever question why you've not living in a cave?


property is force. It isn't theft, it's force. It's forcing exclusive ownership of an individual item, or an item that could benefit the public, through violence or aggression.
Don't be silly. Does that mean a labourer withholding his labour (his private property) is committing an act of violence?


untrue, because under communism there would be no purpose of mantaining the illusions of scarcity prevailant under capitalism. So he could have his hot tub, and you can have your car all at once.
Bought down from heaven by courteousy of Fairyland Logistics Ltd. no doubt.

more substance and less strawmen please.
Yes please- let's hear something more substantial about how this abundence is supposedly going to come about. Try to go a little deeper than "it just will" or "robots will do it".


You are taking me out of context. Private ownership is never the best solution. Whenever a industry (take electricity for example) is state owned, the prices vary depending upon the governing party. If i dont like my electricity bill, i can simply vote out the ruling party.
Wishful thinking at best. May I point to the price of fuel in the UK (most of which is tax) in comparison? Despite the demonstrations, complaints and petitions, no attempt has been made to lower this tax. The current Labour government has never been "scared" of losing the election because of it and no opposition party has promised to lower it either.


Isn't the LTV dead?
Not on this forum it isn't.


Gender equality is an inherant, human tendancy, like all egalitarianism. It is society which tells us who should have more or less, and why. So, with the absence of a state structure - that is, any authoritarian or centrist structure - such inequalities would cease to exist.
Which wouldn't explain how gender inequality appeared in society in the first place. Do you think someone just jumped out of bed one day as said "I know, let's treat all women as inferior beings"? Gender inequality is natural in many species, including primates.


This thread does a very poor job of explaining socialism to the thread-starter.

Socialists believe that capitalism is not very different from slavery. Instead of being bought and sold, you have the right to choose which master you serve. You must sell hours of your life, just to survive - a sort of self-managing slave.
Oh this is good.

What do you think you're going to do after the revolution? Sit on your arse all day reading Marx?

Strip away the rhetoric, and what you're left with is: working for a living = slavery. Newsflash: you'll have to work for a living under communism too and there's no guarantee the work will be any nicer, easier or what you want to do, if we're being truthful. You'll still have to show up, meet demands and do your job. i.e. you'll be working for the benefit of other people in order to subsist, just like a "slave".

I suggest you all get over it.

[Tungsten]

Because compelling or arbitrary inequality always leads to class war or some sort of violence.
Not so. My neighbor is significantly better off than I am, but I don't feel the need to kill him or kick his head in.

How does being more successful at living imply inequality?
Because if someone is sucessful relatively speaking, there has to be someone else who is less sucessful. Left to their own devices, people will do different things. Different actions will have different outcomes.

Or does success, for you, equate specifically to economic power?No one mentioned economic power, that is a secondary consequence.

That doesn't guarantee equality; it guarantees the opposite, because a levelling force or people being "made to do exactly the same thing" requires a power structure, which in turn needs or is a state. The only thing that guarantees equality is a stable, free egalitarian social organization.
As I said before, a free society where everyone does their own thing won't result in equality, let alone guarantee it. Do you think every action results in exactly the same outcome?

[Dean]

Which wouldn't explain how gender inequality appeared in society in the first place. Do you think someone just jumped out of bed one day as said "I know, let's treat all women as inferior beings"? Gender inequality is natural in many species, including primates.
Humans, however, have the capability to discern between instinctual or social compulsion and human dignity. An inegalitarian society, if it is truly egalitarian, reuqires respect and equality for the genders. The point wasn't about social fact, but the basic fact that equality means equality.


Not so. My neighbor is significantly better off than I am, but I don't feel the need to kill him or kick his head in.
That's because the disparity is not compelling. There are plenty richer people than him, enganged in much more direct economic activity with you. But those who tend to support the order, due to their own comfort, tend also to appreciate and even admire people simply because they have more money. There is still a conflict of self-hatred, but it is internalized.


Because if someone is sucessful relatively speaking, there has to be someone else who is less sucessful. Left to their own devices, people will do different things. Different actions will have different outcomes.
No one mentioned economic power, that is a secondary consequence.
What, then, makes someone "successful"? Your statements to this end have no meaning without a rational meanting for the term, and 'successful' is too vauge. It often refers to economic power, especially in this kind of discussion, but if it doesn't, what does it mean? Does it mean something that can even be judged equal or inequal?


As I said before, a free society where everyone does their own thing won't result in equality, let alone guarantee it. Do you think every action results in exactly the same outcome?
Right, keep repeating it and it will be true. Your sense of equality appears to be sameness. That has nothing to do with socialism.

[flyingpants]

Oh this is good.

What do you think you're going to do after the revolution? Sit on your arse all day reading Marx?


If I want to.



Strip away the rhetoric, and what you're left with is: working for a living = slavery.Under capitalism, yes.


Newsflash: you'll have to work for a living under communism too and there's no guarantee the work will be any nicer, easier or what you want to do, if we're being truthful. You'll still have to show up, meet demands and do your job. i.e. you'll be working for the benefit of other people in order to subsist, just like a "slave".

I suggest you all get over it.

Weird.. I wrote "new society", and you read "communism"!

[Tungsten]

If I want to.
And the rest of society presumably won't mind working as your personal slaves to allow you to do so. And none of them will think of following the same strategy.

Under capitalism, yes.
Of course- work under your system will be done by fairies.

Weird.. I wrote "new society", and you read "communism"!
Different name, same utopian delusions.


That's because the disparity is not compelling. To me, it wouldn't be compelling if he was a billionaire. A percieved injustice isn't some knee-jerk reflex. It's a pre-thought out acceptance of certain information (which can be true or not).

There are plenty richer people than him, enganged in much more direct economic activity with you. But those who tend to support the order, due to their own comfort, tend also to appreciate and even admire people simply because they have more money. There is still a conflict of self-hatred, but it is internalized.
So the conflict is now quantitative (how much you have) rather than qualitative (how your income relates to the process of production)? This is quite a deviation from Marxism.

What, then, makes someone "successful"? Your statements to this end have no meaning without a rational meanting for the term, and 'successful' is too vauge.
I could have easily used the word "productive". Achieving a goal = productive. Trying a failing/not trying = non-productive.

Right, keep repeating it and it will be true.
Well what are you doing?